Report of the OOC Scientific Committee...Dr. Leonard Coldwell Dr. Med. Peer Eifler Contributors to the present report are Prof. Dr. Med Sucharit Bhakdi and Doctor Søren Ventegodt

Organization for Information on Corona Virus COVID-19 (OOC): Scientific Report on Corona No. 1 of 26 Jan 2021

Report of the OOC Scientific Committee Scientific report on corona number 1 of Jan 26th 2021

The report answers the question:

Please give a qualitative and quantitative estimation of the coronavirus virus "SARS-CoV-2", the disease "COVID-19" it is said to cause, the coronavirus pandemic it is said to cause, and the relevance and rationale of the specific corona policy the prime minister in Denmark has carried out, with assembly ban, social distancing, facemask orders, and lockdowns etc.

Published by Quality-of-Life Research Center 2021

Organisationen til Oplysning om Corona Virus COVID-19 (OOC) - Videnskabelig rapport om corona No. 1 af 26 jan 2021

EU-MSc-CAM (deponeret lægeautorisation).

Report of the OOC’s Scientific Committee Scientific report on corona number 1 from January 26th 2021

The report answers the question:

Please give a qualitative and quantitative estimation of the coronavirus virus "SARS-CoV-2", the disease "COVID-19" it is said to cause, the coronavirus pandemic it is said to cause, and the relevance and rationale of the specific corona policy the prime minister in Denmark has carried out, with assembly ban, social distancing, facemask orders, and lockdowns etc.

This report is made by Professor Dr. Med. Sucharit Bhakdi (first author) and doctor Søren Ventegodt MMedSci, EU-MSc-CAM (deposited medical authorization) (second author).

We conform that this report is based on the book by Karina Reiss Ph.D. and Sucharit Bhakdi MD: “Corona, false alarm? Facts and figures”, first published in Germany at the publisher Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Friedrichstrasse 191 • D-10117 Berlin, in July 2020 under the title “Corona false alarm?” (Chelsea Green Publishing Pub.). The report is updated with the research made by the international scientific society until 26 January 2021. The report is made for the OOC - Organizations for Information on Corona COVID-19 - by us who participate in the OOC's scientific committee as its vice chairman and chairman, respectively.

Signed

Kiel, January 26th 2021 Copenhagen ,January 26th 2021

Prof. Dr. med Sucharit Bhakdi Doctor Søren Ventegodt MMedSci,

EU-MSc-CAM (Deposited Medical Authorization).


2

This report has been made by the OOC’s Scientific Committee at the request of the OOC Board. The committee has been tasked to answer the question: Please give a qualitative and quantitative estimation of the coronavirus virus "SARS-CoV-2", the disease "COVID-19" it is said to cause, the coronavirus pandemic it is said to cause, and the relevance and rationale of the specific corona policy the prime minister in Denmark has carried out, with assembly ban, social distancing, facemask orders, and lockdowns etc. The members of the committee (January 26th 2021) are: Dr Søren Ventegodt MMedSci, EU-MSc-CAM (deposited medical authorization) (Chairman) Prof. Dr. Med Sucharit Bhakdi (Vice-Chairman) Prof. Dr. Med. Jay Bhattacharya Prof. Dr. Med. Pietro Vernazza Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Stefan W. Hockertz Dr. Leonard Coldwell Dr. Med. Peer Eifler

Contributors to the present report are Prof. Dr. Med Sucharit Bhakdi and Doctor Søren Ventegodt MMedSci , EU-MSc-CAM.


3

About Prof. Dr. Med. Imm. Sucharit Bhakdi Sucharit Bhakdi is an award-winning immunologist and virologist and one of the most cited German immunologists. He has made a number of major scientific discoveries, amongst others within the complement system. Bhakdi was born in Washington, DC and studied medicine at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he received his doctorate in 1970. He was a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg from 1972 to 1976 and at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen from 1976 to 1977. He joined the Department of medical Microbiology at Giessen University in 1977 and was appointed associate professor in 1982. He was appointed President of medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz in 1990, a position he occupied until 2012. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology and parasitology, for which he has received several awards; furthermore, he has received the honorable Order of Merit for Rheinland-Pfalz. About Doctor Søren Ventegodt MMedSci, EU-MSc-CAM Søren Ventegodt has a research degree from University Hospital, Copenhagen (Rigshospitalet), where in the years 1990-1994 he was head of the Research Center for Quality of Life and continued Professor Bengt Zachau-Christiansen's large cohort study of 10,000 Danes. Since then, he has been the director of the independent for Quality-of-Life Research Center in Copenhagen and head of the Research Clinic for Holistic Medicine, Psychology and Sexology. In 2006-2008 he was an associate professor at, and head of, a campus in Copenhagen for the EU University Interuniversity College, Graz. He has founded Elsebråne Retreat Center for mentally ill young people in Sweden. He is the author of 250 scientific articles and about 20 books on quality of life and holistic health, as well as a textbook series on Evidence-Based Holistic Medicine. In 2020 he founded, together with the well-known Danish photo artist Mathilde Grafström and engineer Markus Göttler, the association OOC – the Organization for Information about Corona virus COVID-19. The aim of OOC is to collect all scientific knowledge about the corona, and share it with the public.


4

Summary

Corona virus is a group of cold viruses that makes up about 15% of all known cold viruses. These viruses cannot be cultured in such a way that the viruses can be propagated, purified and crystallized, so their genetic material (mRNA) cannot be determined with certainty; we therefore do not know for sure the genetic code for the virus which has been called "SARS-CoV-2".

Since we do not have access to corona viruses in pure form, experiments with human corona infections cannot be carried out either, which is why we do not know whether the cold disease COVID-19, which is clinically described by cough, fever and breathing problems, actually comes from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

There is only one test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and that is the RT-PCR test. Unfortunately, this test gives so many false positive answers (97% of all answers at 35 cycles) that it cannot be used for a general test of the population for COVID-19, as it currently happens. The statistics on patients who died of or with COVID-19 are therefore incorrect and misleading.

Since we cannot test for SARS-CoV-2, we also do not know if there is a corona pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Any political action based on the incorrect statistics and the assumptions these statistics lead to about an existing corona pandemic must therefore be considered professionally unfounded (they are carried out without available scientific evidence).

There are warnings from the scientific side that assembly bans, social distancing, mandatory mask wearing and lockdowns etc. all are irrational measures without scientific evidence that seriously harm individuals as well as society.

We find that the World Health Organization WHO works too closely with the pharmaceutical industry and as it receives most of its funding from it, it is influenced by this industry regarding the information and recommendations WHO provides to world’s governments.


5

Table of Contents Summary ……………………………………………………………………...…………………… p. 4 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...………………… p. 6 General section: Is there a dangerous corona pandemic? …………………………………………. p. 9 Review of the scientific literature - overview of our knowledge ………………………………….. p. 15 Review of relevant legal proceedings in regards to corona ……………………………………….. p. 27 Question topic regarding COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2-viruses …………………………………. p. 30 Conclusion: The corona pandemic is a false pandemic for which there is no scientific evidence and the political measures are not based on science either ………………………………………………... p. 33 Epilogue: Why did our politicians fail? …………………………………………………………… p. 36 Appendix A: Karina Reiss Ph.D.Sucharit Bhakdi MD. Corona, False Alarm? Facts and Figures. Originally published in Germany by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Friedrichstraße 191 • D-10117 Berlin, in 2020 as Corona Fehlalarm? Chelsea Green Publishing Pub. Appendix B: Reference list / material list with translations of (extracts from) selected sources into Danish and about 300 references that have formed the basis for this document, of which approx. 50 are films. Note that the material number 259 is this report in English.


6

1. Introduction Prerequisites for rational, political corona interventions There are many preconditions that must be met for it to make sense to make corona special laws and societal closure, with the gross violations of constitutional rights, human rights and fundamental rights that this entails. There must initially be a virus that we can identify as the cause of the pandemic; then it must be shown that there is actually danger ahead, ie. excess mortality in society; then it must be shown that this excess mortality is due to the virus in question, and this requires i.a. that we can test scientifically unambiguously and clearly for viruses; next, we must clarify the occurrence of the disease and death the virus causes primarily through autopsies of the dead; secondly, it must be shown that there is something rational and meaningful to do against it, ie that the political measures taken are rational, ie. built on scientific knowledge. If special corona laws including assembly bans, social distancing rules, mandatory facemasks, community lockdowns are introduced and followed by a population vaccination program as a normalization strategy and thus as a solution to the pandemic-problem, it must be a requirement, for this to be legal in regards to constitutional law, human rights, and other fundamental rights simply to show that this is rationally and scientifically founded. The science shows us that the citizens pay the high price for lockdowns and other measures, so the potential gains that may be in relation to the pandemic must also be shown to be greater than the harm caused by coronas special laws, lockdowns etc. Forced treatment/medication The need for scientific rationality in relation to the corona pandemic is further reinforced by the fact that precisely because of the corona pandemic, the government has increased the right to extremely gross violations of citizens' rights in the form of the right to forced vaccination. Since this change occurs in connection with the corona pandemic, it must be the intention to forcibly vaccinate against the corona. Berlingske wrote (by Jens Anton Bjørnager 14 March 2020): Now you and your children can be forcibly vaccinated against measles, rubella and other infectious diseases. Parliament has hastily amended the Epidemic Act to combat the corona epidemic. (https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/nu-kan-du-selv-og-dine-boern-blive-tvangsvaccineret-mod-maeslinger-roede). This follows from §8 of the current Epidemic Act (https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1444):

§ 8. In order to prevent the spread of a generally dangerous disease, the Minister of Health and the Elderly may, on the recommendation of the National Board of Health, order that compulsory vaccination be initiated within a defined area or a defined group of persons.

