Sincerely Independent News & Opinions

Keep us in the air to fight for freedom

Editor ARD: “I can no longer be silent!”

Share our articles and break the censorship

I am no longer participating in this scam!

In an open letter, an ARD employee is critical of one and a half years of corona reporting: Ole Skambraks has been working as an editor and editor at the public broadcaster for 12 years.

We translated Ole's open letter:

I can no longer be silent. I can no longer tacitly accept what has been going on at my employer, the public broadcaster, for a year and a half. In the statutes and state media treaties, things like 'balance', 'social cohesion' and 'diversity' are anchored in the reporting. The opposite is practiced. There is no discussion and exchange in which all parts of society can find themselves.

I was of the opinion from the outset that public service broadcasting should fill exactly this space: promoting dialogue between proponents and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their fundamental rights, between corona- vaccination proponents and skeptics. But since a year and a half the space for discussion considerably become smaller.

Scientists who were respected and appreciated in the time before Corona, who were given space in the public debate, are suddenly crazy, alu hats or Covidiots.

As a frequently cited example, reference is made to Wolfgang Wodarg.

Wolfgang Wodarg

He is a versatile specialist, epidemiologist and health politician for many years. Until the corona crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International.

In 2010, as chairman of the health committee in the Council of Europe, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the swine flu pandemic. At that time he could in person give his opinion about public broadcasting, since Corona this is no longer possible.

So-called fact-checkers have taken his place and are bringing him in discredit.

Crippling Consensus

Instead of an open exchange of views, a “scientific consensus” proclaimed , which must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and advocates a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic deserves outrage and anger.

This pattern also works within the editorial offices. I haven't been involved with the daily news for a year and a half, which I am very happy about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are implemented and how. Here I describe my perception of editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time I did not dare to step out of the role of observer, the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unison.

For a few months now, I've been treading thin ice and making critical remarks here and there at conferences. This is often followed by a worried silence, sometimes a “thanks for the hint” and sometimes a diatribe as to why this is not so. Reporting never came out of this.

The result of a year and a half of Corona is a dichotomy in society that is unparalleled. The public broadcaster plays a major role in this. He fulfills his responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote less and less exchange.

The argument is often made that the critics represent a small, negligible minority, which should not be given too much space for reasons of proportionality. This must be refuted after the referendum in Switzerland on the corona measures at the latest.

While there is also no free exchange of opinion in the mass media, the vote only ended at 60:40 for the government . (1) Is it possible to speak of a small minority in 40% of the votes cast? It should also be mentioned that the Swiss government had linked the corona aid payments to the vote, which could influence the decision of some to tick "Yes".

The developments in this crisis are taking place on so many levels and touching all parts of society that we now need not less, but more free space for debate.

It is not revealing what is discussed on the public broadcaster, but what goes unmentioned. The reasons for this are diverse and require honest internal analysis. The publications of the media scientist and former MDR Broadcasting councilor Uwe Krüger can help with this, such as his book “Mainstream – Why we no longer trust the media” .

In any case, it takes some courage to swim against the tide in conferences where topics are discussed and discussed. Often the one who can present his arguments the most eloquently has the upper hand, when in doubt the editors decide. Very early on, the comparison was made that criticism of the government's corona course belongs to the right-wing spectrum. What editor dares to express a thought in this direction?

Open questions

The list of inconsistencies and unanswered questions that have not received substantial coverage is very large:

  • Why do we know so little about function gain research (research into how viruses can be made more dangerous for humans)?
  • Why does the new Infection Protection Act that the fundamental right to physical integrity and the inviolability of the home can henceforth be limited – regardless of a epidemic situation ?
  • Why should people who have already had Covid-19 re-vaccinate while they are be at least as well protected as people who are vaccinated?
  • Why is “Event 201” and the global pandemic exercises in the run-up to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 not or only in connection with conspiracy myths? (2)
  • Why is it internal document of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, known to the media, not fully published - and discussed publicly, demanding that authorities should create a "shock effect" to reduce the effects of the corona pandemic on human society?
  • Why does the research of Prof. Ioannidis by survival rate (99,41% among 70-year-olds) no headlines, but the fatal wrong forecasts from Imperial College (Neil Fergusson predicted half a million corona deaths in the UK and then 2020 million in the US in the spring of 2)?
  • Why does in an expert report prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health that the occupancy rate of hospitals in 2020 by Covid-19 patients only 2% wax ?
  • Why does Bremen have by far the highest incidence (113 on 4, 21 October) and at the same time by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?
  • Why have payments of €4 million been received into a family account of EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who was responsible for signing the first EU vaccine contracts with the pharmaceutical companies? (3)
  • Why aren't people with severe vaccine side effects portrayed to the same extent in 2020 as those with severe Covid-19 courses? (4)
  • Why does the unclean counting method for “vaccination breakthroughs” bother anyone? (5)
  • Why does the Netherlands report significantly more side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines than other countries?
  • Why is the description of the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines on the website of the Paul Ehrlich Institute changed three times in the past few weeks? “COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” (August 15, 2021) “COVID-19 vaccines protect against a severe course of SARS-CoV-2 virus.” (September 7, 2021) “COVID-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunization to prevent the disease COVID-2 caused by the SARS-CoV-19 virus.” (September 27, 2021) (6)


