Hero of the Week: June 1, 2020 – Stephen Kohn

3 Comments

1. I was able to translate the RT Deutsch article:

   “A critical analysis from the Ministry of the Interior on corona crisis management was dismissed by the BMI as an individual opinion of an employee. The experts involved in the development of the paper are now opposing this. The BMI had to deal with the factual arguments.
   After becoming aware of an analysis from Department KM4 of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI), in which state crisis management in the Corona crisis was sharply criticized, the ministry stated in a press release that an employee “uses the BMI letterhead and the official communication channels spread his critical private opinion on the federal government’s corona crisis management “.
   The doctors and scientists, whose expertise the Oberregierungsrat had resorted to, now turn against this presentation. RT German documents the joint press release of the experts.”
   “We, with astonishment, the doctors and scientists involved in the preparation of the aforementioned corona paper, take the press release of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) from May 10:
   BMI employees disseminate private opinion on corona crisis management – elaboration was carried out outside of responsibility and without a mandate and authorization
   note. The Ministry writes in this press release: “To the best of our knowledge, the drafting has also involved third parties outside the BMI.” We assume that with third parties we, the undersigned, are meant.”
   “We assume that the BMI has a great interest in ensuring that its specialists, who are entrusted with the extremely important task of recognizing critical developments and averting damage to Germany through timely warnings, act both on a specific order and on their own initiative. The relevant BMI employee contacted us when preparing the risk analysis to assess the medical collateral damage caused by the “corona measures”.
   “Supported by responsibility, we support the committed BMI staff in examining this essential question to the best of their knowledge and belief, in addition to our actual professional activity. Renowned colleagues, all of whom are excellent representatives of their field, gave factual statements on specific questions based on the expertise requested. This resulted in a first extensive assessment of the medical damage that has already occurred and the threat of it, including expected deaths.”

   “The BMI employee made an assessment based on our work and forwarded the result to the responsible bodies. You can find the relevant document in the appendix to this press release. There is no question that this can only be the beginning of an even more extensive examination due to the short time. But in our opinion, our analysis offers a good starting point for the BMI and the interior ministries of the federal states to weigh up the possible benefits of the protective measures against the damage they cause. In our opinion, the addressed officials should initiate an immediate reassessment of the protective measures based on this paper, for which we also offer our advice.”

   “The BMI clearly states in the press release that it will not take this analysis into account. It is incomprehensible to us that the responsible Federal Ministry would like to ignore such an important assessment based on extensive technical expertise. Due to the seriousness of the situation, it must be dealt with the present factual arguments – regardless of the history of its origin.”

   “Why did the BMI not support the employee’s request and why does the BMI not include the extensive analysis now available on the basis of high-quality external expertise in its assessment of the relationship between the benefits and harm of the corona protective measures?”

   “As a result of the risk of corona infection, the Federal Government has taken measures to protect the population. These are continuously weighed up within the Federal Government and regularly coordinated with the Prime Ministers of the federal states.”

   “to tell us in a timely manner how exactly this weighing up is taking place. We ask you to prove this on the basis of data, facts and sources. We would like to compare this with our analysis. In view of the currently sometimes catastrophic patient care, we would be reassured if this analysis leads to a different assessment than ours, which we currently find difficult to imagine.”

   “The BMI also writes:”
   “The infection rate in Germany has so far been relatively low in international comparison. The measures taken are effective.”
   “In accordance with the international specialist literature, we only partially share this statement regarding the effectiveness of the protective measures. We therefore ask the BMI for transparency:
   to disclose the sources according to which this determination is made.”
   “Conclusion:
   Overall, at the request of a courageous BMI employee, we have shown the varied and serious undesirable effects of corona protective measures in the medical field, and these are serious. For us, the entire process gives the impression that after a certainly difficult initial phase of the epidemic, the risks have not been considered to the necessary extent, and in particular not in a comprehensive risk assessment. With regard to the reporting on this process, we ask that you place the value of our analysis at the center and report appropriately on us, in office and in person, to the serious situation.”
   “The disease COVID-19 triggered by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is serious for many people in the known risk groups. As with any serious infectious disease, it is important to find the best treatment for the patient and prevent infection routes. But therapeutic and preventive measures must never be more harmful than the disease itself. The aim must be to protect the risk groups without endangering medical care and the health of the general population, as is unfortunately the case right now. We in science and practice as well as many colleagues experience the consequential damage of the corona protective measures to our patients every day. We therefore ask the Federal Ministry of the Interior to comment on our press release and hope for a pertinent discussion that will lead to the best possible solution for the entire population with regard to the measures.”