Part 2. When it is necessary to prevent or contain the spread of a generally dangerous disease in this country, the Minister of Health and the Elderly may, in order to reduce the number of other patients in the health care system, lay down rules that forced vaccination must be initiated for specific risk groups in order to minimize the prevalence of other diseases in the population.


7

Proportionality in the political interventions and society's responsibility for the health of the citizen In Denmark, the health of the citizen has never been the responsibility of the government or society; had this been the case tobacco and strong alcohol had been long banned, along with fatty foods, sweet cakes etc., just as everyone would be required to exercise one hour a day; sexual promiscuity would be strictly forbidden just as it would be forbidden to work more than 40 hours a week. All traffic in the city would be reduced to a speed of 30 kilometers per hour. All overweight people would be put on a diet and by the way, everyone would be sent to bed at 23.00. You can smile at the thought of the paternalistic state, but when it comes to the paternalism we have seen since the spring of 2020 regarding the corona in Denmark, the smile probably hardens a bit. Because is there really any difference? It has simply never in Denmark - or anywhere in Europe for that matter - been political comme il faut that the government acts as the big father / mother, who is telling people how to live. Yet this is exactly what we are experiencing at this time during the corona pandemic. And yet what is happening is probably not about the health of the population at all, because public health is not in focus at all, just as mortality and average life expectancy are not in focus at all. If we look for a moment at the common causes of death in Denmark, we can see that the one-eyed focus on the corona is completely out of proportion: Keep in mind that every year approx. 14,000 Danes die from smoking, approx. 900 die from passive smoking, approx. 3000 from alcohol abuse, approx. 4000 from lack of exercise and a few thousand from overweight. In many cases, these are young or younger people. In comparison, corona can maximum be held responsible for the life of a few hundred people, and those who die are on average 82 years old! Everyone must see, that to shut down the whole society and deprive all people their fundamental rights and introduce forced vaccination because a completely harmless coronavirus pandemic - which is a pandemic because the WHO has changed pandemic definition to address also the spread of infections that are not dangerous - is completely out of proportion.

Smoking and public health

Smoking is one of the most important risk factors for public health. Every year, almost 14,000 Danes die as a result of smoking, and approx. 900 die as a result of exposure to tobacco-polluted air.

https://www.sst.dk/da/viden/tobak/fakta-om-tobak-og-rygning/rygning-og-folkesundhed

Alcohol and diseases

Alcohol is an organic solvent and a carcinogen that increases the risk of many diseases and causes premature death. Alcohol contributes to the development of over 60 different diseases, including cancers, gastrointestinal diseases, cardiovascular diseases, liver diseases, high blood pressure and weakened immune system. Alcohol is also related to a number of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression.

Statistics show that around 3,000 deaths in Denmark each year can be related to alcohol, either as the primary or contributing cause of death. This corresponds to 6% of all deaths. Two out of three alcohol-related deaths occur among men.


8

https://www.sst.dk/da/Viden/Alkohol/Fakta-om-alkohol/Alkohol-og-sygdomme

Obesity and lack of exercise

The results show that approx. 3.7 per cent of all European deaths in a year are due to obesity, while over 7.3 per cent. - that is twice as many - can be attributed to physical inactivity, regardless of whether they are normal-weight, overweight or obese people. Jan 20 2015

hjerteforeningen.dk › 2015/01 › dobbelt-saa-mange-doer

Mean age of death with COVID-19

The mean age of patients who have died with COVID-19 is 82 years. Thus, it is as high as the average age among Danes who die in general. May 25, 2020

https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2020/9500-danske-covid-19-patienter-kortlagt-for-forste-gang


9

2. General section: Is there a dangerous corona pandemic? This question is asked at the start of professor Sucharit Bhakdi’s book "Corona: False alarm?" (76). Throughout the book, it is documented beyond any reasonable doubt, with heavy scientific arguments that this is a false pandemic, as the scientific evidence, that there is a deadly corona virus that haunts and creates excess mortality, is not present. This is of course surprising, as the populations of all countries of the world keep track of the statistics of "corona deaths", with countings of people dying after being found COVID-19 positive in a PCR test, which is diligently published in the media. Because people take for granted that people die from COVID-19 and that the statistics fit, people generally also believe in the WHO's narrative about the "dangerous" and "insidious" corona virus. But professor Bhakdi explains in his book, that the WHO, which should be a credible and valuable, scientifically based institution, in recent decades has fallen into the claws of the pharmaceutical industry, and has become a marketing platform for the pharmaceutical products, not hesitating to spread misinformation and deceive the world, instead of being what the world needs, namely a global resource in the field of health (76). It has happened before, specifically in 2009, Bhakdi states. The present report is based on the above-mentioned book, but takes its arguments further, as new scientific knowledge has emerged, which also must be included, and on this scientific background, the end of this report provides general and specific reasons that the corona special laws and more are invalid. An important fact is, that there is now heavy scientific evidence, that in 2020 did not start a dangerous corona pandemic, such as the World Health Organization (76), and then the government with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in the lead, and since The Health Authorities, and subsequently again the country’s police, health service and other authorities, have claimed. Where there may have been common sense in the precautionary principle applied by the government, which was applied at the beginning of the WHO-declared pandemic (76) in the spring of 2020, in January 2021 it is now concrete, scientific knowledge that shows with absolute certainty, that it is no dangerous corona pandemic. So there has been no scientific basis for these measures and today there is no sense at all in maintaining the measures that were taken at the start of the declared corona pandemic in 2020. Without medical professional justification, the corona provisions and corona special laws are without grounds, and therefore unlawful, just as they violate human rights and all other fundamental rights. It should also be noted that the media has misinformed about the corona pandemic and systematically censored all professional information about the corona pandemic, which is why the entire population has mistakenly gotten the impression that there is still a dangerous pandemic (76). It is very striking, that DR and TV2 and other major media do not have or at any time during the pandemic has been critical to the World Health Organization's narrative about the dangerous coronavirus, when it should be obvious to any thinking person that something is out of place, since there is no excess mortality. We know today from a scientific point of view with absolute certainty that there has not been a dangerous pandemic in 2020, as there has been no excess mortality in Denmark (see the figures below from Statistics Denmark), not even among the elderly (see section 3). Also in the Nordic countries or in the countries around Denmark, which we usually compare ourselves with, or in Europe as a whole, there has been no significant excess mortality (76) - a marginally small excess mortality in the months at the end of the year (which can not be seen in the big picture of the whole year) has sadly been explained by something completely different from the corona pandemic itself, namely with the damaging effects of the corona policy measures and lockdowns that have led to suicide, failure of health care assistance, etc. (see section 3). The figures from the rest of the world are unfortunately characterized by very poor statistical traditions, conditions and methods, and easy to manipulate politically, as we have seen happen in New York (215), so we have to use the figures in Denmark and in Europe, when assessing the danger of the corona pandemic. It is well known, that Denmark has the best population static in the world because of the famous CPR register, why figures from Denmark are usually the most reliable.


