Mr. Assange never published false information

"Mr. Assange never published false information"
By Christian Kliver
[This open letter published on Jan 4, 2021 is translated from the German on the Internet, "Herr Assange hat niemals falsche Informationen veröffentlicht" | Telepolis (heise.de)/]

UN special reporter Nils Melzer. Image: news.un.org
Documented: Letter from UN special reporter Nils Melzer to US President Donald Trump.

On the court case against the founder of the WikiLeaks disclosure platform, Julian Assange, Telepolis documents an open letter from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, to outgoing US President Donald Trump. In it, Melzer repeatedly argues for a pardon for the 49-year-old Australian journalist, who has been imprisoned in the UK since mid-April 2019.

of violating the ban on torture with the conditions of the journalist's detention and treatment since his detention. Neither the British government nor other Western governments have responded to the evidence.

After a months-long trial overshadowed by irregularities and lack of transparency, Judge Vanessa Baraitser will announce the verdict today, Monday, at ten o'clock (local time). She will then decide whether the journalist will be extradited to the U.S., where he would face 17 charges under the Anti-Spying Act. In addition, Assange is charged in an extended indictment for computer intrusion. De facto, he faces life in prison.

Mr. President,
I respectfully request that you pardon Julian Assange.
Mr. Assange has been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty for the past decade. That is a high price to pay for the courage to publish true information about government misconduct around the world.
I have visited Mr. Assange in the maximum security Belmarsh prison in London, along with two independent doctors, and can confirm that his health has deteriorated to such an extent that his life is in danger. Critically, Mr. Assange has also been shown to be suffering from a respiratory illness that puts him at extreme risk in the Covid 19 pandemic, particularly as it has recently affected the prison where he is incarcerated.

I ask you to pardon Mr. Assange because he is not, and never has been, an enemy of the (U.S.) American people. His organization, WikiLeaks, fights secrecy and corruption around the world and therefore acts in the public interest of both the (US) American people and humanity as a whole.

I turn to you because Mr. Assange has never published false information. The cause of any reputational damage that may have resulted from his publications is not his misconduct, but the misconduct that he exposed.

I also turn to you because Mr. Assange did not hack or steal any of the information he released. He obtained it from authentic documents and sources in the same way that any other reputable and independent investigative journalist would in the course of his work. While we may personally agree or disagree with his publications, they can in no way be considered a crime.

I also address you because prosecuting Mr. Assange for publishing true information about serious official misconduct, whether in (the United States of) America or elsewhere, would amount to "shooting the ambassador" rather than correcting the problem he exposed. This would be inconsistent with the fundamental values of justice, the rule of law, and freedom of the press as enshrined in the (United States) Constitution and in international human rights instruments ratified by the United States.

I am addressing you because you, Mr. President, have vowed to fight government corruption and misconduct; and because continued prosecution of Mr. Assange would mean that, as a result of your presidency, disclosing the truth about corruption and misconduct has become a crime.

By pardoning Mr. Assange, Mr. President, you would send a clear message of justice, truth, and humanity to the (U.S.) American people and to the world.
You would be rehabilitating a brave man who has suffered more than a decade of injustice, persecution, and humiliation simply for telling the truth.

Last but not least, you would give Mr. Assange's two young sons back the loving father they need and look up to. You would be teaching these children, and through them all the children of the world, that there is nothing wrong with telling the truth, but that it is the right thing to do; that it is honorable to fight for justice and that these are indeed the values that (the United States of) America and the world stand for.
For these reasons, I respectfully appeal to you to pardon Julian Assange. Whatever our personal views and sympathies, I believe that after a decade of persecution, this man's unjust suffering must now end.

Please use your powers of pardon to right the wrongs done to Julian Assange, to end his unjust ordeal, and to reunite him with his family.
I respectfully thank you for noting this appeal with foresight, generosity, and compassion.
Please accept, Mr. Chairman, the assurance of my highest consideration.
Nils Melzer
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Christian Kliver)
______________________________________________________
On the ignored collateral damage of lockdowns
By Christof Kuhbandner
[This article published on Dec 21, 2020 is translated from the German on the Internet, Über die ignorierten Kollateralschäden von Lockdowns | Telepolis (heise.de).]

