What We Could Have Known From the Beginning
Thomas Maul investigates the Covid Scam
“At one point, the rulers no longer need to lie because the People are no longer interested in the truth.” Rainer Mausfeld
To circumvent a thorough investigation into the State Crimes committed by the Covid Regime, all the institutions responsible for the measures in Germany - from the Ethics Council to the German Academy of Sciences (“Leopoldina”) to the Ministry of Health – have recently declared that they "just didn't know any better at the time" than to force people into unprecedented rules-of-state such as lockdowns, masks or an untested medical intervention. In his new book "What we could have known. Notes Toward an Investigation into Corona State Crimes” (Was man wann wissen konnte. Hinweise zur Aufarbeitung des Corona-Verbrechens) Thomas Maul, a "layman in all 'scientific' fields", shows that, on the contrary, everything could have been known from the beginning. With captivating systematicity, Maul refutes the alleged "social threat posed by the Coronavirus" (Angela Merkel). In doing so, Maul pursues a method that is both common sense and obvious: he refers exclusively to data from the WHO, the Robert-Koch-Institute (the German NIH), the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (responsible, among other things, for recording vaccination uptake and side effects), the Ministry of Health, the Court of Auditors, and official peer reviewed studies.
To introduce the matter, Maul presents an array of facts that could or should have been common knowledge by the spring of 2020 – especially to health authorities. To name but a few:
1. Already in February 2020, based on widely published data evaluated by John Ioannidis (Stanford), it was known that the median IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of Covid is far below average and comparable to the seasonal flu or “flu-like illnesses” (0.035%), so that, as with the seasonal flu, elderly people (75 years +) with at least two co-morbidities were the only ones seriously threatened by the disease;
2. Already in March 2020 it was known that the WHO did not only not recommend but rejected non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns to combat pandemics;
3. Based on data by the RKI, already by April 15th, 2020, the Covid infection incidences were declining and did not indicate an “exponential growth” in cases again through the summer (or ever again), despite a huge surge in false positives (on which more later);
4. The RKI has stated well into 2020 (until the information had suddenly been taken down from their homepage without substitution, like that of the Covid vaccines not preventing transmission), that the pandemic was “not perceptible at the population level”;
5. According to further RKI data (and later admitted, then withdrawn, by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach), there never was an “overload” of hospitals and health care facilities in February and March 2020, which was used to justify the lockdowns. To the contrary: ICUs were at about 70% capacity, when 80% is said to be the “ideal capacity” for a smooth workflow to benefit the staff and patients. Wards were and remained below capacity all through the pandemic;
6. In official WHO and RKI documents, the guideline has suddenly changed to count every positive Corona PCR test as a "Covid-19 infection case", irrespective of the presence and severity of symptoms. This redefinition of an infection to be attributed to an “asymptomatic case” was incompatible with general epidemiological guidelines and never heard of. Healthy people and those only mildly ill would therefore also be included in the statistics of "cases" - a procedure that, as once stated by the RKI's epidemiology dictionary and Christian Drosten himself ( in 2014), creates a pseudo or laboratory test pandemic. And yet, the authorities not only went along with this redefinition, but imposed it on the public as a new reality.
Let us remain a little with the problem of the PCR test. As Maul shows, using Drosten’s definition, Covid was a pseudo pandemic - the PCR test as the "gold standard" did not reflect an actual infection event, which is why the RKI stated that the pandemic was “not perceptible at the population level” (“auf Bevölkerungsebene nicht wahrnehmbar”). To the interested and increasingly baffled reader, Maul demonstrates the “tricks” used by authorities to however produce the appearance of a pandemic – with the PCR-test as weapon of choice.
