German decision to refuse entry to vaccinated travellers highlights growing ‘inconsistencies’ of official Covid narrative

The decision by the German government last night to close entry of the country to anyone arriving from Portugal – and insist on two-weeks quarantine for all returning German nationals and residents, irrespective of their vaccine status – highlights the growing number of inconsistencies jarring with the official Covid narrative.

Last week, German scientists at two universities published the results of research to suggest PCR tests on their own are not a reliable way to manage the pandemic (click here). Their explanation centres on the tests’ high degree of fallibility due to the cycle threshold used to identify fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

The report concludes that “more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious… Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious”.

Now this week, a new European peer-reviewed study has been published suggesting the global mass-vaccination drive needs to be re-thought altogether.

This is not just because, as Germany’s decision highlights, fully-vaccinated people still ‘shed’ the virus and therefore do not stop transmission.

It is because the scientists involved in the study reached the conclusion that “for three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination” (click here). UPDATE: this ‘peer-reviewed’ study has since been retracted… 

Last week, in Portugal, minister of health Marta Temido publicly conceded that “vaccines are not miracles.

“They are a technology, a medication and they have the potential to be 70%, 80% or 90% effective”, she said. “This means that the possibility that a vaccinated person can contract the disease or serious forms of the illness is reduced in terms of probability, but there is always a risk”.

Ms Temido was talking in the context that vaccines being administered en-masse across Europe and the developed world now will likely need to be ‘reinforced’ (ie people will require further shots). 

“We don’t know much on the need for these reinforcements”, she admitted. “We are buying quantities of vaccines for 2022 and 2023 which will allow us these reinforcements”.

But if the new study – compiled by scientists and researchers in Germany (Department of Psychology, University of Witten/Herdecke, the Change Health Science Institute in Berlin and the Department of Radiation Oncology in Schweinfurt), Poland (Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Pediatric Hospital) and the Netherlands (Independent Data and Pattern Scientist based in Hoenderloo) – is taken on the basis of its findings, countries would be unwise to continue with any kind of programme of reinforcements en-masse.

The study’s bottom line can be summed up here: “The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.”

The paper’s opening, also returns to the whole reason why these “completely new technologies” that “have never been used on humans before” were so rapidly brought forwards: “The rationale for this action was that the pandemic was such a ubiquitous and dangerous threat that it warrants exceptional measures”.

This has now been brought into focus by the numbers. The vast majority of people, either those who become ill or those who are informed that they have contracted the virus, recover safely in their own homes.

Portugal currently has 30 442 active cases (according to the latest DGS bulletin). Of those 30,442 cases only 431 are in hospital.

Another very big unanswered question coming out of Germany’s decision yesterday is ‘if even fully-vaccinated people have to go into two-weeks quarantine on return home’ what will be the use of Europe’s Covid Digital Certificate, due to be officially adopted by Member States as a means of ‘free travel’ from next Thursday?

[email protected]