All obvious questions that we have all been asking for almost 2 years now (ed. CSTV)

I would like to elaborate on a few points.

“Feature Gain” and “Lablek”

“Function gain research” – that is research to make viruses more dangerous, which was conducted at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China and funded by the US – I haven't heard or read anything substantial to this day.

This research takes place in so-called P4 laboratories, which have been working for decades on how viruses that occur in the animal kingdom can be modified in such a way that they are also dangerous to humans. Have so far ARD en  ZDF amply given on this topic – even if there is clearly a need for discussion here. A first question to be addressed could be, for example: Do we as a society want such research?


There are now numerous reports of the “lab leak theory” – ie the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 comes from a lab.

It should be noted that this topic was immediately branded as a conspiracy myth last year. Alternative media that followed this track have been banned from social networks such as YouTube en Twitter and the information has been deleted.

Scientists who have made this statement have been attacked en masse. Today, the “lab leak theory” at least as plausible as transmission by a bat.

American investigative journalist Paul Thacker has the British Medical Journal the results of his meticulous research published.

Click here writes Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser, Professor of Health Sciences at the University of Hamburg:

“He [Thacker] shows step by step how the operators of a US lab group deliberately develop a conspiracy theory to disguise their lab accident in Wuhan as a conspiracy. The myth is supported by renowned journals such as the Lancet. Science journalists and fact-checking service providers take over the information without thinking. Participating scientists remain silent for fear of losing prestige and research funding. For nearly a year, Facebook blocked posts questioning the natural origins of SARS-CoV-2. Should the laboratory accident claim be confirmed, then  ZDF and other media have defended conspiracy myths.”

Ivermectin and Alternatives to Vaccination

It has also been clear for months that there effective en cheap treatments are for Covid-19 that should not be used.

The information on this is clear. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these drugs are indicative of the state of our medicine. Hydroxychloroquine has been known for decades and has been used millions of times for malaria and rheumatic diseases. Last year it was suddenly declared dangerous. President's statement <br><br>Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine was a “game changer” discredited the rest.

Political reasoning no longer allowed scientific discussion of HCQ.

All media reported extensively in the spring about the catastrophic situation in India due to the spread of the delta variant (at that time there was still talk of the Indian variant of the virus). That India had the situation under control relatively quickly and that the drug ivermectin was a played a decisive role in large states like Uttar Pradesh, there was no more to report. (7)

Ivermectin also has preliminary approval for the treatment of Covid-19 patients in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The MDR Television reports about this in any case, albeit with a negative connotation.

Ivermectin becomes not even mentioned in Bayerischer Rundfunk's list of possible drugs, and only negative and no positive studies are mentioned on hydroxychloroquine.

The molecule clofoctol also showed a good effect against SARS-CoV-2020 in laboratory tests in the summer of 2.

Until 2005, the antibiotic was commercially available in France and Italy under the names Octofene and Gramplus. It Pasteur Institute in Lille, the French authorities have repeatedly prevented from starting a study with Covid-19 patients. After several attempts they have the first patient there at the beginning of September for recruited .

Why are health authorities fierce opponent of treatments that would have been available from the start of the pandemic? I would have liked to have researched by ARD ! It should also be mentioned that the new corona vaccines could only receive urgent approval because there was no officially recognized treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

It's not about promoting some Corona miracle cure. I want to point out facts that have not been given due attention. From the outset, the public debate has spread that only a vaccination can remedy the situation. The WHO temporarily went so far as to define “herd immunity” in that sense to change that this could only be achieved through vaccination and not through a previous infection as was previously the case.

But what if the path you've chosen is a dead end?