10

Let us look at the specific figures on mortality in Denmark from Statistics Denmark (Table 1):

2018 2019 2020

55232 53958 55162 Table 1:Mortality in Denmark 2018, 2019 and 2020. (https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-

valg/doedsfald-og-middellevetid/doedsfald)

There is thus no question of an excess mortality in Denmark in 2020 compared to previous years, as 55,162 people died in 2020, which is slightly more than in 2019 but less than in 2018, where the government did not react with special laws, lockdowns etc. Given the current death toll, autopsy reports and general knowledge of the coronavirus and the diseases these viruses causes, scientists around the world early in 2020 declared that the pandemic is a fake pandemic (76), ie a pandemic, the WHO declared, without professional evidence for it (214,215,215). We also know from Hamburg, Germany, where extensive autopsies of everyone presumed to have died of COVID-19, has been autopsied under the leadership of Professor Püschel, that not a single one of those who died after being tested positive for COVID- 19 actually died of COVID-19, as there has always been another good reason for death, such as cancer, bad heart, etc. (60,61,62,211) The media has repeatedly brought terrible reports, including reports from Italy and New York, with shocking images of morgues overflowing with corpses, mass graves, etc. It can also be documented that a number of stories that have been uncritically brought by the media to illustrate the danger of the corona have been constructed and untrue (14,15,16,52,193,194,217); but because the criticism of these stories has not been published due to the media's harsh censorship of stories and objections that go against the WHO's narrative about the dangerous corona virus, Denmark's population, in the same way as has happened in other countries, has been misled into believing, that there is a dangerous corona pandemic (76, 77.78), and the population has felt in safe hands when gross action has taken place on the part of the government, just as it has generally accepted losing fundamental rights in connection with the corona pandemic, for example, by agreeing to wear facemasks as science says is completely without a positive effect (- neither prevents one from becoming infected (67) nor that one infects others), but which both poses a health risk (68,69,70,71,72,73,75) and causes significant difficulties in interpersonal communication (see section 3). As an argument used to rationalize that we have good reason to fear that there will be dangerous pandemics, it is stated that 1% of Europe's population died in 1918 of an influenza called the Spanish flu. It has been mentioned time and time again that we are in grave danger of a serious pandemic precisely because of the Spanish flu. Research has, however, documented, that it is not correct that it was a virus that took the lives of people at that time, as hundreds of autopsy reports from 1918-1920 were reviewed; a large study in 2008 thus shows quite unequivocally that the cause of death at that time was bacterial pneumonia, and not virus (218). Thus, in historical times, there has never been a viral pandemic that has posed any significant danger to the population. Therefore, in principle, we must also assume that this will never happen. Scientific method leads us to assume that things are normal before the opposite is proven: It is therefore the rule without exception that a viral pandemic is NOT dangerous for the population of Denmark (219). When viruses are not dangerous, in our opinion it is not because corona virus does not exist, as some have claimed based on the weak science of virus detection, or because viruses do not spread through the air all around us, such as the WHO and the government seems to think, because research shows that we are infected with about 100 viruses for the respiratory tract and about 100 viruses for the gastrointestinal tract each year


11

(76,193,194,195,215,216). These viruses are constantly mutating and there are hundreds, often thousands of versions of each virus, as 200 new human viruses are added each year. This means that we are all affected by approx. 200 new viruses every year, or a new virus about every other day. It is the rule that we do not detect that we are infected with the virus, since we have no symptoms, because our immune system is completely effective in fighting the virus (76). According to the most widespread scientific theory, we infect, when we ourselves are infected, through tiny droplets that come from the respiratory cyclic opening of the alveoli of the lungs (a droplet size of 0,1-0,01μm). We infect each other with a very small amount of virus (about 20 virus particles) (215,216), and this very small infection is fought locally by the cells of the immune system, which knows all the circulating viruses well - though not completely well - due to previous encounters. The enormous efficiency of the immune system is due to the fact that mammals and viruses have been co-evolving over the last supposedly hundred million years. There is one exception to the rule that the virus does not cause symptoms, and that is, when we are immunologically impaired, which we are under stress, emotional pressure, or in conjunction with other diseases. However, it is scientifically proven that even powerful influenza, which are the most dangerous viruses known to science, do not cause significant mortality in people under 70 years of age, nor are they at significant risk to healthy and fit people over 70 years of age. The mortality we see from influenza systematically affects the very old and very ill and already significantly immunocompromised people (50,51,54,55,76,214,215,215); statistically speaking such a flu does not shorten life, even in these individuals with no more than a few days or weeks left to live, as you medically have to say that those who die of influenza, already are very near death (54). Corona virus, which is known to cause colds, is known to be much less dangerous than influenza virus and researchers have traditionally described it as harmless (76). It is important to emphasize, that researchers in viruses and lung diseases have repeatedly highlighted that there has never been a dangerous corona virus anywhere in the world; studies under the strong influence of the pharmaceutical industry, which obviously has an interest in delivering vaccines and medicines to the world, have found, that there has been such dangerous viruses, but the counts of the dead in the few studies that have been made of dangerous viruses have been heavily criticized by independent researchers (193,194,195). In the opinion of the researchers, this has been the pharmaceutical industry's attempt to find examples to justify large vaccination programs against common viruses such as influenza and corona (76,196,197,198,199,200,201,214,215,216). It is also important to emphasize that the vaccines that have been developed against influenza, according to large meta-analyzes conducted by Cochrane researchers, which is an independent research collaboration of 10,000 doctors, clearly show that the influenza vaccine is ineffective and has many serious side effects (221). The conclusion is that the flu vaccine does not work. Since it has not been possible to make an effective vaccine against influenza that mutates much more slowly than the corona viruses, it is already for that reason quite certain that one will not be able to make a vaccine against the rapidly mutating corona virus, which would be irrational anyway, as corona is not dangerous at all. In addition, any use of chemical drugs, which are found in vaccines, always causes side effects, including severe side effects such as illness and death (76,214-16,221). When the WHO declared in early 2020 that there was a corona pandemic with a new corona virus, SARS-CoV-2, which caused the disease COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 3.4% (223,251), this was far from true. Nevertheless, that was the reason countries around the world panicked. Terrible stories as mentioned, of massive excess mortality in northern Italy and New York, followed by images of overcrowded chapels and mass graves, mobile mortuaries in trucks, etc. combined with huge death tolls created through a wrong way to count deaths by corona, namely by including all who died after being tested positive for corona, convinced government as well as population that there was in fact an ongoing very serious corona pandemic. Big test programs were initiated in 2020 using the PCR test that the WHO had advised on its website already on 13, 17 and 21 January 2020 (17,228,229 - downloaded from the WHO website 25/1 2021), which was submitted for scientific approval on January 21 2020, and which was approved January 22 and published January 23 (17,228,229).


12

The scientific article by Drosten's group, which originally documented the COVID-19 PCR test, claimed that the test could diagnose COVID-19 through the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This has since been shown not to be true (17,224). There has been very comprehensive criticism of the PCR test, which the inventor Kary Mullis himself directly warned about gave false positive test results if used incorrectly (40,41,202,210), just as he stressed numerous times throughout his life that it can not be used diagnostically. The test uses cycles that double genetic material (a DNA strand), but if you run too many cycles it will always be positive, what we call false positive, because small errors are introduced in each cycle. At a maximum of 60 cycles, 100% of the tests run are always false positive; at 35 cycles, 97% are false positive (17,224), and several percent of all test results come out false positive. The percentage of positive reults that come depends on how many cycles you run and on the chemical composition of the test, which the pharmaceutical companies can put together as they wish. The researchers wonder about the current composition of the COVID-19 PCR test with very high concentrations, 8 times above the normal of many ingredients that give extra many positive answers. According to Kary Mullis, one can therefore not use the method with more than 20-25 cycles (40,41,202,210). Kary Mullis received the Nobel Prize for the PRC test in 1993, and he is still considered in scientific circles today to be the highest authority that is always referred to regarding the PCR test. The PCR method cannot be used diagnostically, but must always be used in conjunction with a medical clinical diagnosis if it is to be meaningful, Kary Mullis stated (40,41,202,210); If you do not take a clinical diagnosis as a starting point, you cannot use the PCR test at all to distinguish between different diseases. Here, when it comes to corona virus, one is further affected by the problem that there is no clear clinical picture of many of the respiratory viruses that affect us, so we can not distinguish between a disease caused by corona virus or another respiratory virus. So you face the problem when you have a person with a cold or flu-like symptoms that you can not see in the clinical picture what is wrong with the patient. Thus, a clinical influenza is known to be caused by the influenza virus only in 10% of cases (76,221); for this reason on its own, the flu vaccine, which by the way is based on a flu strain from last year (which is not the one we meet this year!) obviously does not work. Also for this reason, mass vaccination of the population with influenza vaccine has been criticized and called meaningless, not least by the Cochrane researchers (221), who believe that vaccination programs for influenza are carried out solely for political and not for health reasons. In Portugal, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the PCR test is invalid, as the test has 97% false positive answers and requires a medical clinical diagnosis to be meaningful (170,171,172,173). In other countries, similar judgments have been handed down, as we shall see in Chapter 4. In Germany, lawyer Reimar Fuellmich is suing Drosten, who has been the kingpin behind the PCR test, with allegations of fraud (177,178,179 ). Fuellmich believes, that Drosten from the beginning knew that PCR tests could not make the diagnosis, and he may well have done so since Kary Mullis knowledge of the PRC-test is commonly known. The WHO, which has recommended Drosten's PCR test, seems to have been involved in its development, since the recommendations from WHO’s side can be found even before it has been scientifically published (17). Unfortunately, it has been well known since the great swine flu scandal in 2009 that WHO is totally corrupt (5 members of the committee which had to decide on the WHO’s recommendations on vaccine had in 2009 received a total of 7,000,000 US dollars from the vaccine industry (225)); WHO must today be considered as completely taken over by the pharmaceutical industry, which uses WHO as a pure marketing platform (225). Health professionals from around the world distanced themselves from the WHO in 2009, calling the organization corrupt (225). Denmark also bought millions of doses of ineffective and undocumented influenza vaccine at the time, which subsequently simply had to be destroyed (225). Against this background, it is both surprising and shocking that during the corona pandemic, the government has not been the least critical of the WHO.


