The board of the health insurance company BKK ProVita warns of an alarming under-reporting of suspected cases of COVID vaccine side effects. According to the fund’s accounting data, their number is more than ten times higher than officially stated. According to the data, up to three million people in Germany saw a doctor in 2021 because of vaccine side effects.
3 Million Suspected Vaccine Side Effects Cases
In a letter sent Monday to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the German Medical Association and other institutions, the health insurer’s board of directors called the vaccination a “strong warning signal.” According to the data, the vaccination led to more sick days than the coronavirus.
BKK ProVita is a health insurance company with more than 100,000 insured, but has access to the data pool of all company health insurance funds with a total of 11 million insured. Board member Andreas Schöfbeck now states in a letter to Klaus Cichutek, the president of the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), with reference to the data from this pool:
“So far, we have the billing data of physicians for the first half of 2021 and approximately half for the third quarter of 2021. Our query includes the valid ICD codes for vaccine adverse events. This analysis has shown, although we do not yet have the complete data for 2021, that based on the available figures we now already assume 216,695 treated cases of vaccine adverse events after Corona vaccination from this sample. If these figures are extrapolated to the whole year and to the population in Germany, probably 2.5-3 million people in Germany have received medical treatment for vaccination side effects after Corona vaccination. We see this as a significant alarm signal that must absolutely be taken into account in the further use of vaccines.”
By way of numerical comparison, the PEI has registered a total of fewer than 250,000 suspected cases for the entire year 2021. That would thus correspond to an under-reporting of vaccine adverse events by a factor of 10 or more. According to Schöfbeck, the figures could be validated “relatively easily and also in the short term” by asking all health insurance companies to evaluate their data accordingly. Extrapolated to the whole of Germany, “about 4-5% of vaccinated people received medical treatment for vaccination side effects”.
As to the reasons for the massive under-reporting, the head of the health insurance fund suspects that a suspicious report to the PEI is often omitted because such a report is not remunerated by the health insurance funds:
“Physicians have reported to us that reporting a suspected vaccine injury takes about half an hour. This means that 3 million suspected cases of vaccine adverse events require about 1.5 million hours of work by physicians. That would be nearly the annual workload of 1,000 physicians.”
Schöfbeck sent his warning letter on Monday to the PEI, as well as to the GKV-Spitzenverband, the BKK-Dachverband, the Bundesärztekammer, the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung and the STIKO. He concludes:
“Since danger to human life cannot be ruled out, we request that you provide feedback on the measures initiated by 22.2.2022 18:00.”
The deadline passed without a response. By Wednesday, none of those written to responded.
Vaccination Led to More Absences from Work than the Virus
According to the BKK’s accounting data – which, in contrast to the InEK hospital data, are predominantly accounts from primary care physicians – a total of 383,000 days were lost from work between January and August 2021 due to sick leave caused by side effects of the vaccination. This compares with only 374,000 days lost due to sick leave for COVID-19 during the same period, meaning that the vaccination led to more work absences than the virus.
Schöfbeck had initially turned to Hamburg-based data analyst Tom Lausen with the BKK data in early February. Lausen was consulted last year as an expert witness in the German Bundestag, among other things, and runs a portal on intensive care bed utilization. Lausen helped to prepare the data and, with Schöfbeck’s consent, informed the editorial staff of WELT on Wednesday, which reported on it on Wednesday evening, but behind a paywall.
Not Reporting Vaccination Side Effects Is Illegal
Failure to report vaccine side effects is not a trivial offense. Paragraph 6 of the Model Code of Professional Conduct of the German Medical Association (which can also be found in the professional codes of the individual state medical associations) clearly states that physicians “are obligated” to “report any adverse effects of drugs (…) that become known to them to the competent authority.” A corresponding form (“Suspicion of Vaccine Complication”) can be found on the website of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Profession.
The non-reporting apparently has not only economic reasons, such as the lack of remuneration cited by Schöfbeck. In January, for example, Prof. Christof Kuhbandner heard from several doctors that many physicians refuse from the outset to even consider vaccine damage. One doctor from a health department wrote him confidentially:
“In many conversations with primary care physicians, but especially clinicians, I could experience that there is a real unwillingness to even consider and then report vaccine damage.”
Another physician from a general practice tried to report vaccination side effects to the PEI and describes:
“We received a response only after renitent inquiry that vaccination adverse events were being processed due to limited staff capacity (only 4 staff members). When asked why more attention was not paid to recording, we received the answer that this was ‘not desired’.”