Measures against the pandemic have to be weighed against the negative consequences - which is not done enough. For example, looking at acute illness, minors, and addictive behavior. (Part 2)
As of Dec. 16, a "hard lockdown" was imposed by governments, initially to last until Jan. 10. In a series of three articles, the scientific justifications are examined in more detail. The first article addresses the lack of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns. The second article describes the collateral damage of lockdowns ignored in the professional societies' statements and the government statements, which are now supported by numerous studies. The third article uses a critical discussion of the corona case numbers published by the Robert Koch Institute to illuminate the extent to which a fear of the magnitude conveyed by governments, the media, and some scientists is really justified.

Part 1: On the lack of scientific evidence for efficacy.
What follows:
Part 3: Why we don't actually need to have extreme fears.

On December 16, public life in Germany was again drastically shut down. Retail outlets, with the exception of stores for daily needs, were forced to close, schools and kindergartens were closed, and strict contact restrictions remain in place. The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, among others, had recommended such a "hard lockdown" in its 7th ad hoc statement.
If, as a scientist, one reads the Leopoldina statement or listens to the justifications based on it in the government statements, one is greatly disconcerted: When prescribing measures for millions of people, one would actually not only assume that it has been examined to what extent the effectiveness of a measure is considered scientifically proven (for problems in this regard, see the first article in this series on the scientific justifications of the "hard lockdown": the lack of scientific evidence on effectiveness). Rather, one would still expect that the potential collateral harms of a measure have also been examined, and that the benefits of a measure have been weighed against the side effects. A measure can only be recommended if its benefits outweigh its side effects.
Problematically, both the Leopoldina statement and the government statements on lockdown regulation completely ignore the extensive collateral damage of a hard lockdown at the level of physical, mental, and social health, which has now been documented in numerous studies. The Leopoldina's statement, as well as the governments' actions, thus violates the principles of evidence-based medicine.
Ignoring the collateral damage of lockdowns
The Leopoldina statement addresses the collateral damage of a lockdown only as follows:
Although a stricter lockdown increases [economic] value-added losses in the short term, at the same time it shortens the period until new infections have decreased to the point where lockdowns become feasible.
Otherwise, no side effects are considered. This is highly questionable, as it is now empirically proven that lockdown is associated with dramatic side effects on people's physical, mental and social health.
A published article by renowned medical scientist and statistician John Ioannidis provides an initial overview of the collateral damage associated with the corona measures taken. The following table is shown there for this purpose:

Possible non-COVID-19 causes of excess deaths compounded by aggressive measures taken for COVID-19.
Cause of excess death Reason/comments Possible time horizon for excess deaths
People with AMI (acute myocardial infarction) and other acute disease not given proper hospital care Patients afraid to go to hospital and hospitals reducing admissions afraid of overload Acute, during pandemic
People with cancer having delayed treatment Postponement of cancer treatment in anticipation of COVID-19 overload Next 5 y
Disrupted cancer prevention Inability to offer cancer prevention services under aggressive measures Next 20 y
Other healthcare disruption Postponement or cancellation of elective procedures and regular care Variable for different medical conditions
Suicides Mental health disruption Both acute and long-term
Violence (domestic, homicide) Mental health disruption Acute, possibly long-term
Starvation Disruption in food production and transport Acute, and possibly worse over next several years
Tuberculosis Disruption of tuberculosis management programs Next 5 y
Childhood diseases Disruption of vaccination programs Next 5 y
Alcoholism and other diseases of despair Mental health disruption, unemployment Next 10 y
Multiple chronic diseases Unemployment, lack of health insurance and poverty Next 20 y
Lack of proper medical care Disruption of healthcare, as hospitals and health programs get financially disrupted, furlough personnel or even shut down services Next 20 y
To illustrate the magnitude of the side effects, one can first look at the excess mortality observed in Germany for the year 2020 compared to the years 2016-2019 and the number of people who died with or from the Sars-CoV-2 virus. In the figure below, the height of the blue bars shows the excess mortality or under-mortality per calendar week (number of people who died more or less compared to the average of the years 2016-2019). The height of the red bars shows the number of persons who died with and from the Sars-CoV-2 virus:

As the graph shows, since the beginning of the Corona crisis in early March, excess mortality has been observed in many weeks compared to the average number of deaths in 2016-2019. However, only 51.1 percent of this is attributable to persons who died with and from Sars-CoV-2 virus. About half of the observed excess mortality is due to other causes of death.
The argument is sometimes made here that Sars-CoV-2-related deaths are underreported. However, the opposite is probably true, because severe cases and deaths were tested for Sars-CoV-2 very comprehensively . In addition, a larger percentage of deaths listed as "Sars-CoV-2 deaths" actually died from other causes and only had a positive Sars-CoV-2 test result.
For example, according to official figures from Bavaria, only 81.8 percent of deaths statistically listed as "Sars-CoV-2 deaths" were causally related to this virus.
Studies suggest that the excess mortality observed independently of Sars-CoV-2 - apart from random seasonal variations such as those due to heat waves - is due to side effects of the measures. For example, a recent study published as a preprint on the Waldshut region of Germany found that of the excess mortality observed there in April, 45 percent was not due to people dying with or from Sars-CoV-2 virus, but to other causes of death. The authors write about this in the abstract (translation by the author):
We hypothesize that fear of becoming infected in overburdened hospitals, biased public communication and reporting, and the extent of contact restrictions contributed significantly to the decline in treated cases and excess mortality (collateral damage). For similar situations in the future, it is strongly recommended that crisis communication and media coverage be more balanced so as not to discourage people with acute health problems from seeking medical care. Contact restrictions should be critically reviewed and kept to the objectively necessary minimum.
That lockdown-induced contact restrictions can increase the risk of death is known from numerous psychological studies. For example, a 2015 meta-analysis found that social isolation increases the likelihood of death by 29 percent and loneliness increases the likelihood of death by 26 percent, regardless of whether a person perceives social isolation as such - an effect that is on the order of magnitude of the increase in risk of death from moderate smoking.
A study from Great Britain published as a preprint further shows that especially people with dementia and mental illness are affected by the negative consequences of a lockdown. Compared to the period between January and early March 2020, the likelihood of death increased by 53 percent for dementia patients and 123 percent for patients with more severe mental disorders during the lockdown period in the United Kingdom.
As numerous studies have shown, the excess mortality observed independently of Sars-CoV-2 also stems from the fact that many people with acute health problems were discouraged from leaving their homes and seeking medical help by the fear-mongering media coverage and social isolation associated with lockdowns.
The magnitude of this collateral damage is immense. For example, according to a study from the United Kingdom, the number of deaths from heart disease there increased by about 50-70 cases per day at the time of the lockdown compared to previous years. Comparatively many of these people died at home instead of in a hospital. It is possible, therefore, that many of these individuals could have been saved if they had attended a clinic in time.
Comparable findings exist with regard to other diseases such as strokes. For example, a study shows that in the USA the number of hospital admissions fell by 31 percent at the time of the lockdown compared with before. The authors write (author's translation):
Stroke therapies are time-sensitive, so reduced healthcare utilization may lead to more stroke-related disability, more fatal strokes, and more severe non-neurological complications associated with stroke.
Moreover, studies show that even among patients with heart disease admitted to hospitals, mortality rates increased substantially at the time of the lockdown. For example, a study by the Medical University of Graz found that in Styria at the time of the lockdown, compared with the previous four years, the mortality rate among patients admitted to hospitals with heart disease increased by 65 percent, and among heart attack patients by as much as 80 percent.
These increases cannot be explained by Sars-CoV-2-related effects because only 6.2 percent of patients with heart disease had a positive Sars-CoV-2 test result, and the comparatively small number of Sars-CoV-2 patients who died cannot explain the increase in mortality rates. According to the study authors, the higher in-hospital mortality rate is instead due to patients attending clinics too late at the time of lockdown, which delays life-saving treatment and increases mortality.
