Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, et al
We bring to the attention of our readers details concerning the Leaked Report of Germany’s Ministry of Interior.
What is at stake is a 93 page report entitled “Analysis of Crisis Management” drafted by a scientific panel appointed by the Interior Ministry composed of medical experts from several German universities.
The report was an initiative of the Interior ministry’s Unit KM4, a department responsible for the “Protection of critical infrastructures”.
The authors of the report issued a joint press release on May 11th, berating the government for ignoring expert advise, and asking for the interior minister to officially comment upon the experts joint statement.”…
See text in German:
Joint Press Release by the external experts on the 93 page Corona study of the Federal Ministry of the Interior
May 11, 2020
“We, with astonishment, the doctors and scientists involved in the preparation of the aforementioned corona study take cognizance of the press release of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) from May 10 [which states the following]:
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 the third parties [mentioned by the BMI] are we, the undersigned
Our comments on this are as follows:
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 employee of the BMI 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 them excellent representatives of their field, gave factual statements on specific questions based on the expertise requested. This resulted in a first comprehensive 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 attachment 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 carefully weigh the possible benefits of the protective measures against the damage they cause. In our opinion, the addressed civil servants would have to 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 [our] 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 a matter of dealing with the existing factual arguments–regardless of the history of its origin.
Therefore we ask:
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?
The BMI continues in its press release:
“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 coordinated regularly with the Prime Ministers of the federal states.”
We ask the BMI:
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 that:
“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 [the undersigned] 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.
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. The entire process gives us the impression that, after a certain difficult initial phase of the epidemic, the risks [of government mandates] 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 relevant discussion that will lead to the best possible solution for the entire population with regard to the measures.
Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, University Professor of Medical Microbiology (retired), University of Mainz
Dr. med. Gunter Frank, general practitioner, member of the permanent 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, teaching physician 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