Questions about the effectiveness of vaccination

Data from the countries with particularly high vaccination coverage show that infections with SARS-CoV-2 not be unusual , not even in fully vaccinated people but are common.

dr. Kobi Haviv, director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, says that 85% to 90% of the critically ill are double vaccinated in his intensive care unit. (8th)

The magazine Science writes for all of Israel: “On August 15, 514 Israelis with severe or critical Covid-19 illnesses were hospitalized… 59% of these 514 people were fully vaccinated. Of those vaccinated, 87% were 60 years of age or older.” The wetenschap quotes an Israeli government adviser as saying: "One of the great stories from Israel [is] 'vaccines work, but not well enough'."

In addition, now being seen that vaccinated people carry the so-called (uyitfound) delta variant just as well as non-vaccinated people. The vaccine is a farce.

2G rule

What are the consequences of this situation in Germany?

A lockdown especially for unvaccinated, or to put it euphemistically: the “2G rule”. Society is de facto split into two classes. The vaccinated get their freedoms back (because there is no risk potential for others), the unvaccinated (because there is a risk potential for others) have to undergo tests that they are supposed to pay for themselves, and in the case of quarantine no longer receive wages . Work bans and layoffs due to vaccination status are no longer excluded and health insurers would less favorable rates for unvaccinated people in the future can not be purchased prescribe. Why this pressure on the unvaccinated?

This is scientifically unjustifiable and it is extremely harmful to society.

The antibodies generated by vaccinations disappear after a few months considerably off.

A look at Israel shows that after the second vaccination there is now the third dose for the entire population and the fourth has already been announced. Anyone who does not refresh their vaccination after six months is no longer considered immune and loses their “Green Pass” (the digital vaccination card that Israel has introduced).

In the U.S heeft Joe Biden is now talking about corona boosters pending every 5 months. Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, questions this strategy. Explained to de New York Times she, “the repeated stimulation of the body's defenses can also lead to a phenomenon known as 'depletion of the immune system'.”

There is little discussion that natural infection can build a much more robust immunity. “Ultrapotent Antibodies” of “super immunity " were found in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the past year. These antibodies react with more than 20 different virus mutations and last longer than antibodies produced by the vaccine.

After all, Health Minister Jens Spahn has now announced that detection of antibodies should also be allowed. In order to be officially immune, a vaccination must follow.

Who understands this logic? An CNN- interview with Dr Anthony Fauci, President of the National Institute of Health (the American equivalent of the RKI ) makes the absurdity clear. Until now, people with natural immunity have not been considered by politics!

I know a doctor who is desperately trying to get an answer on this subject from the health authorities and the RKI : One of her patients has an IgG antibody titer of 400 AU/ml – significantly more than many vaccinated people. His corona infection was more than half a year ago, so he is no longer considered immune. The answer she got was: “Vaccinate him!”, which the doctor refuses with this titre.

Lack of basic journalistic understanding

The way out of the pandemic propagated by politics and media appears to be a permanent vaccination subscription.

Scientists who demand a different way of dealing with Corona are still not given an adequate platform in the public media, as is once again apparent from the sometimes defamatory reporting about the corona virus. #allesaufdentisch-campaign . Instead of discussing the content of the videos with stakeholders, experts were sought to help the campaign discredit would bring. With this, the public broadcasters commit exactly the same mistake that they accuse #allesaufdentisch.

Der Spiegel journalist Anton Rainer said in the SWR interview about the video campaign that it was not about interviews in the classic sense: “You basically see two people who agree with each other.”

I got a stomachache after seeing my station's coverage and was completely annoyed by the lack of basic journalistic understanding to let the other party speak. (9) I have communicated my concerns to those involved and the editors by e-mail.

A classic saying at conferences is that a topic is “already made”. For example, when I used the very probable underreporting of vaccination complications called.

Yes, that's right, the topic was discussed with the in-house expert who - unsurprisingly - concluded that there is no underreporting. “The other side” is mentioned here and there, but it is rarely so publicized that one actually speaks to those who take critical stances.

Critic under pressure

The clearest critics must house searches , prosecution , account lockout , transfer or expect dismissal, up to and including admission till the psychiatry.

Even if it concerns opinions whose views are not shared, such a thing should not exist in a constitutional state.

There is already a discussion in the US about whether criticism of science should be labeled a 'hate crime'. The Rockefeller foundation has $13,5 million for the censorship of health disinformation granted .

WDR- television director Jörg Schönenborn stated: “Facts are facts that are established”. If so, how is it possible that behind closed doors, female scientists have incessantly and even profoundly disagree on some very fundamental questions? Until we make this clear to ourselves, any assumption of supposed objectivity leads to a dead end.