13

It is thus well known that the WHO today receives by far the largest part of its funding directly from the pharmaceutical industry and the wealthy people behind the pharmaceutical industry, such as Bill Gates who has given about one billion dollars to the WHO just as he has given about 100 million kroner to the Danish State Serum Institute (SSI) through the last 10 years (access to documents given to Per Brændegård, personal contact). On 21 January 2021, following strong pressure from scientists around the world, the WHO had to change the recommendation of the PCR test so that it is no longer seen as useful for diagnosing COVID-19 (18, downloaded 21 January 2021; the note has since disappeared from the website); with this, the WHO has effectively admitted that the PCR test is useless for ordinary testing of COVID-19, as it takes place all over Denmark today, and thus also that it was a mistake to recommend it for diagnostic use as happened in January worldwide, with billions of PCR tests and millions of resulting false positives. With the fall of the PCR test, it is also clear that all the death statistics we have seen in the media have been incorrect, just as the vaccine approval studies conducted by Pfizer- BioNTech and Moderna are invalid to the extent that they have been based on the diagnostic ability of the PCR test (5,6,7). Since the PCR test is the only test we have had, we could not know whether the symptoms people have had were caused by COVID-19, why key assumptions, carrying the whole basis for the clinical testing of these vaccines, are invalid; the vaccines should therefore now be withdrawn from the market, as they must be considered scientifically untested and undocumented, and the product is different from the description found of it. The professionals at Pfizer- BioNTech and Moderna must, if they have had a medical background, also have known that the PCR test was invalid; they must therefore also have known that the basis for the declared corona pandemic is wrong, and they are therefore just as guilty of fraud as the WHO and Drosten. It should also be noted that it is Bill Gates or his foundations that have supported Drosten's work, just as Gates has supported the State Serum Institute (SSI) with around DKK 100 million over the last 10 years. It is SSI that has been responsible for much of the incorrect statistics about the world's corona deaths through EUROMOMO (https://www.euromomo.eu/), which has diligently shared the wrong information with the citizens of all European countries throughout the major media. and with the world at large. This is a very serious deception of the world, which has caused most countries to make special laws and lockdowns and thus for no reason at all, and which has seriously compromised the countries’ economies and the peoples' happiness, well-being and life opportunities. Unfortunately, WHO and Drosten are not alone in creating the false corona pandemic; it looks like not just the pharmaceutical industry, but several other powerful industries, money men and governments, i.a. The World Economic Forum and possibly also the Chinese government are also involved, but the connections are not fully clarified, just as it becomes too extensive to account for these partially undocumented theories here; if interested refer to (226,227). It should be mentioned, however, that China has worked very closely with the WHO and that China has invented the lockdown as a means to prevent the spread of disease, although there is no scientific rationality behind it (230), which has been criticized by professionals from all over world (76,193-195). Here at the end of the general introductory section, let us take a look at the statistics from a number of countries on “deaths with corona virus” (Table 2). What the researchers note is that the deceased have typically lived longer than average, and have reached an age where any infection is dangerous to them, and death is therefore something to be expected. One of the researchers behind the study, Reimar W. Thomsen (chief physician and associate professor at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology at Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital) says about the study's conclusions: “The study confirms that it is already sick elderly people who are especially at risk. - It is especially people over the age of 80 with two or more chronic diseases - ie multi-disease - who have a markedly increased mortality.


14

If you are up to 80 years old and otherwise do not suffer from illnesses and are healthy and fit, then you often manage a COVID -19 course. But for older people over 80, age in itself begins to come into play, he says. 82 percent of all the people who died with the virus in Denmark were multi-sick, and the average age of all the dead is 82 years.” (18) (18) https://fagbladet3f.dk/artikel/multisyge-over-80-har-stoerst-risiko-corona-doed

Table 2


15

3. Review of the scientific literature – overview of our knowledge. Scientists around the world have protested against the WHO's declaration of a dangerous corona pandemic. One of Germany's most renowned virologists and researchers in the immune system, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, has written a book in which he documents that the danger of the corona virus disease COVID-19, ie the danger of the virus SARS-CoV-2, which is claimed to be the underlying virus, is greatly exaggerated, as corona is far less dangerous than influenza (76). In the same book, Bhakdi documents that the pandemic had ended before the lockdown was introduced (Figure 1), which is why the low death toll in Germany is not due to the fact that lockdown has saved the world, as is often claimed from a political point of view, but rather that corona COVID-19 is not dangerous at all to begin with, contrary to WHO’s official standpoint when the pandemic was declared

A new German verdict upholds the plaintiff's that lockdowns are without rational basis and not lawful, see section 4 (180,181,182). A good summary of the arguments that we are facing a false pandemic has also been made in the article "Covid-19: Bevisen för det globala bedrägeriet" (14,15,16) originally published in English, but translated from Swedish (15). The article is found in Danish in (16). Below is a review of the fundamentals of the corona COVID-19 pandemic, which are necessary to know and understand in order to realize the unreasonable and factually unfounded nature of the corona special laws and the other corona provisions that the OOC 's lawsuits are basically about.

a. The mRNA sequence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus is not known,

Figure 1 In Sucharit Bhakdi's book “Corona False Alarm?” It is documented that the lockdown had no effect on mortality in Germany because it was introduced after the pandemic was over. Reference is made to reference 128 in the book, which is: Matthias an der Heiden and Osamah Hamouda , "Schätzung der aktuellen Entwicklung der SARSCoV-2-Epidemie in Deutschland—Nowcasting,” Epidemiologisches Bulletin 17, (April 2020): 10–16, https://doi.org/10.25646/6692.4.The same situation prevailed in Denmark, where the pandemic came at the same time and lockdowns also at the same time.


16

There are problems with the corona research all the way through. For example, it has been debated whether we have isolated corona SARS-CoV-2 virus at all, and many experts claim that the gene sequences presented are not from the new corona virus SARS-CoV-2 (8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,15,16,193-195,231,232,233,324,235). The problem is that we do not have a "golden standard", ie something to compare with, so the sequence must basically be perceived as a guess, that with some probability is completely wrong; many scientists, eg Dr. Andrew Kaufmann, believe that this probability is so high that in practice it can not be claimed that we know the virus we call "SARS-CoV-2" on a scientific basis. Thus, the whole story of COVID-19 becomes fiction. One may be surprised at this because one might assume that the corona pandemic rested on a solid scientific basis, but this does not seem to be the case. At the international level, the national health boards of many countries, including Denmark, report, that they are neither aware of the SARS-CoV-2 virus having been isolated (commonly known from access to documents from the National Board of Health / Statens Serums Institut), nor of its content of mRNA having been sequenced. It is clear that if you do not have the mRNA of the virus, you can not do an mRNA based test. For this reason alone, it is not possible to perform a PCR test for COVID-19 (17).

b. The proteins coded for by SARS-CoV-2 are not known. In the same way, it is maintained by experts that one does not know the proteins that the SARS-CoV-2 virus encodes. This is naturally related to the mRNA sequence being unknown, since the mRNA sequence encodes the proteins (8,9,10,11,12, 13,14,15,16,193-195,231,232,233,324,235). This in turn means that the antibody tests used are not likely to test for antibodies against the viral proteins. Thus, all the tests we have for COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are invalid.

c. Covid-19 disease is not caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Another factor that has been scientifically criticized for lacking evidence is, that the disease COVID-19, which is an extremely poorly defined clinical disease unit, as the same symptoms may be due to perhaps 50 different cold and flu viruses, is actually due to SARS-CoV-2 virus(76). This criticism is related to the fact that the virus has never been isolated and that it has never been possible to infect a human with COVID-19 in an experiment (76).

d. The PCR test for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) and the other molecular tests ("Corona Quick tests") do not work, and therefore the mRNA vaccine has not been scientifically tested either as the PRC test has been used in the clinical trials of the vaccines.

