Lothar Wieler before the committee of inquiry. GRÜNE without contribution.

The official reappraisal of corona policy does exist! At least in the active and citizen-oriented state parliament of Brandenburg in Potsdam. On September 1, 2023, Professor Dr. Lothar Wieler, the former head of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), was questioned publicly for several hours at the seventh meeting of the Corona Committee. Dr. Brigitte Keller-Stanislawski later spoke in her former role as Head of the Department of Safety of Biomedical Drugs and Diagnostics at the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI).    

by Dr. Christine Born

Visitors and representatives of the media were checked at the gate. There were around 30 observers on hand. First of all, they had to wait in the corridor before the meeting room was opened at around 10:30 a.m.  A large, bright room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking Breite Strasse, the 21 MPs from all parliamentary groups present seated in a horseshoe, with committee chair Daniel Eichelbaum (CDU) at the top. At the lower end are the witnesses' seats, behind them the rows of visitors. 

Lothar Wieler had a spokesperson from the Federal Ministry of Health, Heiko Rottmann-Großner, Head of Subdivision 61 Health Security, with him. The employee from the Ministry of Health initially sat directly next to Lothar Wieler, but later had to move further away from him at the request of some MPs. The witness was not to be influenced during the questioning. And Rottmann-Großner, who had taken his task seriously, whispered and slipped cue cards, restricted himself to observing and taking notes in the courtroom from this point on.  

Procedural issues in camera 

In between, there were repeated discussions with the committee chairman about procedural issues. These then took place in private. As a result, the crowd of visitors had to stand up and leave the room each time. Democracy and transparency were then discussed outside the door of the meeting room. - Behind the door, the discussion began with the question of permission to testify, which restricted the possible answers of the former head of the RKI - and thus also the range of questions asked by the MPs. The permission to testify had probably been received by the MPs by email very late the previous evening. And several MPs argued that it should be read out in public in order to make restrictions on interviews transparent. This request was not granted, with Christine Wernicke (Freie Wähler) questioning the legality of such permission to give evidence. 

Members of Parliament were only allowed to ask questions from the outset,  that had a connection to the federal state of Brandenburg. The representatives of the people, particularly those from the CDU, AfD, FW and in some cases the SPD parliamentary groups, were well prepared for the questioning of witnesses and asked their many questions in quick succession. The Greens had obviously decided not to contribute anything to the reappraisal process, to which the majority of Germans - but also many academics - attach great importance. The Left felt the need to present harmonious agreement with the witness in their speeches. The public questioning lasted around six hours, with a half-hour break at midday. Lothar Wieler (62) understandably appeared stressed at times. 

It became clear that democratic reappraisal is exhausting for everyone actively involved. This process therefore deserves respect, recognition and appreciation. It is all the more regrettable that there were hardly any leading media outlets interested in documenting this pioneering political work.  

RKI did not advise state governments directly

At the request of the committee chairman, Lothar Wieler made a statement on the RKI's role in the coronavirus pandemic. The RKI supports the independent and scientifically active Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) with analyses and modeling and publishes its recommendations. The RKI also advises the Federal Ministry of Health on vaccination and testing strategies for the population. He described the RKI as a communication center that collects information and passes it on to the outside world, including internationally. 

For example, the federal states reported their cases of illness to the RKI. The health officers of the federal states were in contact with the RKI. The state of Brandenburg - as Wieler emphasized several times - had not been advised directly to his knowledge, but only via the Infection Protection Working Group (AGI), in which the health officers of the federal states work together, and via the publication of data. There had also been no direct communication between the state health authorities and the RKI, Wieler explained, only with the approval of the state government in individual cases. He was also not aware that there had been a recommendation against the autopsy of COVID-19 deaths. Then evasively: Department 3 of the RKI could say something about the disclosure and consideration of health insurance data. As a reminder: The former chairman of the company health insurance fund (BKK), Andreas Schöfbeck, had informed the PEI of high vaccination damage according to the available health insurance data and was subsequently dismissed. They didn't want to hear his warning signals. 

