The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany’s vaccine regulator, has responded to Andreas Schöfbeck’s letter (translated here), suggesting on the basis of BKK billing data that officially acknowledged rates of adverse vaccine reactions substantially understate the risk of vaccination. It is not a good response.
The information in the BKK letter is general and unspecific. For example, it is not stated how many of the cases refer to mild reactions and how many – in the sense of the Drug Act – to severe reactions. Local and transient general reactions, for example, which occur in many vaccinated persons and have also been found in clinical trials, belong to the known and expected vaccination reactions that are not subject to mandatory reporting according to IfSG § 6 para. 1 no. 3.
The argument throughout is that only a subset of vaccine reactions are subject to mandatory reporting requirements, and thus Schöfbeck’s higher numbers, derived from billing data, are unremarkable. This is a very strange and yet also typical bureaucratic response. We want to know whether the vaccines are safe or not, but the PEI functionaries only care about making it clear that any underreporting is in accordance with statute.
Beyond that, I very much doubt we are talking about all that many “local and transient general reactions” here. By definition, these are reactions for which BKK insured sought medical treatment from their doctors. Many of these diagnoses would have been obtained by people who were too unwell to work, and needed to receive physician-certified sick leave.
Thus, the ICD-10 numbers given in the chart “Coded vaccination side effects after Corona vaccination” code for vaccination reactions in general. For example, T88.0 codes “Infection after vaccination,” but a SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination is not a side effect subject to mandatory reporting under the Drug Act. Therefore, billing data cannot be equated with adverse reactions.
Indeed, this goes some way to explaining the difference between BKK and PEI numbers, but the larger point here must surely be that a SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination should be subject to mandatory reporting, as we have seen that it is one of the most important and obvious side-effects of Corona vaccination.
Furthermore, it cannot be inferred from the letter whether a causal connection with the vaccination has actually been established.
How ridiculous. Their doctors determined that there was a causal connection, which is why they used these billing codes. That is more than can be said of all the official Corona deaths, which are determined solely on the basis of a positive PCR test in proximity to death, and no other medical diagnoses at all.