ZDF had already reported last summer on a dramatic overload of the authority in the recording of vaccination side effects, then under the title: “The data disaster”.
Are Biontech & Co. Meeting Their Legal Obligations?
It is not only doctors who have to report vaccine side effects. The German Medicines Act stipulates that the holder of a drug’s marketing authorization must also take action. Section 63c (“Documentation and reporting obligations of the marketing authorization holder in the event of suspected cases of vaccination side effects”) states:
“The marketing authorization holder shall maintain records of all suspected cases of vaccine adverse reactions and information on quantities dispensed. The marketing authorization holder shall submit electronically to the EudraVigilance database all information on all suspected cases of 1. serious vaccine adverse reactions occurring in the domestic or foreign country within 15 days, 2. non-serious vaccine adverse reactions occurring in the domestic country or a Member State of the European Union within 90 days of becoming aware of them (…) The marketing authorization holder shall ensure that all suspected cases of vaccine adverse reactions are available at a central point in the company in the European Union.”
This raises the question of whether companies such as Biontech, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, etc. do not have a legal obligation to do everything necessary to collect information about vaccine adverse events that have occurred and make it available centrally to the authorities. This, it could be argued, includes the health insurance companies’ billing data with hospitals and primary care physicians, which can be requested in the interest of public safety. So why don’t manufacturers do their own research and disclose the data?
Reform of the Reporting System Urgent, Conflicts of Interest to be Identified
Above all, the Federal Ministry of Health and the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which is subordinate to it, have this obligation. According to the data now available, they can no longer justify their merely passive reporting system, which relies solely on physicians who, as described, often have no interest in reporting. The reporting system must be fundamentally changed in the short term if it is to be trusted in the future. But not only that.
The physician Klaus Hartmann, responsible for drug safety at the PEI from 1993 to 2003, made an even more fundamental demand in a book several years ago that has lost none of its relevance:
“The responsibility for recording vaccine side effects and complications should be separated from the authorizing agency, since there is also a conflict of interest here. The Paul Ehrlich Institute, as an authority involved in the approval process, naturally finds it difficult to name safety risks for a vaccine that was co-approved by its own experts. This also applies to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). What is urgently needed is an independent authority for drug safety, which should not only be responsible for vaccines. But it is precisely the monitoring of vaccines, which are administered to healthy people and also very often to children, that needs to be improved in this way.”
Only ” Conditional Approval ” of the Preparations – Already for 14 Months
Last week, the WELT pointed out another explosive aspect: 14 months after the first vaccination, the preparations of Biontech and Moderna are still without proper approval, because, according to the newspaper’s research, “essential studies are missing (…) especially on safety and efficacy”:
“By July 2021, the EMA had made clear early on, the studies were to be submitted. But the deadline passed quietly and uneventfully. Instead, in October 2021, the EMA discreetly extended the ‘conditional approval’ by one year. First for Moderna’s Spikevax, and then in early November for Biontech’s Comirnaty. That brought up first irritations in the scientific expert world, there were question marks, also the suspicion of secrecy, in the meantime extended by open alienation.”
According to the report, there are also open questions about the properties of the mRNA preparations, which seems especially troubling in light of the extent of vaccine side effects that have now become known:
“There are essential questions like: Does the drug deposit in the brain? Is there accumulation in the kidney? In the lymph nodes? In the heart? Is it transferred to the embryo in pregnant animals?”
Questions “that the manufacturers have not answered so far,” an expert told WELT, “which could be because the mRNA vaccines were approved as classical vaccines,” for which such questions played no role in the approval process. “In fact,” WELT said, preparations such as Biontech’s “are gene therapy products, however.” Other rules would therefore have to be applied to an approval procedure. The editorial team had also pointed out this fact last December.
Swine Flu Vaccine: The Missed Lesson
None of this is new. As SPIEGEL reported back in 2018, almost parallel events happened in 2009 with the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix, which was injected into 30 million Europeans at the time. According to the report, it was already apparent at the start of the vaccination campaign at the time that significantly more vaccine side effects were reported with Pandemrix than with another comparable agent – including allergic shock, facial paralysis, convulsions, vascular inflammation and brain inflammation. But authorities did nothing. Wolfgang Becker-Brüser, editor of the Arznei-Telegramm, commented to SPIEGEL in 2018: “In my opinion, the risk was negated by the responsible authorities. They wanted to vaccinate, they wanted to get rid of the vaccine they had bought.”