We can only approach “reality” – and that is only possible in an open discourse of opinion and scientific knowledge.

What is happening now is not a real fight against “fake news”. Instead, the impression is created that information, evidence or discussion that contradicts the official story is being prevented.

A current example is the factual and scientifically transparent video by computer scientist Marcel Barz. In a raw data analysis, Barz is surprised to find that neither the numbers on excess mortality, nor on bed occupancy or the incidence of infections, match what we read or hear from the media and politicians for a year and a half.

He also shows how you can visualize a pandemic with this data and explains why this is unfair for him. The video was removed from You Tube by 145.000 clicks after three days (and only made accessible again after Barz objected and protested). The reason given: “medical misinformation”. Here too the question is: who made the decision on what basis?

The fact checkers of the mischief from the bring people Marcel Barz in discredit as fake.

The verdict on corrective is a little milder (Barz has publicly and extensively replied ). The rapport prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health , showing that the occupancy rate of hospitals in 2020 by Covid-19 patients only 2% were, proves he's right. Barz contacted the press with his analysis, but received no attention. In a functioning discourse, our media would invite him to debate.

Millions of times content about Corona issues is now removed, journalist Laurie Clarke in the British Medical Journal see . Facebook and co. are private companies and thus can decide what is published on their platforms. But can they also direct the discourse?

Public broadcasting could create an important balance by ensuring an open exchange of views. But unfortunately no result!

Digital vaccination booklets and monitoring

The Gates and Rockefell Foundations have the WHO- guidelines for digital vaccination records drawn up and financed.

These are the people who should have been punished after WWII.

They are now being introduced worldwide.

Only with them should public life be possible – whether driving the tram, drinking a cup of coffee or undergoing medical treatment. An example from France shows that this digital ID must remain in place after the end of the pandemic. MEP Emanuelle Ménard has requested the following addition in the text of the law: The digital vaccination certificate “ends when the spread of the virus no longer poses a sufficient threat to justify its use.” Your proposed change has been rejected. This means that the move to world population control or even a surveillance state through projects like ID2020 is very small.

Australië test now a facial recognition app to make sure people in quarantine stay at home. 

Israel used for this electronic wristbands. In an Italian city, drones are tested to measure the temperature of beach visitors , and in France the law is currently adjusted to enable large-scale drone monitoring.

All these topics require an intensive and critical exchange within society. But it's not coming enough for the coverage of our broadcasters and was not a subject of the election campaign .

Reduced viewing angle

Characteristic of the 'gatekeeper of information' is the way in which the perspective of the discourse is narrowed. A recent example supplies Jan Böhmermann makes his claim not to give the virologists Hendrik Streeck and professor Alexander S. Kekulé a platform, because they are not competent.

Apart from the fact that the two doctors have an extremely respectable vita, Böhmermann has readjusted the blinders. Shouldn't people be heard who present their criticism of the government's course with velvet gloves?

The limitation of the discourse has now gone so far that the Bavarian Broadcaster has repeatedly bequeathed the speeches out to send of MPs who are critical of the measures taken when broadcasting parliamentary debates in the state parliament .

Is this what the new understanding of democracy in public service broadcasting looks like? Alternative media platforms flourish in the first place because the established order no longer fulfills their task as democratic corrector.

Something went wrong

For a long time I was proud to say that I work for the public broadcaster.

Lots of excellent research, formats and content come from ARD ,  ZDF en Germany Radio . The quality standards are extremely high and thousands of employees do an excellent job, even under increased cost pressure and savings targets. But something went wrong with Corona. Suddenly I see tunnel vision and blinders and a supposed consensus that is no longer questioned. (10)

The Austrian broadcaster Servus TV shows that it can also be done differently . Both supporters and critics have their say in the program “Corona Quartet” / “Talk in Hanger 7”. Why wouldn't that be possible on German television? (11) “You can't give every fool a stage”, is the quick answer. The false balance , the fact that serious and dubious opinions are heard equally should be avoided. – A murder argument that is also unscientific. The basic principle of science is to doubt, to question, to verify. If that doesn't happen again, science becomes religion.

Yes, there is actually one false balance . It is the blind spot that has entered our heads and that no longer allows real discussion. We throw apparent facts around our ears, but we can no longer listen to each other. Contempt takes the place of understanding; fighting the other's opinion replaces tolerance. The basic values ​​of our society are thrown overboard.

Here they say: people who don't want to vaccinate are crazy, it says there: "Shame on the sleeping sheep."

