LOCKDOWN LEGAL: „Ich bin schockiert!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU2I9ZixJxo
Vom Wochenende: Friedensratschlag am Samstag und Aktionskonferenz am Sonntag
Ich habe an beiden Veranstaltungen teilgenommen. Beide wurden aufgenommen. Ihr könnt dann auf die Seiten der Veranstalter, https://friedensratschlag.de/ gehen und jetzt die Zusammenfassung und in ein paar Tagen die Reden anhören. Hier ein Auszug aus dem Friedensratschlag: Militärische Aufrüstung stoppen, Spannungen abbauen, Rassismus und Abschiebungen bekämpfen, gegenseitiges Vertrauen aufbauen, das schafft Perspektiven für Entwicklung hin zu globaler und sozialer Sicherheit. Abrüsten bleibt das Gebot der Stunde.
Und hier ein Auszug der Presseinformation der Aktionskonferenz:
Es gab zur aktuellen Koalitionsvereinbarungen unterschiedliche Gewichtungen in der Friedensbewegung. Einige meinen, es gebe wenige Lichtblicke, die – durch den Druck der Friedensbewegung – erreicht wurden. Andere betonen die Fortsetzung der bisherigen militarisierten Außenpolitik durch SPD/Grüne/FDP und befürchten die Verschärfung und Ausweitung der Konflikte besonders mit Russland und China. Bedauert wurde, dass es nicht gelungen sei, im Wahlkampf Frieden und Abrüstung zu einem wichtigen Thema zu machen.
Trotz Corona hat die Friedensbewegung in den letzten Wochen zu einigen zentralen Fragen der Friedenspolitik wie „Militarismus und Frieden in Lateinamerika und der Karibik“ und eine erste Bewertung des Afghanistankrieges mit klaren Positionen und einem Hilfsprogramm für die Hilfe für Kinder sowie zu den Aktionen zur nuklearen Bewaffnung durchgeführt. …
Online-Aktionskonferenz der Initiative „Abrüsten statt Aufrüsten“ am Sonntag, 5. Dezember 2021
Willi van Ooyen <willi.van_ooyen@t-online.de>
Friedens- und Zukunftswerkstatt e. V.
c/o Frankfurter Gewerkschaftshaus
Wilhelm-Leuschner-Str. 69 – 77
60329 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: 069 242499.50
Fax: 069 242499.51
Frieden-und-zukunft@t-online.de
Arbeitsausschuss der Initiative „abrüsten statt aufrüsten“Peter Brandt (Entspannungspolitik jetzt), Reiner Braun (International Peace Bureau), Barbara Dieckmann (Welthungerhilfe), Michael Fischer (Ver.di), Thomas Fischer (DGB), Philipp Ingenleuf (Netzwerk Friedenskooperative) Christoph von Lieven (Greenpeace), Michael Müller (Naturfreunde, Staatssekretär a. D.), Willi van Ooyen (Friedensratschlag), Miriam Rapior (BUNDjugend, Fridays for Futures), Clara Wengert (Bundesjugendring), Thomas Würdinger (IG Metall), Olaf Zimmermann. (Deutscher Kulturrat).
ich habe die Theorie, dass die Ereignisse 9/11, Covid, und die Ukraine und Gaza zusammenhängen. Dann könnte man von jedem Ereignis auf die anderen schließen. Diesmal von Covid, wo ich diese beiden Berichte von Fachleute geprüft haben möchte:
Seinerzeit die Beurteilung von Covid durch Prof Ioannidis, und letzten Sommer durch Prof. Stefan Homburg.
Umdruck: Amtliche Coronafakten

Übersetzt mit www.DeepL.com/Translator (kostenlose Version)

I’ve written about vitamin D as a potential treatment for covid-19 a couple of times before. In September of 2020 I wrote about a Spanish randomized trial that showed a massive reduction in ICU admissions in hospitalized patients treated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (a part-activated form of vitamin D). However, that study had some major weaknesses – it was completely unblinded and it was small. In other words, although the results were promising, they hardly constituted conclusive proof of a benefit.
Then, in January, I wrote about a much larger double-blind Brazilian trial that failed to show any benefit when hospitalized patients were treated with vitamin D. For many in the mainstream medical community, this study constituted conclusive proof that vitamin D is ineffective as a treatment for covid-19. However, participants in the trial weren’t given vitamin D until late in the disease course, and unlike in the previous Spanish study, they were given regular vitamin D, not the part-activated form used in the Spanish study. Since it takes several days for regular vitamin D to become activated and usable by the body, the study was more or less designed to fail from the start – whether intentionally or unintentionally. There was no realistic chance that it was ever going to show a benefit, even if one exists.
