A voice against can change your life

theme - Corona

"Many people are afraid because the approval process is so fast. That's true, but it was only accelerated by shortening administrative processes. However, the many security tests are not affected ..."

Mailab also represents this, among other things, and there was also enough criticism of some of their allegations, such as that of Clemens Arvey, who mainly dealt with one assertion in a differentiated manner. That this early approval is in no way inferior in terms of security - which he vehemently denies.
He mentions inter alia. Examples of long-term studies that were about to be approved and then unexpectedly showed complications with rare pre-existing conditions. Arvey did not criticize the good work of the researchers, nor that the approval granted a fairly high level of safety, but given that vaccination is now being carried out worldwide, a complication that has fallen through the grid could prove to be a major problem in the near future.
Everyone to whom the term supervenience means something knows about the limitations of the predictability of medical studies. The term supervenience finds among other things. It is conceptually justified there, if it is to be brought explicitly to the attention that numerous variables and combinations of variables can cause an effect. The cross-action of many drugs is well documented, but documentation is much more difficult if cell-damaging, degenerative processes are not or only partially recorded and therefore cannot be linked, if at some point later, for example. Cancer is diagnosed.

It is good to mention that, with very few exceptions, Corona critics do not criticize our constitution or our Basic Law in any way, but political decision-makers do set things in motion where a conflict of interest is visible or lobbyists who hold their political office Know how to monetize, without shame, politically correct, but not for the benefit of the taxpayer. Corruption, left ideology, we see that among politicians too. Only this much, the political caste (not meant derogatory) is not closer to our constitution than the common citizen, nor are politicians morally better people.

But whenever so-called facts are cited, there is a face or an institution behind it. That from Prof Lesch, from Mailab, from any influencers or from our Chancellor who demands our trust.

I believe in the values ​​of our constitution because I understand them, but very little in politicians, or not more than the common people on the street.

I am neither interested in Merkel's gut feeling, nor in know-it-all summaries, from people whose professional competence lies elsewhere and whose ego often does not allow them to see the other person as something other than someone to whom the simplest things have to be explained in a fatherly way. None of this has anything to do with an equal interlocutor.

For the sake of clarity, in order to be able to assess the appropriateness of the Corona measures, an open and fair discourse should have taken place, with well-known critics, not with selected street acquaintances who, to the joy of the reporter, muscled, wave their Weimar flag at the camera.

How would the debate have gone if public media had known critics of the corona measures such as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg to the table, in a format like 3 against 3, without a Lanz who ostensibly summarizes the truth and without spectators who boo or clap on command? Absolutely utopian in our media landscape, where political decisions have long been fixed in their direction and only briefly boil up as open questions in talk shows so that the citizen feels involved in the decision-making process.

Perhaps krtik turns out to be unwarranted, but we will never know that without depth. Those who see their careers established in this monopoly of opinion in the public service will understandably not feel particularly motivated to demand the authorization of critical voices. Critical questions that have been circulating on the Internet for a long time will at some point be answered by an official body, but only rudimentary and often do not even get to the core of the problem because there is no questioning.