Millions saved by Corona vaccinations? (Interview with Prof. Dr. Bergholz)

Sendungstext
herunterladen

PDF (.pdf)

Word (.docx)

09.01.2024 | www.kla.tv/27867

The dramatic vaccination damages by the Corona-vaccines are becoming more and more evident. Even the mainstream media can no longer avoid reporting on them. While the massive damages can no longer be denied, WHO, the mainstream-media, and advocates of the corona-measures like Professor Karl Lauterbach continue to vehemently defend the shots argumenting that the Covid-19 vaccination have saved millions of lives worldwide. “Corona pandemic: Vaccines saved more than one million lives in Europe, WHO says”. https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article244845320/Corona-Impfstoff-rettete-laut-WHO-in-Europa-mehr-als-eine-Million-Leben.html “Corona vaccine saved 20 million lives in first year” https://www.merkur.de/welt/coronavirus-studie-impfung-rettung-20-millionen-menschenleben-who-91630436.html “There are now several studies on the value of vaccinations. All of them show: [...] millions more people would have died.” https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/1546171840829194243 But what are these figures based on? Interview mit Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz Presenter: This is the subject we will talk about today with Professor Werner Bergholz, expert in the field of quality and risk assessment with decade-long experience of research at universities and above all, in the industry. Professor Bergholz, we welcome you very warmly. You were a member of the expert commission for the evaluation of the Corona measures, which was set up by the German Parliament and also by the German government, and for this reason you have dealt very intensively with the studies on the necessity, the benefit and the harm of Corona vaccinations. Have millions of people been saved by Corona vaccination, and what are the figures on which these studies are based? Professor Bergholz: Yes, good question. What figures are the studies based on? So there are basically three publications, significant publications. Three of the four authors are from the WHO, then from the Imperial College, where Professor Ferguson (explanation: Ferguson predicted millions of deaths with swine flu) had given inaccurate simulations, and another study from New York. They had to make an overall simulation, that is, a calculation, because you can’t determine afterwards what would have happened if the vaccinated had not been vaccinated. Well, everybody once did chain calculations in school. You calculate part 1. And if you unfortunately miscalculate, then the rest is also wrong. I am afraid that we have this situation here with all three publications. Why? When I simulate how it would have been if we had not had vaccinations, I have to input some variables into these calculations. How high is the infection mortality really now, i.e., if I am not vaccinated? The second question is, to what extent would these waves of infection have spread faster and more strongly if there had been no vaccination? So that’s the question of vaccine effectiveness. And thirdly, how do I even know how many people have been infected? – PCR test. And now the problem is, with all three of these variables, we know that it is not only falsified and uncertain by a few percent, but with all three showing a factor of up to 10, and always in the same direction, namely that in the end, more is achieved by the vaccination than it is actually the case. Why? The number of deceased, it’s always said “by or with Corona” – serious investigations in Sweden, in Germany, in the USA have shown, that they are wrong around factor 10. It may be a little bit more or even a little bit less locally, it doesn’t matter. Factor 10, not just a few percent. The PCR test, which was invented by Professor Drosten and propagated by the WHO, is so poorly done that at times of small case numbers, in the summer months – I analyzed this myself, also other indicators – it is false by factor 10! And also there are many false positives in the winter. Third fact: vaccine effectiveness, supposedly 95 percent. Pfizer’s study was authored by Peter Doshi, the editor of the British Medical Journal (insert in German: Correction: Peter Doshi is co-editor of the British Medical Journal), criticized that the numbers simply don’t add up, that if you had done it honestly, you would have gotten a much lower percentage. Others say 20 percent, never mind, in any case significantly less. So, these three things together means – mathematically this simulation may be correct – but they can’t be correct at all. They underestimated the benefit by a factor of 100, maybe even more, i.e. that deceased or deaths were prevented. I don’t want to completely rule out the possibility that there was something, but what is there additionally, of course, which was not taken into account at least in the WHO study, is that after a few months a certain protection against infections and a certain protection against transmission are gone again. So, if that had been presented to me in a bachelor thesis, the result, I would have said, nope, that’s not possible at all. Because you can’t put so much uncertainty to demonstrably false assumptions into such a calculation. That does not work. And if you want to put it a bit more pointedly – for the older ones who still know the Mickey Mouse magazines, there were also some factual topics in there, at least in my time – this is not even at Mickey Mouse level, what these studies present. So the fact is, these numbers are extremely poorly documented and scientifically, Presenter: I find it untrustworthy. Professor Bergholz: And there is nothing besides the three, I researched it again yesterday, at least if you look at it with one of the major search engines, there is nothing more. Presenter: So, you are saying that the formula itself, which is applied, is correct, only the numbers on which the calculation is based, they are wrong and accordingly, you get a very distorted result. Professor Bergholz: Exactly, wrong input, wrong output. Garbage in, garbage out. Presenter: And now let’s assume, just for the sake of arguments, that these numbers are correct. Wouldn’t it then have to be the case that in the group of vaccinated people the mortality is considerably lower than in the group of unvaccinated people? Professor Bergholz: Yes, exactly. I assume that the authors of these studies considered their own results to be well-founded, at least at first. But then, of course, every scientist has to say, okay, what other scientific facts are there, is this consistent with what is observed? Well, especially with a simulation I have to look, how is it in reality? Professor Bergholz: There is a lot of official data from Israel, from England, from Australia, from Canada, USA, unfortunately not really from Germany, that the vaccinated have a higher risk to die, not a lower one. And the bad thing is, not only immediately after the vaccination, I’ll mention a number in a moment, but also later. I have evaluated data from Israel and the USA myself, and the result is that for every 1000 to 2000 vaccinations, one person dies, days or weeks later, and that is unfortunately not all. The English data show that every deceased person, their vaccination status is counted along with it, there we see after the vaccination, the vaccinated have during many months still a factor of 2 higher mortality risk than the unvaccinated. And the negative icing on the cake, so to speak, comes from Australia. In one quarter, 750 deceased, all cause mortalities, and 10% are unvaccinated, but only 2 of the deceased were unvaccinated out of 750. So, in other words, the facts are clearly against it. And if you take the whole thing a little bit further, the vaccine effectiveness, we know that now after a study from the Mayo Clinic in Cleveland, one of the best addresses ever, clearly, the more often I am vaccinated, the more likely I am to be infected again with one of the newer variants. That means that the vaccine effectiveness is not only zero, but even negative. Presenter: And if you now know all these figures, you now know the data, you can now prove it quite well, as you say, is there no critical appraisal of these studies that has been carried out? Or how do you explain that nevertheless these numbers are still being published? Professor Bergholz: Yes, and they are still referred to. And above all, the fact is concealed that we not only have serious side effects in Germany, for example, even mentioned in the mainstream media. But if you simply look at the studies, where all affected people are examined, and also the American active database is used and other data – we have to expect in Germany and in general worldwide, that five percent of the people have serious side effects. Five percent in Germany with 60 million people, that is three million are significantly damaged. That is not yet known and that is also an important message that I would like to give here. So to come back to the question which I didn’t really answer, Yes, I think, it is really to be expected that now again a critical examination of these statements takes place, best of all, of course, by the authors, saying that just the figures stating “so and so many millions saved” must be simply wrong and that, on the other hand, the number of people who most probably died in connection with these vaccinations, or who died of the vaccination, amounts to many millions worldwide. So, then you can ask yourself, yes, how can it be that the authors don’t seriously review that? Then you might think, well, the authors are working for institutions – they are supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the GAVI organization with many millions, and then of course, there are conflicts of interest. Presenter: Then it is not surprising why these numbers are not corrected. Professor Bergholz, thank you very much for your clear and distinct assessment and I say goodbye. Conclusion: What about these studies and the associated statement by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and others claiming that corona vaccinations have saved the lives of tens of millions of people worldwide? Does this not constitute a criminal offense of malicious deception of the population, or even grossly negligent or intentional bodily harm to many millions of people? Wouldn’t these unscientific facts have to be fully clarified immediately by independent courts? And shouldn’t the enforcement authorities ensure that neither Health Minister Lauterbach nor other decision-makers continue to disseminate such misleading statements?