So, when I last wrote about vitamin D, in January, it was still unclear whether it had any role in the treatment of covid-19 or not. Well, has anything changed since then?
Let’s start by taking a look at the observational data. Although the randomized trials of vitamin D have been few and far between, there has been a massive amount of observational data produced. In recent months, two meta-analyses of cohort studies have been published that look at the relationship between vitamin D levels and death, one in the journal Nutrients, and another in the Nutrition Journal. For those who are unaware, a meta-analysis is a pooled study, where you take lots of different studies and pool their results together in to one, in order to get more statistically significant results. And a cohort study is a type of observational study in which you take two or more groups that vary in some specific way, such as in their vitamin D levels, and then follow them over time to see if they have different outcomes.
Interestingly, the two meta-analyses reach the exact opposite conclusions, with one claiming that if we can just get everyone up to 50 ng/ml of vitamin D in the blood stream, then we can literally prevent all covid deaths, while the other says that there is no correlation whatsoever between vitamin D levels and covid mortality.
How is this possible?
Well, the first thing to note is that the two meta-analyses vary in terms of which particular studies they include. The Nutrients study performed its data search in March, while the Nutrition Journal study performed its data search in June. This means that the Nutrition Journal meta-analysis had access to a few extra studies, which weren’t available when the first data search was conducted in March.
But that isn’t the whole explanation. The researchers have also used somewhat different search strategies, which means that each includes some studies that the other lacks. In fact, there is amazingly little overlap between the two meta-analyses in terms of which studies are included. Only two of the seven studies in the Nutrients meta-analysis are included in the Nutrition Journal meta-analysis, and only two of the eleven studies in the Nutrition Journal meta-analysis are included in the Nutrients meta-analysis. No wonder they’re able to reach such divergent results!
This really showcases how easy it is to manipulate meta-analyses so that they show what you want them to show, just by choosing the date on which you extract data and by choosing which specific search terms to use. It’s easy to keep modifying search terms slightly until you get a list that includes the studies you want in, and excludes the studies you want out. Which is why we should always be skeptical of meta-analyses, just as we are with other types of studies.
This explains why we saw a similar phenomenon earlier this year, when half the meta-analyses of ivermectin seemed to show massive benefit and the other half seemed to show no benefit whatsoever.
Meta-analyses are often considered to be the pinnacle of evidence based medicine, but considering how easy they are to game, I think that is wrong. I’d rather have a single large, well done study than a meta-analysis that consists of lots of little studies, even if that meta-analysis includes more participants overall. If all scientists were honest, then meta-analyses would be an excellent tool for determining the truth. But since we know that many scientists aren’t honest, their use is far more limited. At the end of the day we all have to do our own due diligence. The only meta-analyses that I trust fully are the ones I do myself, such as one I did earlier this year on ivermectin.
It is interesting to note though, that the Nutrition Journal study, which came to the conclusion that vitamin D had no effect, actually had results that did suggest benefit. All the included studies showed fewer deaths in the group with a higher vitamin D level, although the results were not able to reach statistical significance overall.
So we have one meta-analysis which shows a large benefit, and one which shows a trend towards benefit. Which is encouraging. Of course, these are observational studies, and so can’t really say anything about cause and effect. People with low vitamin D levels probably spend less time outdoors, which means they’re probably less physically active. And they probably consume a different diet from people with high vitamin D levels. Correlation is not causation, and even if a correlation is seen between vitamin D and death from covid in observational studies, that doesn’t mean it’s the vitamin D that’s preventing the deaths.
So, what we need is good data from randomized trials. As mentioned, the data from randomized trials that existed last time I wrote about vitamin D was limited and mixed, with the Spanish study that gave 25-hydroxyvitamin D showing massive benefit, while the Brazilian study that gave regular inactivated vitamin D showed no benefit whatsoever.
Since then, three new randomized trials have been published, one from India, one from Mexico, and one from Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, all three were small, with the largest of the three only including 87 patients. Additionally, all three gave regular inactivated vitamin D, not the part-activated form that was found to have an effect in the earlier Spanish study. In other words, the new studies don’t add anything on top of the store of knowledge that we already had in January.
So, we’re actually more or less in the same situation that we were in regarding vitamin D back in January. The observational data suggests that there is a benefit to supplementing with regular vitamin D for prophylaxis, which is in line with a systematic review that was published in the British Medical Journal in the pre-covid era, which found that people with low vitamin D levels who supplement daily with vitamin D reduce the frequency of respiratory infections by half. And the limited randomized trial data that exists suggests that the part-activated 25-hydroxyvitamin D formulation can reduce the risk of bad outcomes if given on admission to hospital. But the evidence is still too weak to draw any firm conclusions.