With respect to cancer, there is also now evidence that failure to visit hospitals due to fear-mongering reporting and social isolation during lockdowns can significantly increase mortality rates in the long term. For example, a recently published meta-analysis showed that even a four-week postponement of cancer treatment increases the risk of death by six to 13 percent, depending on the type of cancer.
For longer postponements, the effects are even more dramatic. For example, a postponement of eight weeks for breast cancer increases the risk of death by 17 percent, and a postponement of twelve weeks by 26 percent. Based on this, the study authors calculate that postponing all breast cancer surgeries by twelve weeks, for example, would result in 1,400 additional deaths per year in the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, studies show that violence against women and children is increased by lockdowns because conflicts are heightened by being forced to remain in the home, it is more difficult for the victim to escape, opportunities to seek help are reduced, and the protective and early intervention functions of instances outside the home (e.g., school) are eliminated. A published overview paper states the following (translation by the author):
"Many victims of family violence (domestic violence, child abuse, and pet abuse) may currently face a 'worst case' scenario - being trapped in an apartment with a violent person with extremely limited contact with the outside world. (...) In addition, schools, libraries, and churches are important components of family life around the world. Families who are victims of violence or abuse in the home indicate that these institutions often provide helpful emotional support and are a way to "recover" from their dire home environment - relief that they currently no longer receive. (...) Risk factors for family violence are further increased by the threat of unemployment, reduced income, limited resources, and limited social support.
Early studies suggest that the effects are dramatic. For example, according to a study in a London children's hospital, the number of children admitted for head injuries due to maltreatment increased by 1,493 percent over the lockdown period compared to the average incidence per month over the past three years, and the authors even suggest that this number is still underestimated.
There are similar findings on the frequency of sexual abuse. According to data from Ireland, the number of people who turned to rape crisis centers for counseling increased by 98 percent between March and the end of June compared to the same period last year. Again, it must be factored in that social isolation at home makes it more difficult for victims to seek help, and this number is also likely an underestimate.
In general, children in particular suffer from the effects of lockdowns. For example, the so-called COPSY study conducted by the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf found that 71 percent of children and adolescents felt burdened by contact restrictions, 27 percent reported arguing more often, and 37 percent of parents said that arguments with their children escalated more often. For 39 percent of children and adolescents, the relationship with friends worsened as a result of limited face-to-face contact, which burdened almost all respondents.
The proportion of children and adolescents with reduced health-related quality of life increased from 15 to 40 percent, and the risk for mental health problems increased from about 18 to 30 percent. Children and adolescents whose family climate is poor and whose parents have either a low level of education or a migrant background were particularly affected. This group experienced a significantly higher incidence of psychosomatic complaints, a significantly reduced quality of life, and more pronounced symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Limited school education, increasing alcohol consumption
A study published in the journal JAMA suggests that such effects can be extremely dramatic in the long term. As has been demonstrated in numerous studies, the quality and quantity of schooling affects the life expectancy of children. Longitudinal studies have shown that a loss of instruction on the scale of spring school closures can reduce the number of successful school completions, final grades, and subsequent earnings, all of which negatively affect later life expectancy.
Based on such data, the study published in JAMA estimated how many years of life will be lost in the United States as a result of school closures for affected children. According to the estimate, school closures for elementary school children could be associated with a loss of 5.53 million life years, an effect that particularly affects children from disadvantaged households.