In Portugal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the PCR test does not work, as it has 97% false positive answers (out of the 2-3% that are positive) just as the PCR test cannot be used without a simultaneous clinical diagnosis of a physician (170,171,172,173). Court rulings with the same conclusion have been made in the Netherlands (134-151). The PCR test was developed by Kary Mullis, who in 1993 received the Nobel Prize for it. Mullis has repeatedly said that it cannot be used to make medical diagnoses and that the test cannot be used over 25 cycles because it then produces so many false positive responses that it becomes meaningless (40,202,210). Researchers have documented that the 35-cycle PCR test has 97% false positive answers, with an overall positive answer rate of about 2-3% (17,224,186,187). This means that when the population is tested with the RT-PCR test for corona, it looks as if there is a pandemic with many infected in progress, while this has not been proven at all in the tests that are carried out. It is further problematic that by changing the chemical


17

composition of the PRC test, one can up- and down-regulate how many false positive test results there should be. You can thus adjust the PCR test to give the number of infections you want in this fake testing, and you can even, as there is a close collaboration between the various companies that produce pharmaceuticals, imagine that after a vaccination against corona tests are produced that have a lower number of false positives so that these tests can be used to document the effect of a vaccine if such documentation were desired. It is clear that this situation is not sustainable. The WHO itself has 21 January 2021 admitted that the PCR test cannot be used diagnostically on the population, see below. (www.who.int (https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users)): “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Date: 7 December 2020

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05 Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 20 January 2021

Medical product alert

Geneva

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Date: 13 January 2021

WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.


18

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

1. Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety. 2. Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you. 3. Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU. 4. Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

Contact person for further information:

Anita SANDS, Regulation and Prequalification, World Health Organization, e-mail: [email protected]

References:

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.

The Swedish health authorities write on their website that the PCR test is not useful for diagnosing COVID-19:

Guidance on criteria for assessment of freedom from infection in covid-19

The Swedish Public Health Agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten) has developed national criteria for assessing freedom from infection in covid-19.

The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system, and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that the infectiousness of covid-19 is greatest at the beginning of the disease period.

The recommended criteria for assessing freedom from infection are therefore based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have passed since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.

The criteria were developed in collaboration with representatives of the specialty associations in infectious disease medicine, clinical microbiology, hygiene and infection control. The recommendations will be updated as new knowledge about covid-19 infectiousness is added, as current knowledge is limited.

Downloaded 23 Jan 2021.

For comparison, the Danish corresponding website states:

What test can you use?

PCR test

PCR is a very sensitive test method that detects new coronavirus' RNA. The test is performed by passing a cotton swab down the throat or up the nose. This test is used in the public test system


19

and is considered safe. It is used to determine if you are infected with a new coronavirus here and now.

The test result only gives a snapshot, and therefore it is important that you continue to adhere to the infection prevention recommendations, even if you get a negative answer.

If you need to be tested because you have symptoms or are in close contact, it is always recommended that you be tested with a PCR test.

Source: https://www.sst.dk/da/corona/Hvis-du-har-symptomer_-er-syg-eller-smittet/Hvis-du-skal-testes . Downloaded 23 Jan 2021.

According to the Danish authorities, the PCR test thus works satisfactorily. This shows the problem we face in Denmark, where the Danish authorities apparently do not base neither their actions nor the knowledge they share with the public on science. That we are facing a false PCR test has become very clear after the external scientific review of Drosten et al’s article on the PCR test has been submitted (17); here is presented 10 basic problems with the corona used corona test, each of them on its own fatal enough to invalidate the test (17,177,178,179,186,187). The strange thing is that everyone who works with the PCR test also knows Kary Mulli's positions around this, and therefore must also know that it is an abuse of the test to run over 25 cycles (in Denmark we, according to the National Board of Health, run 38 cycles, which is commonly known, as has been informed by access to documents granted by the National Board of Health / Statens Serum Institut (Per Brændegård, personal contact)). Both Drosten, WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that use this test for research into vaccines, including experiments to document the safety and efficacy of corona vaccines, must and should know that the test does not work as a diagnostic tool, the way it is used as a corona test today. This also means that the documentation currently available for the new mRNA corona vaccines is of no scientific validity to the extent that the PCR test is used here (or that data collected using the PCR test are used as a basis for assumptions about the vaccine, its testing or its effect); Since PCR is the basis for the testing of both mRNA corona vaccines, they must therefore be considered scientifically undocumented, which is why they can not be used legally on human beings.

For the Pfizer vaccine:

The diagnosis Covid-19 was based on symptoms + nucleic acid amplification-based testing.

Pfizer itself designed the study, collected data and interpreted the results, and published their study. They do not explain what nucleic acid amplification-based testing they have used. It is therefore not worthwhile scientific research.

Furthermore, as mentioned, no side effects have been properly examined, as the participants have only been asked for a subjective self-report (and no objective examination by a doctor or paraclinical examinations for side effects.) They have also failed to do DNA and RNA tests on the participants before and after the vaccine, although this is the key to these vaccines - whether they change our DNA.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577


20

The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).

Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol.

For the Moderna vaccine :

The diagnosis Covid-19 was made on the basis of symptoms + reverse transcript polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Moderna itself has designed the study, collected data and interpreted the results and published their study. They do not explain which PCR test they have used.

It is therefore not worthwhile scientific research.

Furthermore, as mentioned, no side effects have been properly examined, as the participants have only been asked for a subjective self-report (and no objective examination by a doctor or paraclinical examinations for side effects.) They have also failed to do DNA and RNA tests on the participants before and after the vaccine, although this is the key to these vaccines - whether they change our DNA.

Covid-19 cases were defined as occurring in participants who had at least two of the following symptoms: fever (temperature ≥38°C), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, or new olfactory or taste disorder, or as occurring in those who had at least one respiratory sign or symptom (including cough, shortness of breath, or clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia) and at least one nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if the participant was hospitalized) that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) test. Participants were assessed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies specific to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics International) and had a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing (Viracor, Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics) before each injection. SARS-CoV-2–infected volunteers were followed daily, to assess symptom severity, for 14 days or until symptoms resolved, whichever was longer. A nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR testing and a blood sample for identifying serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected from participants with symptoms of Covid-19.

The vaccine approvals are based on two large studies with respectively 30,000 and 40,000 participants:


21

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 – Pfizer

Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 – Moderna

The trial Investigational New Drug sponsor, Moderna, was responsible for the overall trial design (with input from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the NIAID, the Covid-19 Prevention Network, and the trial cochairs), site selection and monitoring, and data analysis.

Reference is here also made to a large number of scientific articles, all of which by 2020 have questioned the validity of the corona PCR test (17-49). The external review of Drosten's PCR test has been translated in its full length (17,43-49).

e. Corona vaccines have very serious side effects and do not prevent mortality or infection It has been strongly criticized that the mRNA corona vaccines as the test protocols are designed can neither be shown to counteract mortality of COVID-19 or infection with virus SARS-CoV-2 (20,236,237); The results of the tests also show that the mRNA vaccines, which despite the name are not vaccines, but gene therapy, have very serious side effects (2,3,5,6,7,185,238). We want, cf. the fifth constitutional case on vaccines, the word of the court that what is today called "mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 " can no longer be called vaccines but must be called "gene therapy". The US health authorities' website states that the vaccine has immediate death as a side effect, affecting about 1 in 10,000 people vaccinated, in addition to a very wide range of autoimmune diseases and other serious side effects (238). Side effects immediately affect one in five people vaccinated, and no one knows if the vaccine causes sterility, autoimmune diseases, increased susceptibility to corona virus through antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and many other researchers believe it will do (76,196,197,198,199,200,201). It is thus clear that mandatory vaccination with such a dangerous and completely unnecessary vaccine is an enormous assault on the population.

f. Corona is a common cold, including SARS-CoV-2, and is not dangerous at all - no excess mortality, no late injuries, etc.

A systematic review of mortality in all European countries and in all UN countries shows no or only modest excess mortality in 2020 (although there is an increasing mortality in the second half of 2020 which cannot be attributed to the corona epidemic but must be attributed to the harmful effects of lockdown and the other corona policy measures), comparable to a mild influenza epidemic. In the international scientific community there is agreement that COVID-19 disease which still lacks clinical diagnosis and the virus that WHO claims causes COVID-19 namely SARS-CoV-2 is not dangerous at all or in the worst case can be compared to a mild flu (76,214,215,216). It came as a surprise to many when Statistics Denmark (Danmarks Statistik) published the figures for Denmark, which showed that even among the elderly there was no excess mortality:


22

Source: Sofie Bak Thorup. Ingen overdødelighed bland ældre. Politiken Sundhed 12 maj 2020. https://politikensundhed.dk/nyheder/art7779515/%C2%BBVi-havde-frygtet-v%C3%A6rre-n%C3%A5r-vi-kiggede-mod-andre-lande%C2%AB In general, it turns out that there is no mortality from corona, as the WHO claimed, as the mortality is not 3.4% but only in the order of 0.02% (mortality when infected with corona, ie " infection mortality rate", abbreviated IMF) (54). Throughout 2020, the whole world was misinformed about corona mortality, as all those who tested positive, and it was usually the very old and the very sick who were tested, and who subsequently died, were included in the statistics. In Italy, the average age was 82 years for the "corona-dead" and 99% of them already had one or more known fatal diseases (76). These figures for corona deaths were "case-fatality-rate", and completely misleading in relation to corona, which numerous experts have tried to draw attention to, not least through their own videos on the Internet, which were posted in frustration over that the major media would not bring their messages (183-211, 226,230,231-235, 239-246).


