Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg accuses the ones responsible for the lockdown of opportunism and a lack of medical knowledge.
Tilo Gräser interviews Wolfgang Wodarg (Germany)
(Creative Commons 4.0 Rubikon)
Why is the knowledge about the «nature» of viruses in so short supply, even among supposed experts? Why is the opposition failing completely during the most serious attack on democracy in 75 years? And why does almost everyone play along in this perfidious game, even though the weaknesses in the narrative are now all too obvious? The medical doctor and epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg was an early critic of the anti-corona measures and warned about creating unnecessary panic around the Sars-Cov 2 virus and its consequences. He supports the work of the Corona Legal Committee, which is preparing legal action, as a technical advisor. At the committee press conference last Friday, he answered our questions.
Sputnik: Dr. Wodarg, you warned early about creation of panic around the new Sars Cov-2 virus. Why? How do you assess the situation today?
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg: I’ve been watching what happens in the flu season regularly for 40 years. That means that I always try to estimate how it will be this year, based on my professional background and my training. I regularly look at the data from the Robert Koch Institute, the data from other international institutes. I did that this year too.
And when I then read what we were shown there in China, I naturally became suspicious again, because I know that the pathogens and the people they need as hosts have a certain relationship to each other and that there are feedback processes that stabilize this pathogen-host relationship. A lot would have to change in living conditions if this symbiosis were to derail. For example, in the food industry we have had factory farming for many years. Factory farming is something new for the virus and also for everyone who has to deal with it. This naturally creates a new dynamic of infection – but only in the area of factory farming.
There is a so-called zoonoses, which mean that if people are very heavily exposed to these animal viruses, they can jump across- a market in China wouldn’t be sufficient, but we are talking of a giant hall full of pigs, a giant hall full of chickens. If viruses multiply there, people can also get sick. This is a question of the amount of pathogens. But that is zoonoses. That was the case with bird flu. However, we have had no more than a few hundred cases so far.
This virologist’s fantasy that the viruses will change so that they can kill millions of people is ecological nonsense. The viruses won’t do that. Because the viruses need us to survive, for them to reproduce.
But when if you’re a virologist, you’re looking at molecules, not ecology.
Q: But then the proponents and apologists for these containment measures say: We have to do this because it is a brand new virus that no one has known before. The virologist Karin Mölling said in an interview that the virus may have been there for a long time, but that it was only now that it was looked at. You have drawn attention to similar information. There are now studies that say that it may have been there before, in Barcelona and other places.
You know, viruses are constantly changing. We humans multiply and our children look different than we do. This is also the case with viruses. There are many genetic changes in viruses. Since Wuhan, there have been several hundred genetic changes in the coronavirus alone. That is, there are certain parts that you can recognize a corona virus by. That is, this species has certain things in common. It always depends on what you are talking about, what they have in common and whether it is medically relevant.
A second question is, if we now look for viruses and search for them, then we are looking for certain special features on their surface or inside. That is, we look at certain characteristics that we are searching for. If we measure something that earlier viruses already had, we will also find earlier viruses with it. When researchers analyze a feature that appears new to them, it may be – as has now happened in Wuhan – that they have chosen something that is not so new because it was already there in other viruses, that they just didn’t know about them. That is to say, there are more viruses than those registered in the database.
Q: Would you see the actual situation, the decline in infections, the so-called case numbers, the number of underutilized intensive care beds, as confirmation of your warning about the scaremongering?
You know, there are disease processes, there are health care strategies, and there are financial incentives for the behavior of doctors and hospitals. So there are so many factors that play a role in what ultimately happens. If I know that the hospitals receive 560 Euros per day for an empty bed, or 50,000 Euros for each new intensive care bed, this is of course a huge mistake. Then beds are placed there, for the employees then to be sent on short-time work and the beds to stand empty.
Nobody who benefits from all this, complains about it. There have been false incentives and undesirable developments that have had nothing to do with the disease. If one sees that other people have not been treated because of this, that people with painful illnesses or cancer didn’t go to checkups and that things have happened that have caused additional complications, then you can justifiably get angry. Then it is a criminally wrong setting of priorities. Then the decision was wrong, and that caused harm to people.
I think that what we saw was quite simply disproportionate, that the politicians failed. And that the wrong incentives were created and that such collateral damage was accepted. I have not seen any reason why we need more intensive care beds. For example, in 2017/18, when we had a strong flu wave, our health system handled it. At that time, however, the health system in Italy did not. In 2018 there was no panic here, people were not afraid.