In comparison, given that just over 88,000 people in the U.S. had died with or from Sars-CoV-2 by the end of May, it was estimated that 1.5 million life years were lost to "Sars-CoV-2 deaths." It is important to note that such estimates are subject to uncertainty. But they are an indication that serious effects are to be expected, even if they cannot yet be accurately estimated. The authors conclude from this result:
The results of this modeling suggest that attempting to save lives by closing schools may result in a greater loss of life-years in the long run, given the potential harms associated with this intervention. This lack of intergenerational equity seems unfair and deserves careful societal consideration.
Meanwhile, studies have also shown that lockdown affects people's health behaviors. According to a study from the U.S., 28 percent of people with normal drinking behavior reported that their alcohol consumption had increased compared to before the Corona crisis; among people prone to binge drinking, as many as 60 percent reported the same.
With each week of the lockdown, the ratio of people who reported alcohol excesses to people who reported no alcohol excesses increased by a factor of 1.21 (so-called odds ratio). The authors of the study write (translation by the author):
"Prolonged time at home is a stressor that affects drinking, and the Covid 19 pandemic may have exacerbated this stress."
It is important to note here that even small amounts of alcohol increase the risk of death. According to meta-analyses, the risk of death increases with even relatively small amounts of alcohol consumed per week. For example, for a forty-year-old person, life expectancy decreases by six months if they drink more than 100 grams of alcohol per week, by one to two years if they drink more than 200 grams of alcohol per week, and by six years if they drink more than 350 grams of alcohol per week.
Since the addictive potential of alcohol means that it is not unlikely that drinking behavior will change permanently as a result of lockdowne effects, long-term negative effects on life expectancy are very likely.
Studies have now also confirmed that the closures of sports clubs, gyms, swimming pools and public sports facilities imposed as part of the lockdown have a negative impact on sports and physical activity in the population. In a Germany-wide representative survey conducted by researchers at the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, 31 percent of the people surveyed said that their sports activities had been reduced very significantly when the lockdown began or that they had stopped doing sports altogether. According to the study, this was associated with negative effects on mood. The study's authors commented:
"Exercise is a good buffer against feelings such as anger and loneliness and should therefore be maintained during the pandemic as much as possible and in accordance with the rules in place."
Physical activity is also considered an important protective factor against many diseases. Four weeks ago, the WHO issued new recommendations in this regard, according to which adults, for example, should engage in at least two and a half to five hours of moderately strenuous exercise every week, regardless of age. The WHO estimates that four to five million premature deaths could be prevented worldwide each year if people were more physically active. If lockdowns change people's physical activity behavior in a more sustainable way, long-term negative effects on life expectancy are likely.
Very high collateral damage can be expected if lockdowns are associated with a collapse in the economy and loss of jobs. For example, one study shows that in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis - which may be surpassed by the looming economic crisis - there were 10,000 additional suicides in the U.S., Canada and Europe alone in 2008-2010. When one realizes that behind every suicide are many more people who are similarly burdened but do not commit suicide, it becomes clear how much suffering the measures taken can bring.
This collateral damage is expected to be enormous, especially in poorer countries that are dependent on the economic power and purchasing behavior of richer countries. A World Bank projection concludes that, as a consequence of the Corona crisis, between 88 and 115 million people worldwide have been plunged into such extreme poverty by the end of this year alone that their survival is at risk, a figure that could rise to as many as 150 million people in the coming year.
It is important to emphasize here that the collapse of the economy is not solely due to lockdowns, such negative consequences are not automatic, and countermeasures can be taken. But if we take the past as a model for what could possibly happen in the future - because countermeasures were also attempted then - extremely drastic side effects are to be expected.