The RKI only made recommendations

Wieler's statement that the RKI had only made recommendations was met with the firm protest of Dr. Saskia Ludwig (CDU). "If only it had remained with recommendations," she said, referring to the school closures. She addressed the massive consequential damage caused by the lockdowns to children and young people who were not at risk from COVID-19 and were not drivers of the disease. She criticized the disproportionate and drastic restrictions on fundamental rights. No recognizable reaction from the witness. MP and doctor Dr. Hans Christoph Berndt (AfD) also questioned this statement by the former head of the RKI. He asked whether he, as the former head of the RKI, was not aware that the recommendations of the RKI were acted upon like laws, for example when considering the actions of the judiciary or the police. "Recommendations" of the RKI would be used to justify judgments in court. The "recommendations" of the RKI were therefore clearly binding. No reaction from the witness. But why can't Lothar Wieler admit to the effectiveness and far-reaching consequences that the work of the RKI has for society as a whole on many levels? He should actually be pleased about the high effectiveness of the RKI.   

The RKI was not responsible 

The former head of the RKI could not answer all the detailed questions: "I can't remember that." Nor was he allowed to answer them all, as the committee chairman repeatedly declared questions "inadmissible". Especially when it came to exciting questions, such as the fundamental determination of the pandemic situation, the need for vaccines in general, the overloading of hospitals, the continuous deletion of intensive care beds in the corona years or the creation of disease dynamics through testing strategies. Can a PCR test prove whether someone is infectious, was one question. "No", answered Wieler, before it was said that this question was "inadmissible". The RKI is not responsible for testing the effectiveness of COVID vaccines; this is the task of the PEI, which also approves the vaccines. The RKI observes the effectiveness of vaccines in the population retrospectively, in post-marketing studies (PMS), in which the performance of medical products is tested "in the field", i.e. in the population. Post-marketing - an interesting term and association,  when it comes to medicine, health and human life. 

If politicians fueled widespread panic with inappropriate statements or created a willingness to vaccinate right down to the last village with false promises or personal disparagement, then the RKI did not draw their attention to this. Because - according to Wieler - they had the right to freedom of expression. In principle, however, scaremongering is not a matter for public health. 

The effectiveness of the vaccination is high

Key points emerged in the course of the questioning, as certain topics were raised several times by the MPs or were repeatedly disallowed by the committee chairman. Signs of nervousness on the part of the interviewee and the increase in tension in the "public eye"  drew attention to hot topics. Such hot topics  were: Vaccine safety, vaccine side effects and deaths, consequential damage caused by measures, vaccine effectiveness studies by the RKI, questions about responsibility. Lothar Wieler referred to studies that the RKI had examined and evaluated, "high level of competence". These studies promise that the vaccines are highly effective. Although the RKI has repeatedly reassessed vaccine protection, people who have been vaccinated reduce the transmission of the virus and shed fewer viruses. Wieler repeatedly argued with the WHO figures that 14.4 million lives had been saved by COVID-19 injections. The cost-benefit risk is still good for the vaccination. The protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccination is higher than that provided by a confirmed infection. An illness carries more risks than the vaccination. 

Ethical questions were not up for debate because it was an approved vaccine. The lockdown did not come from the RKI, but would have massively reduced the incidence of infection. For Wieler, problems with the vaccination of pregnant women were insignificant, "negligible". He could not remember any recommendations from the RKI on the purchase of vaccines, as MP Lars Hünich (AfD) asked about.  Wieler's statements were met with reactions such as desperate laughter or resigned reactions from the "public".  

Promotes reappraisal: specialist knowledge, focused questions, perseverance and self-confidence

Lothar Wieler mostly kept his composure during the exhausting questioning and also demonstrated a sense of humor. When questioned by Saskia Ludwig, who asked him about his contradictory statements on unvaccinated people, the 2 G and 3 G+ measures and the change in recovered status, he briefly lost his temper and accused her of malicious and tendentious insinuations. However, the defensive Christian Democrat was not deterred and countered that the aim was to work out the weak points of corona policy in order to avoid mistakes in the future. Wieler finally agreed with her and later said that he was also in favor of a serious evaluation of the measures.  