As we argue, we fail to notice that the world is changing at breakneck speed. Almost all areas of our lives are in transformation. How this works depends largely on our ability to work together, empathize and be aware of ourselves and our words and actions. For our mental health, we would do well to open up the debate space – with attention, respect and understanding for different perspectives. (12)

Writing these lines makes me feel like a heretic; one who commits high treason and is punished. Maybe it isn't at all. Perhaps this will not jeopardize my job and will not endanger freedom of expression and pluralism. I sincerely hope so and look forward to a constructive exchange with colleagues.

Ole Skambraks

It is sad and elusive.

No evidence of a corona pandemic while the evidence that this is one big life-threatening scam is no longer keeping up.

It's very important that people like Ole come out.

It all seems hopeless but in my opinion (author) this house of cards will never last. They just make laws, they just act. The resistance will remain and increase. That there are still a lot of people who go along in this ridiculously stupid corona story in an incomprehensible way is a mystery.

We'd love to know what's going on in those heads. But too many people see it and know it. People who can do something about this.

They don't get this. It's their last chance, and they know it. But so do we.

About the author:

Born in 1979, Ole Skambraks studied political science and French at Queen Mary University, London, and media management at ESCP Business School, Paris. He was a presenter, reporter and author at Radio France Internationale, online editor and community manager at, program manager for the morning show at MDR Sputnik and editor at WDR Funkhaus Europa / Cosmo. He currently works as a program management / sound design editor at SWR2.

More articles on the subject:

Further information from the author

PS: For fact-checkers and those interested in a multi-perspective, here are the opposing views of the points discussed in the text:

ARD-ZDF study

Prof. dr. John Ioannidis

Imperial College Modeling

Research into function gain

Hydroxychloroquine / Ivermectin,RtghbZ4—even-as-who-warns-against- het-gebruik-als-covid-19-behandeling /

Immunity of the vaccinated

Immunity of the Restored

Vaccination breakthroughs / pandemic of the unvaccinatedösungen-an-covid-19-zu-sterben-fuer-ungeimpfte-elfmal-hoeher-a/

Pseudo Experts / Scientific Deniers / PLURV Principle,podcastcoronavirus300.html#Argument


(1) The exception was the reporting in the context of the referendum, where Swiss television was obliged to allow both parties the same broadcast slot (video . )

(2) Other Pandemic Emergency Exercises were “Clade X” (2018), “Atlantic Storm” (2005), “Global Mercury” (2003) and “Dark Winter” (2001). These exercises were always about information management.

(3) Panorama brought report about the payments, but did not clearly explain Kyriakides' role in relation to the corona vaccine contracts. Furthermore, the subject was not of great interest in the media.

(4) British musician Eric Clapton, for example, was rarely reported on public radio, who developed violent reactions after being vaccinated and now regrets it.

(5) According to the RKI, a vaccine breakthrough occurs when a vaccinated person can show both a positive test and symptoms – for those who have not been vaccinated, a positive test is sufficient. In this way, the unvaccinated are statistically more significant.

(6) Any under the heading “List of Approved Vaccines”; previous website editions of the PEI accessible through the Wayback Machine Internet archive ( . , . en . .

(7) The WHO even has the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh praised to mention his corona policy, but without ivermectin. The vaccination rate in Uttar Pradesh is below 10%.

(8) See also FDA meeting of September 17, 2021 at 5:47:25

(9) The fairest reporting comes from the BR , although it was also discussed here and not with the makers. The MDR offers a comprehensive and differentiated analysis on his media portal .

(10) I do not want to speak of an actual "united opinion" of the public law community. There have always been critical contributions and course corrections in reporting. But it's always a question of context, airtime and the extent to which a topic is covered. Also other colleagues have my observations noticed .

(11) Fresh formats like “Auf der Couch” of give ZDF hope, even though I don't think there will be a Karina Reiss or a Wolfgang Wodarg there anytime soon.

(12) It “Dialog Culture” initiative opens up useful approaches that could also be of interest to media formats.

Everything is FAKE

Covid19 is FAKE. The PCR test is FAKE. That makes the so-called Covid virus immeasurable. The pandemic is fake. The danger presented is fake. No one in the world can refute that. And that's why this will be fine. Corona is a flu virus that we have been living with since 2002. Nothing wrong. Hence, the death rates do not show any change.

Building a future based on the greatest lie of all time is simply not possible.

Even if it seems far away, we'll get out of here.

Read also:

Important and shocking! The lies exposed

How Nursing Homes Take Hostages and Punishments with Impunity - Part 3


Share our articles and break the censorship

Share this article!

Subscribe now
Subscribe to
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
nl Dutch
What is your response to this?x