First of all, a PCR-test is not fit to register an actual infection, as Maul states, drawing on the documents from Drosten’s (the “Godfather of the PCR-test”) own scientific staff’s published papers. A PCR test does not look for viruses (their complete DNA or, in the case of Corona, RNA strands) in a sample, but for a few predefined gene segments that are so small that they must first be made visible by multiplying the starting material several times (in the form of duplication cycles). This includes “dead” gene segments, e.g., from a previous infection, or even incomplete debris from a successful attack of the immune system. More problematic even, the PCR-tests were not calibrated to a binding standard. Each laboratory had “its own” run of cycles. While in 2014, Drosten and his team had recommended 15 to no more than 20 duplication cycles to account for an active infection in the body, most labs were applying up to 45 (sic) duplication cycles, which effectively meant two things: 1. The detected viral load is too low to cause an infection, and 2. The number of false positives skyrocketed. Indeed, with the all-pervasive testing of asymptomatic people – think of mass testing in schools and workplaces – the rate of false positives went crazy. To give an example: we know that pregnancy tests provide a 99.5% correct result rate (no test is 100% correct). If 80 000 men were tested, 400 of them would have a positive pregnancy test. Now multiply this result by one hundred thousand and ask yourself if the suspension of civil rights, such as the quarantine order, were warranted against the background of this “absolutely infallible” test.
There is however not only a quantitative dimension to the deliberately distorted infection numbers. There is a qualitative one, too: the PCR-test is manufactured to reflect certain genetic targets. A positive test must reflect both the general gene characteristics for the virus (the so-called E-Gene) and the specifics for the tested virus, i.e., SARS-Cov2 (the so-called Orf 1-gene). Only if the latter is confirmed, can the labs give out a positive result for the particular disease we call Covid-19 (with the aforementioned ramifications). However, the labs were instructed (by whom is another matter) to already mark a positive signifier for the general E-Gene as a “positive Covid case”, i.e., an active infection with SARS-Cov2. This is a pure distortion of the actual infection events. That is, you could have a banal cold caused by a rhinovirus, but the PCR-test will reflect it as a Covid infection: 10 days of quarantine for the child with the runny nose!
As regards the weapon of choice for keeping up the appearance of a pandemic, Maul states: “Poor PCR test designs, a poor PCR test application and a redefinition of ‘cases’ (uncoupled from any serious disease) that defies tradition and medicine have created the impression of a threat to the population with the active participation of politics and the media in the first place.” (169).
Maul’s analysis is not limited to countering the official propaganda with facts and, ironically enough, official data. His social critique of the “new established reality, in which Man is a virus to Man” goes deeper, and is epistemological to begin with. Indeed, as Maul states, the “danger of Covid lies precisely in its harmlessness.” For a top-down biopolitical restructuring of society, none of this would occur smoothly without the use of behavioural psychology, the science of “nudging”, and the script of fear. Fear and desolidarisation are used as binders for the new society of “care”. This is the new normal: paranoia, diffuse anxiety, hypochondria, and hysteria are now not only to be considered normal states of consciousness but have become explicitly desired by the state. Revisit my review of the German Ministry of the Interior’s leaked Panic Paper, and the deliberate instillment of fear in the most vulnerable: children. The Panic Paper argues that public messaging should be framed to suggest that – if they do not wash their hands – children may be responsible for the death of a parent or grandparent, “the worst thing a child can experience”. The satanism is palpable.
Most of all, we were no longer supposed to trust our sensory experience – what we can see with our eyes, feel with our touch, hear and smell, what we understand, after careful deliberation. With it, everything human and intelligible – beginning with the sensory experience and the understanding, and ending with speech – should be eliminated. This is why, if media coverage were not on the drip of Corona sensationalism for over two years, no one would have ever known that a “global deadly pandemic” was going on at all. We would have caught our seasonal flu, and perhaps see relatives struggling with it, as in all the previous decades and centuries of recurring seasonal viruses and flu-like illnesses. Needless to say, never has the seasonal flu been instrumentalised to impose an insanely authoritarian restructuring of the political system.
Maul’s evaluation of the Corona state crime is both a reading joy – he is an excellent author – and a truly frightening forensic study that will prove invaluable for the forthcoming investigation into the biggest violation of human rights and attack on democracy since 1945.
You can order the book here: https://www.buchkomplizen.de/was-man-wann-wissen-konnte.html
Cover: video still from Kim Wilde’s “Chequered Love” (1981)