The MP's unyielding clarity showed which qualities promote the reappraisal process: thorough knowledge, quick-wittedness, a healthy self-confidence and perseverance. Incidentally, Saskia Ludwig also contributed the often fatal ventilator practice in the clinics. Hans Christoph Berndt was able to score points with his specialist knowledge when he addressed the "English data". Over the years, the data on coronavirus in the UK has been much more reliable than in Germany. And this data shows that the COVID-19 vaccination tends to increase the chance of contracting the disease and does not protect against severe cases and death. Wieler said that he was not aware of this data. And this despite the international orientation of the RKI? 

Wieler was aware of the statements made by Janine Small, President of International Development Markets at Pfizer, in the European Parliament that the vaccine had not been tested for efficacy, but he did not comment on this in the parliamentary session. In an interview on Phoenix in October 2020, however, he said something similar. He was also familiar with John Ioannidis' initial coronavirus data in 2020, but his statements would not have matched his own data and that of other scientists.  

All is well - Paul-Ehrlich-Institut takes care of drug safety

The air in the room was now stale and stuffy, the sunlight had become stronger and the day had progressed. At around 4:30 p.m., the expert from the PEI, Dr. Brigitte Keller-Stanislawski, entered the ring. She was unaccompanied. She had received a list of questions in advance, which she had prepared for. The fact that the chairman did not stick to the order of the questions at the beginning threw the specialist in clinical pharmacology slightly off her stride. She presented her work. The PEI is responsible for batch testing, monitoring and approving vaccines and is required to report to the Federal Ministry of Health. 

700,000 people use the PEI's SafeVac app

Her department created the product information on the COVID-19 vaccines, adapted the information sheets according to the current state of knowledge and published information on the website, for example on anaphylactic shock caused by vaccination. The first report on this was published on December 23, 2021. Recommendations and red hand letters were issued. Suspected cases of adverse reactions were summarized, evaluated and reported. Statements were made on vaccination risks and signals, such as myocarditis, pulmonary embolism and menstrual cramps. Cooperation with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is taking place and she herself was a member of the EMA's safety committee. Doctors must report the side effects of the vaccine to the health authorities. If the side effect is due to the underlying disease, there is no obligation to report it. 700,000 people used the PEI's Safe-Vac app.  A quantity of data that could certainly be used for a number of purposes, but there was no information on how this data is used by the PEI. According to her, the health insurance companies did not want to cooperate with the PEI at first, but the PEI is now cooperating with the RKI and the health insurance companies - after three years. It is well known that the health insurance data from the company health insurance fund (BKK) has long been available and unfortunately has not yet been taken into account.  

Vaccination side effects in Brandenburg

For the federal state of Brandenburg, there have so far been 5860 suspected cases of side effects, including 336 children, 1527 serious cases and 88 deaths, i.e. almost three per month, as vaccination began in December 2020. The WHO criteria are used to check whether a vaccination death has occurred. A side effect is difficult to prove causally, it is a question of whether a side effect is consistent. The WHO algorithm used indicates the degree of certainty of an adverse reaction. 

The questioning of the head of department, who appeared before the committee of inquiry on her first day of retirement, did not last long. After a further internal discussion between the MPs, during which the "public" had to make themselves comfortable outside the door, the questioning was concluded. At around 5:30 p.m., the participants in the meeting slowly left the state parliament building, the former city palace on the Alter Markt in Potsdam. The next public session will take place on October 13, 2023 and the questioning of Brigitte Keller-Stanislawski will continue. All those interested in the Corona reappraisal are recommended to attend the public session. In the Brandenburg state parliament - the only state parliament in Germany - there is no complaining about corona policy, but rather a factual and future-oriented approach  political action.  Players in corona politics face up to critical questions. Representatives of the people take their responsibility to the voters seriously.