It’s quite shocking that more data isn’t available to answer this question conclusively at this late stage in the pandemic. I do personally think though, based on the evidence that is available, that it makes sense to take a daily vitamin D supplement. 4,000 IU (100 mcg) is a reasonable dose. It’s safe, it’s cheap, it might well help, and it can’t hurt.
——– Weitergeleitete Nachricht ——–
Betreff: |
[bundesausschuss_friedensratschlag] 28. Friedensratschlag 2021 am 4 .Dezember 2021 |
Datum: |
Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:46:19 +0100 |
Von: |
Willi van Ooyen <willi.van_ooyen@t-online.de> |
Tulpenweg 11, 38108 Braunschweig, Tel: 0049 531 350513 Mobile: 0049 176 577 47 881, https://helmutkaess.de, www.ippnw.de ,
|
|
|
In der ersten Version hier: https://www.urania.de/das-virus-die-menschen-und-das-leben
„donut“….
s Environmental Change Institute, where she teaches Environmental Change and Management, Raworth has designed a model she calls “doughnut economics.” She has presented this model at various conferences, in YouTube videos, on her website, and in a full-length book called Doughnut Economics, which the Financial Times selected as the best work on economics for 2017.

Übersetzt mit www.DeepL.com/Translator (kostenlose Version)
Grippeschutzimpfung senkt anscheinend die Gesamtsterblichkeit und schützt vor Herzifarkt…









Bitte geben Sie unten Ihre E-Mail-Adresse an, damit Sie alle künftigen Artikel direkt in Ihren Posteingang erhalten, sobald sie veröffentlicht werden.
Schließen Sie sich 37.998 anderen Abonnenten an
Übersetzt mit deepl.com

I was surprised, at first, when many heavily vaccinated countries were hit by a new wave of covid-19 at the beginning of autumn. I was surprised, that is, until I started to see studies coming out that showed that the protection offered by the vaccines is far less impressive than was initially thought, and drops to low levels after just a few months.
In light of this, I’ve been comparing covid death rates between different countries, to try to understand exactly what’s going on. Death rates are far preferrable to case rates, because they are much less variable over time. Case rates have varied enormously over the course of the pandemic as the amount of tests being carried out has changed, as the definition of what constitutes a case has changed, and as the tests themselves have changed. Case rates are therefore impossible to use as a tool for understanding how the pandemic has evolved over time. Although different countries define covid deaths differently, they tend to be pretty internally consistent over time. Death rates are thus far more reliable than case rates, and therefore far more useful for understanding how the pandemic is evolving.
So, here’s Sweden, the country I live in and therefore know best:

What we see is an initial large wave in spring of 2020 due to the initial Wuhan variant, then a drop to virtually zero deaths due to the onset of summer. It should be clear to everyone by now that covid-19 is a highly seasonal virus, which, like other winter viruses, largely vanishes from late spring to early autumn.
What we see next in the Swedish data is a resurgence of the Wuhan variant in the autumn of 2020, which begins to decline after a few months as sufficient population (a.k.a. “herd”) immunity is reached. This decline is however halted and countered by an even more rapid rise in deaths, which is due to the arrival of the British alpha variant on Swedish shores.
How can the alpha variant cause another wave if population immunity has already been reached, you might ask?
Because the threshold for population immunity is dependent on the infectiousness and transmissibility of the virus. The more transmissible a variant is, the higher the threshold for population immunity becomes. So the threshold was reached for population immunity against the Wuhan variant in December 2020, but when the alpha variant arrived, the threshold rose to a higher level, and a new bout of pandemic spread began.
Let’s get back to what we see in the graph – so, the the alpha variant quickly burns through the population and sufficient population immunity is reached against the new variant by mid-January 2021. Once again it becomes difficult for the virus to find new hosts, at which point the rate of infections drops down to a lower, more endemic seasonal level, which it remains at until the arrival of the new summer season.
For those who would like to attribute the decline in covid deaths in February to the vaccines, I would point out that only a few percent of Sweden’s population were vaccinated at this point, so the vaccines cannot have had anything to do with the decline.
After summer, the levels start to rise again to a slightly higher seasonally appropriate level, but remain at the low level you would expect for a virus that has now become endemic. Even though the highly infectious delta variant arrives in Sweden in late spring, and is by autumn totally dominant, it is not able to create a new wave, due to the high levels of pre-existing immunity.
We see very similar patterns for other places that, like Sweden, were hit hard in the spring of 2020. Here’s New York:
And here’s Lombardy, in Italy (which for some reason unfortunately isn’t showing the first few months of 2020):
Here you clearly see the first two waves caused by the Wuhan variant, then the third wave caused by the alpha variant, and then nothing, in spite of the arrival of the delta variant. The inability of the delta variant to create a new wave in these places could be explained in two ways – either it’s not sufficiently more transmissible than the alpha variant to generate a new wave in places that already have population immunity generated by the alpha variant, or the vaccines are doing their thing, for now.