from ts.

Sources/Links: Newspaper Headlines on “Millions saved by Vaccination” https://www.doccheck.com/de/detail/articles/39133-covid-impfung-so-viele-leben-hat-sie-gerettet
https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article244845320/Corona-Impfstoff-rettete-laut-WHO-in-Europa-mehr-als-eine-Million-Leben.html
https://www.merkur.de/welt/coronavirus-studie-impfung-rettung-20-millionen-menschenleben-who-91630436.html
https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/1546171840829194243
Studies on “Millions saved by Corona-vaccinations” Imperial College: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099
(22)00320-6/fulltext WHO: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/986127
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Q58-zOcz2Z_BZX4YwJ19oekSqwAkk24/view
New York: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X21000818?via%3Dihub
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/corona/beitraege/2021/02/geimpfte-tote-covid-19-effekt.html
Critique on studies Statement by Aletheia: Have die “Covid-vaccinations” really prevented 14 million dead? https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/de/haben-die-covid-impfungen-wirklich-14-millionen-todesfaelle-verhindert/
Statement by “Doctors for COVID Ethics” in English https://doctors4covidethics.org/the-watson-et-al-modeling-study-did-covid-vaccinations-really-prevent-14-million-deaths/
https://uebermedien.de/83783/corona-impfung-eine-million-tote-verhindert-eine-jubelmeldung-auf-wackeliger-grundlage/
https://report24.news/impfjubel-im-faktencheck-nein-die-impfung-hat-nicht-millionen-leben-gerettet
Futher sources on the statements in the interview Sweden: https://www.regionstockholm.se/verksamhet/halsa-och-vard/nyheter-halsa-och-vard/2021/01/genomlysning-om-dodsfall-vid-sabo/
USA: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
Australia: https://tkp.at/2022/07/27/totales-desaster-von-zerocovid-und-massenimpfung-in-australien-und-neuseeland/
Peter Doshi: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
Study of Mayo Clinic in Cleveland: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v5
Injuries through Corona-vaccinations: Investigation: 2.5 million of US-military personnel https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/2/sen-johnson-to-secretary-austin-has-dod-seen-an-increase-in-medical-diagnoses-among-military-personnel
Study from Thailand: https://markitonutrition.com/thailand-study-shows-great-risk-of-myocarditis-following-covid-19-vaccine/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006288/
Mistake quote PCR-Tests: https://report24.news/sensations-studie-beweist-unfassbare-fehlerquote-bei-pcr-tests-und-fordert-konsequenzen/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369803433_RT-qPCR_test_targeting_the_conserved_5-UTR_of_SARS-CoV-2_overcomes_major_shortcomings_of_the_first_WHO-recommended_RT-qPCR_test
Count of Corona-dead: https://exxpress.at/welch-ueberraschung-98-prozent-der-corona-toten-nicht-primaer-an-covid-verstorben