23

g. According to most researchers, the corona virus mutates 10 times a year or more, and we need the

infection with the corona and the other cold viruses to maintain our immunity (124-130) Virus researchers have found that the corona virus makes up approx. 15% of the approx. 100 new respiratory viruses spread amongst the people of Europe each year (76,214-216,193-195); a similar number of newly mutated viruses reach the gastrointestinal tract. Corona virus is found in 4 main types, all of which reach us regularly, without causing symptoms or causing significant damage (124-130). What is important is of course that the virus and the mammalian line have co-evolved so that our immune system is perfectly developed to handle the constant stream of viruses that reach us with a frequency of a new virus every other day or so. It is therefore important to understand that the corona virus is harmless precisely because we are constantly and continuously exposed to new mutations; to talk about "new corona virus" is therefore very strange and the term must be described as both professionally incorrect and strongly misleading, as all the new mutations that constantly reach us are "new", without it in any way making them dangerous. Isolating individuals and avoiding infection can mean that the immunity that is maintained as long as we are infected by each type of virus at least every 3 months, may no longer be maintained, so social isolation, disinfection, social distancing etc. may pose a health threat to the individual. Thus, there are some researchers who advocate "herd immunity" and who believe that we need the infection to stay healthy, and there are no researchers who have succeeded in proving the opposite, namely that isolation from virus infection should be healthy or beneficial.

h. Corona virus is transmitted between healthy people with a small bolus (amount) that infects and gives resistance but without symptoms (76, 124-130,214-216,193-195)

It is in the nature of things that we infect each other, even if we do not have symptoms of virally caused disease such as colds or flu; we infect each other with small doses of virus (typically about 20 particles in the opinion of some researchers (214-216)). These small doses reach us through tiny droplets that are excreted on exhalation. Our alveolar sacs open and close throughout each respiratory cycle, and 0.1-0.01µm drops are excreted with the exhaled air.

i. Facemasks do not affect SARS-CoV-2 infection in either way - do not protect you or others - and prevent you from communicating with your fellow human beings. The constitutional freedom of expression is, without objective justification, violated by the obligation to wear a facemask.

The pores of facemasks are typically in the order of 2-20 µm, and thus too large to stop these droplets (214-216). The droplets stay afloat for up to 4 hours and can travel many kilometers in the air, making it practically impossible to prevent the spread of infection between humans. Facemasks are therefore theoretically ineffective, as has been found to be the case in several studies (67-75). In the Danish facemask study, 4862 people completed their participation, and the result was that there was no effect of facemasks (67). One can compare a facemask against virus with a wire fence with 20 cm stitches that should try to stop flies. A 0.2 cm fly - 100 x smaller than the mask - can fly freely through (214-216). The surgical mask in an operating room is not used to stop the virus, but to prevent the surgeon from spitting into the patient's wounds. However, saliva blobs are so heavy that they immediately fall to the ground, so it makes no sense to wear masks under normal conditions to avoid infecting each other. However, the surgeon sits just above the patient, making the mask rational. About 90% of all interpersonal communication takes place through body language (247,248,249). Facial expression is by far the most important part of body language and about 30 muscles in the face alone serve facial expressions. Facemasks, especially in combination with physical distancing, destroys all fine nuances of communication, making emotional empathy, general empathy, philosophical discussions and deeper exchanges of meaning impossible. Facemasks are therefore a serious violation of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.


24

j. The COVID-19 pandemic is a false pandemic, with manipulated statistics, false media reports, etc. (76,193-195,214-216)

In Denmark, as in most other countries, the case fatality rate during the corona pandemic was widely spread by DR and the other major media. There was and is an ongoing scare campaign completely without hold on reality; a shameful mistreatment of the population, apparently with the aim of forcing through policies that the citizens would not otherwise have accepted. Particularly problematic is the extensive censorship of all criticism of WHO’s and the government's narrative about the dangerous coronavirus, as DR, TV2, newspapers, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Instagram and others exercise.

k. Lockdown’s have no effect on mortality but severely harm the population (81-116) Many independent publications have shown that there is no effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on Covid-19 mortality. A study published in the Lancet in August 2020 (83), which analyzed the policies of 50 countries, showed that "Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people." A Danish study (82) examined the relationship between the severity of lockdown policies in the first half of 2020 and mortality. Using two indices from the Blavatnik Center's Covid-19 policy measures and comparison of weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries in the first half of 2017-2020 and addressing political endogenicity in two different ways. There was no clear correlation between lockdown policies and the development of mortality. In Søren Ventegodt's TV broadcast about Maslow's pyramid of needs (250), he reviews human needs according to Maslow. It must be clear to everyone that lockdowns that interfere with virtually all aspects of human life damages the fulfillment of needs and thus quality of life and with this also the physical and mental health, which is also what a number of researchers have come to (76,83,86,87,89,90,93,96,98,104,105,108)). When all studies both at home and abroad have shown, that there is no significant effect of lock downs, it is because the lock downs are a new invention made in China winter 2019/2020, without any scientific rational foundation - and since taken to the rest of the world through the WHO’s recommendations confidentially forwarded to the government and its institutions. During lockdowns, we thus see an increased morbidity and mortality, among other things caused by suicide, which is not due to corona, but is due to the direct damaging effect of lockdowns. Just the fact, that many thousands of businesses are closed and that hundreds of thousands of people have been sent home from work, is a great burden on both individuals and society. When taken into account, that there is no dangerous corona pandemic, as documented above, and that all of the statistics, which are made, are based on false positive test amswers from the invalid PCR test, then it must be said, that what is taking place is a very serious and factually completely unfounded intervention against the population, with painful restrictions on personal freedom and violation of a large number of fundamental rights.

l. Social distancing does not work


25

As part of the lockdown studies, social distancing has also been shown to be totally ineffective (81-116). It must be remembered that since we have no valid measure of the prevalence of COVID-19 because the tests are invalid, our knowledge is actually very small.

m. Disinfection does not work. Studies have shown that hand disinfection etc. has no beneficial effect (81-116).

n. Documentation of censorship and misinformation in the media There is massive censorship and control of the media to ensure that the criticism of the missing scientific basis for lockdowns, social distancing, infection prevention using facemasks, etc. does not come to light (14,15,76,117-122). During the pandemic, criticism of the WHO's and government's narrative of the dangerous corona virus has been heavily censored in all major media.

o. The argument that "we must ensure that we have enough space in the hospitals, why the corona special laws are necessary" is not valid.

Since there is no dangerous corona virus, there is also no rational problem with congestion in the health care system, which is why the closures of the country's hospitals for pure emergency preparedness in addition to sections for the treatment of corona patients have been completely without objective justification. The fact that COVID-19 patients are admitted to hospital for political reasons, including intensive care units, cannot be used as a rational argument. It is well known that the hospitals have largely been empty during the corona pandemic due to the political closure of the hospitals, which has caused enormous problems for the population (76). It is well known that critical health professionals have many times filmed the empty hospital rooms during the covid-19 pandemic and told the public about it. In a verdict in South Africa the court ruled that possible under capacity was not a valid reason for a special corona law (164,165). Of course, from a political point of view, one can choose to fill the country's hospitals with patients who have been found positive for corona with the invalid PCR test, but since there is no danger with corona, this is only a political measure and not an argument that can be used rationally for anything.

p. Disruption of medical care (76) During the corona pandemic, health care did not function to service normal patients. In Copenhagen alone, about 50,000 operations were canceled, and for no reason at all. Sucharit Bhakdi gives the following list of disruptions of the medical assistance during the coronavirus pandemic (76):

Many who were ill were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of catching the "killer virus".

Often, the elderly did not wish "to burden" their doctors, who they thought were fighting to save COVID-19 patients.

Patients in need of medical examinations were rejected, all that was not considered to be "vital" was canceled or postponed.

No medical examinations were performed.

Operations were postponed to free up capacity for "coronavirus patients".

Domestic violence against women and children increased.


26

The number of suicides increased.


27

4. Review of relevant legal proceedings in regards to corona A number of lawsuits about corona have been carried out in other European countries (relevant extracts of these have been translated into Danish in the material collection) and several are currently being conducted. List of selected corona lawsuits and EU hearing on corona (with reference numbers referring to the material collection) The most important ongoing corona lawsuit: w 15 December 2020 - Germany - Green Mango GmbH represented by Nils Roth vs Prof Dr. Christian

Drosten (177-179) - The PCR test for COVID-19 does not work and the corona virus pandemic has been declared false.