   Signed:
   Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, University Professor of Medical Microbiology (retired), University of Mainz
   Dr. med. Gunter Frank, general practitioner, member of the standing guidelines commission of the German Society for Family Medicine and General Medicine (DEGAM), Heidelberg
   Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. rer. pole. Dipl.-Soz. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, Emeritus of Social Sciences at the University of Bremen
   Prof. Dr. Stefan W. Hockertz, tpi consult GmbH, former director of the Institute for Experimental Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University Hospital Eppendorf
   Prof. Dr. Dr. rer. nat. (USA) Andreas S. Lübbe, medical director of the MZG-Westphalia, chief physician at the Cecilien-Klinik
   Prof. Dr. Karina Reiss, Department of Dermatology and Allergology University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein
   Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmacher, Professor of Pathology, Heidelberg, member of the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
   Prof. Dr. Andreas Sönnichsen, Deputy Curriculum Director of the Medical University of Vienna, Department of General Medicine and Family Medicine.
   Dr. med. Til Uebel, resident general practitioner, specialist in general medicine, diabetology, emergency medicine, teacher at the Institute of General Medicine at the University of Würzburg, academic teaching practice at the University of Heidelberg
   Prof. Dr. Dr. phil. Harald Walach, Prof. Medical University of Poznan, Dept. Pediatric Gastroenterology, visiting professor. University of Witten-Herdecke, Dept. Psychology 4