Summary
In summary, given the numerous now empirically confirmed collateral harms of lockdowns, it is absolutely inadmissible not to consider the side effects and weigh them against the expected benefits when recommending or prescribing a lockdown. Accordingly, the fact that the recommendation of a major scientific society to take action does not mention collateral damage in a single syllable must be considered scandalous.
It is also highly problematic that, at least according to the government statements, only a virological perspective focused on a single virus was adopted in the governments' decisions to prescribe measures, and that the threat of collateral damage was completely ignored.
This is all the more questionable because the benefits of lockdowns to contain the spread of viruses are not supported by convincing scientific evidence, as detailed in the first article in this series on the lack of scientific justification for the "hard lockdown." That article can be found here. In the third article in this series, a more detailed analysis of the case numbers published by the RKI on new infections, deaths, and intensive care patients shows that the dramatic threat level proclaimed by governments, many media outlets, and some scientists is in fact to be considered much lower.
____________________________________________________
The world is our clinic
By Wolf Wetzel
[This article published on Dec 28, 2020 is translated from the German on the Internet, Die Welt ist unsere Klinik | Telepolis (heise.de).]

The business of fear and the inner lockdown
For the opening of the "hard lockdown" in Germany on December 16, 2020, Arte broadcast the crime thriller "The Eternal Gardener," a film adaptation of the novel "The Constant Gardener" by John le Carré (next broadcast on January 6).
The intention was to honor the famous crime writer John Le Carré, who recently passed away.
A great many novels by John Le Carré have been made into films. But this one fits exactly into the Corona era, as if someone had thought of something when choosing it. If you want to be completely cryptic, you could even suggest that this particular film is a nod to the fence post (The African Patient). The focus of this thriller is the business with fear and in which way a vaccine is brought to the "market" and how "saving lives" and "going over dead bodies" are brought together.
Knowledge about pharmaceutical companies
So, this film not only pays tribute to a brilliant crime writer. At the same time, it recalls a knowledge about pharmaceutical companies that do not care about our health, but about profit. That doesn't make them particularly evil, but successful businessmen who are measured by profit, by market share, and not by human kindness. So, this is not the dark side of capitalism, but its basic condition.
What the film shows is a "movie" that has been just as much a reality for decades: the billion-dollar business with fear, with deadly diseases, and the decades-old knowledge that pharmaceutical companies act much like the weapons industry. They promise protection, live and profit from death.
The fictional pharmaceutical company "Three Bees" in this film has the company motto: "The world is our clinic."
Those who endure to the sad end in the film get no comfort in reality. For the past few days, all the networks, all the news, all the experts have been mood-boosting for the next stage of the pandemic: The vaccine against Covid 19 has arrived and is, of course, incredibly effective, around 95 percent. We don't want to exaggerate completely.
Up to now, we have been "sensitized" primarily with images from the intensive care unit, but now - complementarily - we are seeing rescue images: We see vaccination centers springing up and hear experts talking about how the population is to be vaccinated. Some people hope that this will be achieved by spring 2021, by which they mean reaching the 70 percent mark. Then one assumes a "herd immunity".
Since then, everything has revolved around the tiresome approval of the various vaccines. One senses in this scenario that it is now a matter of overcoming "bureaucratic" obstacles. Hand on heart: who is really in favor of maintaining them? No one. And you have a majority together again.
Economic "necessities
This literally sweeps off the table the tiresome question of why other vaccines took four, six or even ten years to get approval? Was that just "bureaucratic" nitpicking or does(e) it make sense? How do you expect to capture and account for long-term effects if you don't take that time? How do you want to guarantee the reliability of a vaccine if you don't know anything about it, don't want to know anything?
Surely many virologists and physicians could have something to say about this? At least those who are invited to talk shows. Do you ask them about it? No. Do the virologists and physicians say something about it without being asked? No.
They know that there is no medical answer to this question that is even halfway based on valid and verifiable facts.
The decision to throw the vaccine on the market in such an untested way has political reasons.
I explained in the post, "The Virus, Capitalism, and Us," that the hard lockdown starting December 16, 2020, to contain the pandemic targets about 20 percent of the infectious event, the private sector. If computational and epidemiological knowledge correlate, then most contacts (i.e., transmission routes) will not be prevented by the lockdown at all, but will be deliberate.
If this analysis is correct, then we know that the claimed full lockdown mainly leaves traces in people's private lives and distracts from the fact that the main infection event is accepted.
Who exactly has demanded this strategy, who exactly has also received it, is not a big secret, certainly not a particularly secretive one: When it became apparent in November 2020 that the lockdown (light) in the private sector cannot significantly reduce the incidence of infections, Hubertus Bardt, the managing director of the Institute of the German Economy in Cologne (IW) briefly and succinctly spoke up:
Lockdown light must not be allowed to spread to industry. Although the economic impact of the current restrictions is not as severe as the lockdown in the spring, it will still cost around 17 billion euros. The crucial thing now is that the measures are neither tightened nor extended over the winter - and that industry is spared.
IW news of November 16, 2020
The call of the "economy" has largely been heeded. The "hard lockdown" for the private sector from December 12, 2020 has no epidemiological basis whatsoever, but follows economic "necessities."
The fact that a lockdown is not so much a matter of whether it is imposed light or heavy, but whether it can/will actually influence mobility, i.e. the risk of infection, is obvious even without medical knowledge.
That a lockdown in the private sector, however priced, cannot do exactly that, is scientifically not a sensation, if the studies on this would be made publicly available, if all those who advocate the "hard lockdown", with and without government mandate, would measure themselves against it.
This is exactly what Christof Kuhbandner has done in a detailed Telepolis article (Why the effectiveness of the lockdown has not been scientifically proven) and, after evaluating various studies, comes to the conclusion:

In summary, the recommendation of a hard lockdown in the 7th ad hoc statement (of the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, d.V.) is not based on any robust scientific foundation. On the one hand, only arbitrary individual examples are referred to as justification for the necessity of a hard lockdown, although comprehensive published studies exist that fundamentally question the effectiveness of lockdowns.
Christof Kuhbandner

Those who do not want to change this "strategy" have only one way out: "vaccinate" as many as possible as quickly as possible. This is compelling, all the more so if one emphasizes at every opportunity that the compelling is entirely voluntary.
"Voluntary."
Of course, it has not escaped the notice of experts, politicians and communication strategists that the confidence of the population has begun to waver, that people are no longer at all sure that the 70 percent mark will be reached entirely voluntarily.
How do you reach it anyway?
The film "The Eternal Gardener" shows how flexible the term "voluntariness" can be. But this is Africa.
So how does one do it in the First World?
One day after the John Le Carré film was broadcast, invited (permanent) guests provided a timely adaptation of the film material in a special Corona program. It must be added that with such television formats, the corridor for dissenting opinions is approximately +/- 5 percent. This means that once you invite someone who disagrees with the Corona measures, you also have someone for whom the restrictions do not go far enough to compensate.
To tune in together, the guests declared the new vaccine safe without invoking the five percent clause. When that was all clear, the question of acceptance, of trust, was on the table.
Immediately, someone from among those invited had a great idea. Celebrities should be recruited for the vaccine, not for a vaccination, but for its promotion.
Megastar Angelina Jolie was afraid of cancer and knew about hereditary predispositions. So she decided to have her breasts, uterus and fallopian tubes removed as a precaution. She made this public afterwards. The invited person proudly reported that the order books in the hospitals were full with women who wanted to do the same.
The illustrious circle of invitees was ecstatic. Yes, that's how we have to do it. We need sympathetic people. Yes, fantastic, it doesn't have to be Angelina Jolie again.
The film - as in real life - is about the marketing of a life-saving drug that was supposed to help against AIDS or against Covid 19. Some will surely object that you can't compare "back then" with today. That's true - even if the answer is anything but reassuring
In the movie, back then, Africa was the continental experimental laboratory. If something went wrong, the vaccine killed, it remained an "African" affair and we were spared images that confronted us with the consequences.
Now things are different: the vaccine against Covid 19, which is now coming onto the "market", is being tested in Europe. First come the risk groups. This is a great gesture. And a small indication that the Third World is returning to the First World.
And now back to the film:
The life of Justin Quayle, a diplomat at the British High Commission in Nairobi, is thrown off balance when his wife, Tessa, a human rights activist, is found murdered in northern Kenya. The fact that the authorities conclude that Tessa was the victim of a relationship makes it doubly difficult for the otherwise level-headed man. (…)
Justin has led a quiet life up to now and has only been able to feel honest passion for his gardening hobby and his wife. But now everything is different. Instead of going about business as usual and not allowing himself to feel anything, he is tormented by the question of who is responsible for her bestial death. Justin makes inquiries about Tessa's work; as a social worker, she was involved with the people beyond the manicured golf courses. His search for clues leads him from Nairobi to London and Berlin and back to the crisis areas of South Africa.
Everywhere he goes, he comes across the pharmaceutical company Three Bees, which offers free vaccination programs and seems to have connections right up to the very top of government.
Regardless of solid threats (...) Quayle tries to uncover the deep intrigues of the pharmaceutical company, whose AIDS drug has devastating consequences.