The most important case currently pending is a case against the creators of the corona PCR test led by Drosten. The case essentially deals with the invalidity of the PCR test. Won corona lawsuits: w November 17, 2020 - Portugal - The PCR test is invalid so the detention of four tourists due to a

positive test was illegal(170-173) A Portuguese verdict of the Court of Appeal in Portugal has concluded that the PCR test is invalid and that it cannot be used at all without a medical clinical diagnosis of the patient, etc. The court said: “Based on the current scientific evidence, this test [the RT-PCR test] is in itself unable to establish without reasonable doubt that positivity actually corresponds to infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus for several reasons, including amongst others two which are paramount (to which must be added the question of the gold standard, which due to the specificity of this question will not be considered here): the reliability of the test depends on the number of cycles used; the reliability of the test depends on the current viral load." Citing Jaafar et al. (2020) the court concludes that “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is applied (as it as a rule is in most laboratories in Europe and the USA), the probability that the person is infected is < 3%, and the probability that the result is false positive is 97%. "The Court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being carried out in Portugal is unknown. Citing Surkova et al. (2020) the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed before the test itself is performed and expresses the view that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United States of America, the probability is increasing, that the Covid 19 test returns false positives with major consequences for individuals, the health system and society." The Court's summary of the case for decision against the Regional Health Authority's appeal is as follows: "Considering how much scientific doubt there is - as expressed by experts, ie. those that matter - about the reliability of the PCR tests given the lack of information about the test's analytical parameters and the lack of a doctor's diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was in fact a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or whether A, B and D had a high risk of exposure to it.” w 31 December 2020 - The Netherlands - PCR test (134-151)


28

The Dutch group was upheld by the court in that they had the constitutional right to demonstrate despite bans from the government. In addition, they were upheld in that the PCR test cannot be used diagnostically. The court also acknowledged that citizens could not be kept from arriving in their own country. The group was also given the court’s word that the right to bodily integrity could not be violated due to corona pandemic. The same goes for privacy. On December 31, another case regarding the right to personal integrity was won. For facemasks the court ruled, that such masks can only be mandatory when their effect has been documented. The accused did not produce such documentation. w 24 December 2020 - France – Mandatory facemasks (152-154)

The court rejected the decision to make wearing facemasks outdoors mandatory, as it found that it was not productive. w 23 December 2020 - Austria – Mandatory facemasks in schools (155-158)

The ordering of mandatory use of facemasks in schools was cancelled, because the authorities were unable to prove benefits scientifically. w 23 December 2020 - United States – The forced closing of a gym (159-160)

The owner of a gym won the right to stay open when the court found closure out of proportion to the danger. The constitution must prevail if there are not very compelling reasons for otherwise, the judge said. w 22 December 2020 - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Corona measures (161-163)

Referring to a European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitutional Court concluded that corona restrictions were illegal. w 11 December 2020 - South Africa - Cigarette ban (164-165)

The Western Cape High Court found that the ban on the sale of cigarettes was not sufficiently justified in view of the lack of capacity in the hospitals. The court also found that the authorities could not override the fundamental rights that the constitution entailed with reference to the corona pandemic. w 1 December 2020 - USA - Closing of religious institutions (166-167)

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the fundamental right to religious freedom in the Constitution could not be violated on the grounds of the corona pandemic. w 1 December 2020 - France – Limit on number of church visitors (168-169)

The court found that the corona restrictions were not objectively justified. w 31 October 2020 - Austria - Corona measures (174-176)


29

The Constitutional Court VfGH did not understand the professional justification given by the authorities for the corona restrictions and found a large number of them illegal because they were in conflict with the Constitution. w 11 January 2021. German court admits that lockdown is unreasonable, harmful and illegal. (180-182)

w 13 November 2020 - European Union - Impact of corona measures on fundamental rights,

democracy and the rule of law (133) The European Parliament held a hearing in which there was general concern about the threat to democracy and the violations of human rights and other fundamental rights during the corona pandemic in Member States and the rationale behind these was questioned, as well as the EU representative in each country was encouraged to be attentive conditions and follow them closely.


30

5. Question topic regarding. COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 viruses There are many preconditions that must be met for it to make sense to make corona special laws and lockdowns, with the gross violations of constitution, human rights and fundamental rights that this entails. There must initially be a virus that we can identify as the cause of the pandemic; then it must be shown that there is actually danger ahead, ie. excess mortality in society; then it must be shown that this excess mortality is due to the virus in question, and this requires i.a. that we can test scientifically unambiguously and clearly for viruses; next, we must clarify the occurrence of the disease and death the virus causes primarily through autopsies of the dead; secondly, it must be shown that there is something rational and meaningful to do against it, ie that the political measures taken are rational, ie. built on scientific knowledge. If you introduce corona special laws with lockdowns and social distancing with subsequent vaccination programs as a normalization strategy as the solution to the problem, you must simply show that this is rational and scientifically based. The need for scientific rationality is further reinforced by the fact that the government has taken up the right to perform extremely serious violations of citizens’ rights in the form of forced vaccination of citizens suspected of being infected with COVID-19 and considered a threat to health. In a professional dispute over the danger of corona SARS-CoV-2 and the nature of the present corona pandemic, the following questions are central: w Is it true, as described above, that we do not have a corona pandemic with excess mortality that can

justify special laws, social distancing, mandatory facemasks and lockdown, all of which violates our constitutional rights, human rights and fundamental rights, and that both special laws and lockdowns as well as the subsequent vaccination program to normalize the situation in society are not scientifically founded? Yes or no?

If the answer to this question is not a clear yes, but must be answered in whole or in part no, then…

1. Show us the scientific documentation (evidence) for…

a) … that SARS-CoV-2 virus is present and that it can be transmitted from human to human (as it has never been scientifically proven in an experiment that corona virus can infect a human).

b) … that SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated. c) … that the mRNA code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is known (sequenced). d) … that SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins are known and well described. e) … that SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins can be artificially created or extracted from cultured viruses. f) … that there is a specific SARS-CoV-2 virus which is the one spread during the pandemic and not

many new coronaviruses, which are constantly being supplemented by additional, newly mutated corona viruses.

g) … that the COVID-19 PCR test can distinguish accurately and precisely between the different corona virus mutations.

h) … that the antibody test for COVID-19 can distinguish between the different corona virus mutations. i) … that the other COVID-19 tests can distinguish between the different corona virus mutations


a) … that there is a well-defined disease unit called COVID-19. b) … that SARS-CoV2 causes COVID-19. c) … that COVID-19 causes excess mortality (ie is dangerous).


31

d) … that Professor Klaus Püschel's conclusion that no one died of COVID-19 from the autopsy study carried out in Hamburg on all those who had died of COVID-19 is incorrect.

e) … that COVID-19 causes a higher mortality rate than influenza (ie is more dangerous than influenza).

f) … that the excess mortality seen in certain countries is in fact due to the corona virus, and not the life-suppressing, state corona measures (special laws, etc.), as leading international experts and the scientific literature point to damage the quality of life, health and survival during corona pandemic.


a) … that the PCR test for COVID-19, which is the basis for all COVID-19 statistics worldwide and for the testing of all COVID-19 vaccines, including the mRNA vaccines, is scientifically valid.

b) … that the antibody test for COVID-19 is scientifically valid. c) … that the other tests (rapid tests, etc.) for COVID-19 are scientifically valid.


a) … that it is at all possible and that it helps in mortality to prevent the spread of infection with corona virus.

b) … that in a city where we live together, it is possible to prevent the spread of corona infection. c) … that 1) facemasks generally prevent the spread of corona infection and reduce colds and mortality;

that 2) it helps on mortality that people wear facemasks in the public space, and 3) that it does not cause bacterial pneumonia, allergies and many other things to wear facemasks, ie that the constant use of facemasks for many hours is not connected with considerable side effects, as the literature indicates is the case, 4) that there is no serious psychological damage as a result of long-term use of facemasks in public space or in the workplace, not least in the mentally ill and weak individuals. In connection with the latter, it is important to note the increasing incidence of domestic violence, suicide, and mental hospitalizations among young people in connection with the corona pandemic, as also described in the literature (); in this connection, it should be mentioned that the scientific literature points to extensive injuries in young people who are forced to wear facemasks for a long time.

d) … that the droplets we exhale carrying the virus are not smaller than the holes in the facemasks, so that it is not pointless to carry it to avoid infection with the virus.

e) … that surgical facemasks close so tightly to the face, that all or at least the dominant part of the exhaled air is filtered through it, even when it is worn loosely around the nose as almost all Danes wear it.

f) … that a facemask made of cloth which is also allowed also works. g) … that the face visor also works, although it impossibly can remove droplets carried by the exhaled

air. h) … that facemasks do NOT weaken our communication with each other when we can not see each

other's facial expressions as all psychological studies on the matter have shown is a crucial important part of body language, which as you know makes up more than 90% of our communication with each other. In particular, it must be shown that the emotional contact is NOT weakened by the facemask. The two points above are of course reinforced by social distancing, which is why the scientific evidence must also include this factor.


a) … that lockdown reduces mortality. b) … that social distancing reduces mortality. c) … that restricting the size of assembly reduces mortality. d) … that hand sanitizing , the use of plastic gloves and other hygienic measures in public spaces

reduce mortality.