   “Overview of the health effects (damage) of the government-imposed measures and restrictions in the Corona Crisis 2020 (as of May 7, 2020 fin)
   Methodological preliminary remarks
   Risks are listed that have been considered plausible by 10 high-ranking experts / scientists in the respective disciplines. The experts were selected at random, so the result cannot be representative.
   It is important for the future systematic recording of collateral damage in the health of the pandemic to consult at least specialists from the scientific disciplines involved. Otherwise, a realistic overall inventory is not possible.”
   1. Deaths
   a) Operations postponed or canceled due to limitations in hospital availability (and treatment options):
   b) Follow-up treatment of patients (e.g. cancer, stroke or heart attack) postponed or canceled due to limitations in hospital availability (and treatment options):
   Overall, we had a total of approximately 17 million fully inpatients with ORs in 2018. That is an average of 1.4 million patients per month. In March and April, 90 percent of all necessary surgeries were postponed or not carried out. That means 2.5 million people were not cared for as a result of government measures. So 2.5 million patients were not operated on in March and April 2020, although this would have been necessary. The expected death rate cannot be assessed seriously; Experts assume that there are numbers between 5,000 and up to 125,000 patients who will die / have already died due to the postponed surgery.
   The negative effects of interrupted care structures in tumor patients, be it cancer follow-up or interrupted cancer prevention programs, such as breast cancer, are obvious, because these measures have proven their usefulness in long studies and have been established on this basis.
   It can also be assumed here that millions of treatments are treated annually. In some cases, the availability restrictions of the clinics will also lead to the premature death of patients. It is difficult to predict this effect. Experts who commented on the fact that up to several thousand additional deaths were expected to die in March and April 2020 or will continue to do so.
   Read more: “Viruses”, masks, tests, vaccinations – the “new normal” in the corona crisis
   c) In the case of care for those in need of care (a total of 3.5 million people in DEU), the level of care and the quality of care (in care facilities, in outpatient care services as well as in private / family care) decrease due to restrictions imposed by the state. Since the good level of care in DEU has been proven to save many people from premature death (which is why so much money is spent on this), the drop in levels enforced in March and April 2020 will have triggered premature deaths. For 3.5 million people in need of care, an additional death rate of one tenth of a percent would result in an additional 3,500 deaths. In the absence of more precise estimates, it is not known whether there are more or fewer.
   d) increases in suicides (previously an average of 9,000 per year); Reasons for the increase in suicides: long-term significant impairment of all living conditions, which can become critical for mentally unstable personalities; but numerous suicides as a reaction to the economic destruction of livelihoods can also be expected; Various professional groups that do not feel able to cope with the burden of social and personal changes and their personal (joint) responsibility.
   e) Additional deaths from heart attack and stroke. Over the past years and decades, integrated concepts have been developed that have successfully influenced morbidity and mortality and are based on the fact that care is provided as early as possible (in the course of the disease), as quickly as possible (time to care) and as competently as possible. These inter-sectoral / -disciplinary chains are damaged in many ways (outpatient care, deprivation of resources) and also suffer from the fact that due to one-sided and exaggerated information policy, those affected unjustifiably fear Corona more than these diseases and suppress and also fear warning signs with them Diseases in the current corona fixation are not being treated well in hospital. As a consequence, many affected people are currently not / too late to see a doctor, which means increased morbidity, worse rehabilitation and increased mortality in these diseases.
   2. Other damage to health (associated with suffering for those affected and high cost effects for the social security systems, the health system and the labor market)
   a) Old people / people in need of special care, especially in their contacts, are affected by the measures and often suffer severely from them. The measures taken (border closings, quarantine regulations, bans on contacts, etc.) adversely affect the previously critical outpatient / inpatient care situation (thus also optimal care in relation to corona)
   b) Psychoses requiring treatment (more severe), neuroses (fears, obsessive-compulsive disorders, …) due to long-term significant impairment of all living conditions, which will trigger illnesses for mentally unstable personalities; Long-term medical treatments and rehabilitation services are necessary to compensate for these impairments, and there are health-related lost days. 1 to 2 percent of the German population as a whole experience psychosis at least once in their life. If there is a disposition or vulnerability, there is an increased likelihood that this will manifest itself under the framework of the corona crisis.
   c) more disputes and personal injuries as a result of strong contact restrictions and contact bans; Domestic violence, child abuse
   d) widespread communication disorders (due to psychological effects, see above, and also e.g. due to the compulsion to wear face masks, through which gestures and facial expressions are severely restricted as a means of communication (leads to misunderstandings, mistrust, …)
   Read more: Aluhut alarm at federal press conference: BILD chief reporter sees Kremlin behind “hygiene demos”
   3) (depending on economic / economic development 🙂 Loss of life expectancy. In the long term, this is likely to cause greater damage to the crisis. Since the 1950s, DEU has seen a significant increase in life expectancy due to positive economic developments (average life span 13 to 14 years longer). The constantly rising level of prosperity made it possible for a. increasingly complex health care and care. With a strongly negative economic development and a corresponding reduction in the level of prosperity, the development goes in the opposite direction: life expectancy will decrease. (The RKI has shown that high unemployment lowers life expectancy.) With over 80 million inhabitants, state protection measures (not the virus) can have destroyed a correspondingly high volume of the population’s life years.
   Most of the above Common to all effects is that even after the restrictions have been lifted, it will take a long time for these measures and treatments to return to their previous level, since all the interlinking elements must be functional again, the resources must be (re) allocated and also trust the patient needs to be restored. For the rest, there can sometimes be opposite, at first glance, paradoxical reactions. The damage phase is therefore likely to last much longer than the actual interruption. If life expectancy is shortened in the future, the damage will only start in the future.
   Since, in theory, at least partially, opposing effects must also be expected – that is, at first glance, paradoxical reactions – precise numerical estimates of expected damage events have not been made. With the numbers mentioned, size dimensions are shown.

   1. Thank you so much for posting. The guy that leaked it is Hero of the Week. Very courageous and very important. Not surprised the participants are backpeddling. An indication of the pressure that is being applied. What it world this would be if they instead stood up and do the right thing instead of helping the Desk Killers.

      1. The monster in the shadows is real…but when light is applied, we can see that it is part mirror and part people in silly costumes. Like you said, let the wave roll over, prepare and get back up again.

Comments are closed.