Let’s turn to India, because of what it teaches us about the delta variant:
In early 2021, the Delta variant springs in to existence in India, and rapidly races through the population. Population antibody testing reveals that roughly 50% of India’s population become infected over the course of just a few months, with the proportion of the population with antibodies rapidly rising from 20% to 70%, at which point sufficient population immunity sets in for viral spread to drop down to low endemic levels. Note that the vaccines clearly had no part to play here, since, just like with Sweden, only a few percent of the population were vaccinated at the point when the death rate dropped to low levels.
Now let’s look at some countries that have suffered a fourth wave during the autumn, and try to tease out why. Here’s Israel:
Israel is able to avoid getting much covid spread during the spring of 2020. During autumn it is hit first by the original Wuhan variant, and just as population immunity to that variant reaches levels where spread is beginning to decline, the country is hit by the alpha variant, with deaths peaking in late January 2021. At that point 20% of the population are already fully vaccinated, so here the vaccine may actually have played a role in causing the death rate to turn down. That could explain why the death rate thereafter drops very low quite quickly, instead of lagging at a more endemic level all the way in to May, like in Sweden (which was much slower to vaccinate).
Covid deaths stay low throughout the summer, as we would expect. Then we come to autumn 2021, and the surprising fourth wave. Or not so surprising if you look at the data which now shows pretty clearly that vaccine effectiveness drops rapidly, even when it comes to preventing severe disease (which is especially true for the frail elderly, who are after all the only segment of the population at serious risk from covid-19).
So, Israel gets hit by a fourth wave, as do many other palces. Why are the places discussed at the beginning of this article, Sweden, Lombardy, and New York, not currently experiencing fourth waves?
As I see it, there are two possibilities. The first is that these places have developed so much natural immunity, thanks to the fact that they’ve experienced a couple of extra months of heavy spread of covid-19 during the spring of 2020, that covid is now over and done with in those places and no more big waves are coming. Israel has high rates of vaccination, but at the beginning of autumn 2021 it had experienced fewer months of pandemic spread, and thereby had a lower proportion of the population that had developed natural immunity from prior infection. It’s been pretty well established by now that the immunity conferred by infection is far more durable than the immunity conferred by vaccination, so that is a reasonabe hypothesis, now that we know the immunity generated by the vaccines is so fleeting.
It can be instructive, here, to look at Eastern Europe. The eastern European countries have been particularly hard hit this autumn. Here’s Bulgaria:
And here’s Slovakia:
Notice anything special about these places?
I think two things are important to pay attention to. First, both places were almost completely spared in the spring of 2020. Second, both places still had a high degree of viral spread when the onset of summer caused infections to drop. They thus never reached population immunity to the more infectious variants, and were thus always going to have a resurgence in the autumn of 2021.
So, the first possible explanation I mentioned for why some places are not experiencing a fourth wave is that those places now have sufficient natural population immunity, which is protecting them. The second option is that these places are currently enjoying temporary protection, afforded by the fact that they vaccinated their populations later than places like Israel. If that is the case, then they will head in to fourth waves in another month or two.
The data from Germany suggests that the first alternative is more likely to be true. Here’s what the curve for Germany looks like. It currently appears to be heading in to a fourth wave.
Notice that Germany, like Israel, was barely touched by covid-19 during the spring of 2020. Instead it had a big wave during the winter of 2020/2021, caused by the Wuhan variant. Then there was a small spike caused by the alpha variant, which grew to become the dominant strain in Germany in April. The alpha variant was however hindered from causing a big new wave by the arrival of the warmer season. During this time period, Germany mass vaccinated it’s population, with most vaccinations happening between March and June. This is very similar to Sweden, which also vaccinated most of its population between March and June.
So why is Germany experiencing a resurgence now, and Sweden isn’t?
Clearly, it can’t be due to Germany being vaccinated earlier and losing immunity earlier, since both countries vaccinated their populations at the same time. For that reason I’m inclined to favour the first hypothesis, that Sweden has built up more population immunity, for the simple reason that covid started spreading massively in Sweden in spring of 2020, but didn’t start spreading properly in Germany until autumn of 2020. So, although the effect of the vaccines has already waned in both countries, Sweden is protected by its widespread natural population immunity, while Germany isn’t. If that is the case, then Sweden shouldn’t see another big wave. In another month or two we’ll know what the truth of the matter is.
Büro: +43 1 514 36 6806
Antonius.vandenbrandt@osce.org