32

e) … that corona special laws, corona regulations, etc. individually and in their entirety reduce mortality.

… In connection with the COVID-19 pandemic


a) … that we do not obtain herd immunity that keeps us all collectively protected when we are constantly and regularly infected with coronavirus.

b) … that virus does not mutate so fast that it is pointless to test against a single mutation, let alone vaccinate against it.

c) … that we do not benefit from being infected with the corona virus because it keeps us immune and thus healthy.

d) … that healthy people who carry the corona virus infection can infect others with so much virus that they get sick from it, as it is common knowledge from science that the cause of the disease is concentration-dependent and that a healthy carrier just releases a very small amount of virus (about 20 virus particles).


a) … that there is a corona vaccine that is effective as it can reduce infection and reduce mortality (infection mortality rate), and not just alleviate the symptoms of corona infections which we do not have to a significant degree anyway.

b) … that the corona vaccines have been scientifically tested and found safe, understood as less dangerous than the corona virus SARS-CoV-2 (if it is admitted above that corona is not dangerous at all, it must be a vaccine without any side effects). In this connection, it can be mentioned that the mRNA vaccines have currently caused 157 deaths in the USA, which means that about 1 in 10,000 die immediately in connection with the vaccine.

c) … that the corona vaccines, including Pfizer- BioNTech and Modern mRNA gene therapy, have been scientifically tested according to the applicable drug testing standards; here it must also be shown that the testing is not based on the CPR method or other scientifically invalid test methods, or on statistics based on PCR testing of the population.


33

6. Conclusion: The Corona pandemic is a false pandemic for which there is no scientific evidence and the political measures are not based on science either. Corona virus is a group of cold viruses that make up approx. 15% of all cold viruses. Corona infects about 10 times more than influenza, but is at the same time about 50 times less dangerous than influenza, leading to an infection mortality rate (IMR) of about 0.02%, however with a mortality of up to 0.5 % in people over 80 years. It must be mentioned, that science is still not entirely unambiguous about this, as some scientists base their view on autopsy findings and therefore believe that corona virus never leads to death; these scientists often also believe that the corona virus spreads quickly and asymptomatically to everyone in the community. Other scientists are of the opinion that corona virus is less contagious and more dangerous, as it can occasionally cause serious lung problems in elderly, very ill people, rarely resulting in death. However, everyone agrees that corona cannot be considered dangerous and that a corona pandemic does not lead to statistical excess mortality in a population, contrary to what is known from influenza epidemics. There are major challenges in the research of corona viruses and the possible diseases caused by these. Thus, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether a patient has SARS-CoV2 at any given time or not, as the commonly used PRC test is so flawed that in practice it is not usable to answer this question. The research shows that the number of false positives depends on the number of cycles that the PCR test (Real Time RT-PCR) runs with; for about 35 cycles or more, as is used in Denmark, there are at least 97% false positives and 1-5% positive results, which incorrectly gives the impression that there is a corona pandemic going on. As the PCR test is based on the statistics of how many people have been infected with COVID-19 in Denmark and in other countries, it can be concluded that these statistics are certainly incorrect and misleading. As the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be cultured, the virus cannot be purified and its genetic material can therefore not be determined with certainty; the mRNA sequence attributed to the virus is therefore not determined with certainty. Since SARS-CoV-2 cannot be grown, it is not possible to infect a human with a virus in an experiment, so we cannot know for sure whether this virus is pathogenic (causes disease) or what the clinical picture of this disease looks like. Thus, on a scientific basis, we can not say that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leads to COVID-19 disease, with cough, difficulty breathing and fever, as it is commonly described by the health authorities. It is also clear that the medicinal products manufactured using the COVID-19 PCR test are not manufactured on a scientific basis. An example of this is the mRNA vaccines, which should rightly be called mRNA gene therapy, which have been clinically tested using COVID-19 PCR tests. These vaccines can therefore not be said to have been scientifically tested and the product therefore does not correspond to the description of the product under which they are sold. Since the mortality of corona cannot possibly be more than a maximum of 1-2 out of 10,000 and that is the same number who die immediately from the vaccine according to the figures we have seen for this above, it is clear that the mRNA vaccine has no rationale in any case; it is simply at least as harmful as the disease it seeks to counteract. “The number of “true” COVID-19 deaths cannot be higher than 1-2 per 10,000”. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi in "Corona: False Alarm?"(76) Since we must conclude that it is not scientifically evident that there is a corona pandemic, just as it is not obvious that there are patients who have died of corona SARS-CoV-2 infection, it must also be concluded that all political measures, which have been made in connection with the corona pandemic, such as special laws on social distancing, assembly bans, mandatory facemasks, lockdowns etc. have not been made on a factual basis. In addition, there is heavy scientific evidence that these measures are harmful, both at the individual and societal level.


34

It is warned that the World Health Organization WHO works closely together with the pharmaceutical industry and receives most of its funding from it, and therefore also in connection with the corona pandemic may be affected by this industry in terms of the information and recommendations they provide to world governments, such as we have previously seen with the eg the swine flu pandemic that was incorrectly declared in 2009. We can end with a quote from our primary source (76):

What did the government do wrong?

It proclaimed a serious national epidemic that did not exist

It deprived citizens of their rights

It made random instead of evidence-based decisions

It deliberately spread fear

It implemented meaningless social distancing and meaningless mask-wearing

It ruined the economy and ruined people's livelihoods

It disrupted the health system

It inflicted enormous suffering on the population

From Sucharit Bhakdi's book "Corona: False Alarm?" (76) It is important to understand, that what happened in Germany, described in this book, and that led to these conclusions happened in completely the same way in Denmark - and many of the world’s other countries - because Germany and Denmark have followed WHO’s apparently very detailed, but unpublished (ie secret) protocol on how the coronavirus pandemic should be handled at national level.


35

It is necessary to provide additional documentation to understand how to place the responsibility for the damage during the false corona pandemic. In order to hold the Prime Minister responsible on behalf of the government for what happened during the corona pandemic, it is necessary that: 1. all public communication (from the government and ministries, councils, and government entities including, Statens Serum Institut, and Universities) and the World Health Organization and all other super state health institutions and other partners to the government regarding the coronavirus pandemic in the period January 2019 to today be presented. From this documentation, it will in all probability appear that the WHO - and possibly other super state organizations as well - are directing the government's behavior in detail in the corona pandemic without using objective and honest knowledge. We suspect that these documents erroneously, in order to politically protect them, have been classified as secret taking into account the security of the kingdom (state secrets). 2. all communication about the corona pandemic from January 2019 to today between the public sector (government and ministries, agencies, and sector research units, including Statens Serum Institut, and the Universities) and the media concerning corona, including Danmarks Radio and TV2, be presented; This will in all likelihood reveal, that we today have state censorship / government control of all major media, which seriously violates the citizens’ constitutional rights, human rights, secured rights, etc. We suspect that these documents erroneously, in order to politically protect them, have been classified as secret taking into account the security of the kingdom (state secrets).


36

EPILOGUE: Why did our politicians fail? By Prof. Dr. Med. Sucharit Bhakdi (from 76) After understanding it all, a colleague exclaimed, “But how can that be? This means of course that either our Government and their advisers must be completely ignorant or incompetent - or if they are not, well then there MUST be some intention behind it. How else can you explain all this?” Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1974 to 1982, was one of the last German politicians with class. He once said: "A governments stupidity should never be underestimated." He was right, of course, but that stupid? Really? You can and will not believe it. Therefore, one is left with the second question: what is the purpose behind all this? Politicians now wonder why “conspiracy theorists” these days seem to pop up everywhere like mushrooms. Why did our government ignore all other opinions and make decisions [during the corona pandemic] randomly and without scientific basis? Why did our government not act in the public interest and for the benefit of the people? According to Johann Giesecke, politicians will use the pandemic to promote their own positions and are therefore more than willing to implement measures that are not scientifically substantiated: “Politicians want to demonstrate their capacity for action, their capacity for decision-making and, above all, their strength. My best example of this is that the sidewalks in Asian countries were over sprayed with chlorine. This is completely useless, but it shows that the state and the authorities are doing something, and that is very important for politicians."

Documents

Report of the OOC Scientific Committee...Dr. Leonard Coldwell Dr. Med. Peer Eifler Contributors to the present report are Prof. Dr. Med Sucharit Bhakdi and Doctor Søren Ventegodt