That time, the nursing staff from Eastern Europe who worked with us or in Italy did not run away. That means that when it came to a lockdown, we had so many developments at the same time that the care deteriorated. The collateral damages from this panic are massive. What we see in mortality rates or in the development of mortality in the individual countries has nothing to do with viruses, but has something to do with the reaction to this panic.
Q: As a member of the German Parliament, you witnessed the events surrounding the 2009 swine flu and the failed vaccinations. You were later able to encourage an official committee of inquiry. Are there any parallels between the events?
I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Back then, I requested the committee of inquiry, planned it, and also followed it. In this committee, we primarily dealt with the role of the WHO in the so-called pandemic preparedness, the preparation for a pandemic.
Since the bird flu and SARS, the WHO has been thinking about what would be necessary if a serious infection were to happen. This process has been to a high degree sponsored by the vaccine industry right from the start.
Bill Gates and those who sniffed out good business opportunities were always present. Just think of Tamiflu, think of those billions thrown out the window.
I already observed that back then, and when I saw the swine flu, I realized that it was not any unusual flu. It was a flu like any other. And I saw what was going on in Mexico, how it was exaggerated, much like it happened in Wuhan now. It is always the same tricks that are staged.
Companies are hired for this, as in Mexico. In China the state may have done that, but it also profited from it. China was able to buy cheap oil and resources in spring. China has supplied itself with plenty of cheap oil because the economy has collapsed everywhere else. The Chinese have used their advantages.
On the other hand, what are the interests behind this approach, behind the pandemic, and also behind control of the population?
There has been a concerted effort by the pharmaceutical industry for personal patient information for about ten years. It all is classified under the label «Individualized Medicine». This is of course also a business model, because when you individualize medicine, it becomes like in homeopathy. In individualized medicine, this individualization is molecular; and in homeopathy this is through an intensive anamnesis. In both cases, no one can demonstrate evidence-based benefits, because randomized double-blind studies are not possible. They are individual decisions that cannot be generalized.
The pharmaceutical industry is therefore very interested in this, because it can then sell us everything. It also shows which people may have health risks. If you have the data, you can scare the person concerned; tell them that they are in danger: Oh, we saw that you have bad genes and therefore you have a risk for this and that – and we have something for you here.
So that the samples from the test can create more profit for those who do it?
The samples that are taken may only be used for the purpose for which they were taken, i.e. only for this corona diagnosis. But the samples are not made by the state, but by private companies. So I ask the data protection agency: How do they ensure that private companies do not sequence, misuse and sell this genetic data? They are very expensive. Strangely, the Federal Government just in January this year signed that it would join the European Union’s One Million Genomes Program. And now they let our genomes – whether wanted or not – be collected with every throat swab.
Q: The genetic data is collected with the address, so that it can always be assigned…
If they test someone, they must of course know who it is, because they may want to quarantine infected people. Of course they then have all have personal data and they have access to the whole genome. That fits perfectly into the electronic patient file. Leyck Dieken, the head of Gematik, announced this very openly in an interview: We will find legal ways to put the genetic data, the biological details of people, in this electronic patient record. This One Million Genomes Program is one such approach. It all goes in that direction. It is the declared goal of the pharmaceutical industry to develop individualized medicine based on very, very large amounts of genetic data.
Q: Again about your experience with the swine flu committee in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: how difficult is it to shed light upon something like this, such relationships, backgrounds and also the economic interests?
That depends on who is shedding the light. If you have a right to shed light upon things and if you have a right to freedom of information where no one can avoid you, if you are a persistent investigative journalist who has to be answered or to be embarrassed if one doesn’t, you have more power than any civil organization or association. What we need is for courts to start dealing with this. What the Corona Committee can do is collect material so that openings to legal action are available, so that victims and their lawyers can approach the courts with the right questions, so that they can then provide further evidence.
Q:Why are there currently no political initiatives for a committee of inquiry in Germany in view of the massive consequences from the pandemic?
I’m not a specialist …
Q:… but as a former politician.
I am very shocked that what distinguishes democracy is not currently working. We have no real opposition. I don’t take the [right-wing party] AfD seriously because it misuses the topic for reasons of power tactics. They could have dealt with such issues earlier.
I think it is the case at the moment that those who are striving for political power are currently not expecting anyone to dig deeper into this. If a party now introduced reason to the political scaremongers, by asking prudent and critical questions, they would be able to gather many votes. So we have to get the population to ask politicians to do that.
Q: How do you support the committee?
I advise it, and I am available if there are any questions that I can answer.