Methodological note. This text is based on primary Bundestag documents (Drucksachen), the foundation register, the AAS website, and publicly available material on the founder’s Stasi-IM past. Where amounts are only secondary-sourced, this is marked. The foundation does work against right-wing extremism that addresses an unquestionable societal need. The point here is not to deny it its legitimacy — it is to show what the foundation systematically does not show when presenting itself as a “civil society” actor.
Methodological note. This text is based on primary Bundestag documents (Drucksachen), the foundations’ own websites, Correctiv’s governance page, and the program of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) 2023 Science Conference. Where amounts or positions are only secondary-sourced, this is marked. The point is not to deny Correctiv its legitimacy — it is to show what Correctiv systematically does not show when presenting itself as an “independent” investigative platform.
Methodological note. This text describes a temporal correlation and places it within a pattern already documented multiple times on this blog: investigative publication + temporally aligned political or civil-society follow-up (see Fernandes-Ulmen campaign parallel to the deepfake law, Network behind the deepfake law, HateAid-Campact funding pipeline). Strict proof of deliberate orchestration in any single case is hard to obtain; the pattern that any single case fits into is not. Sources are fully linked at the end.
Part 1 laid out the legal state of play: Three Sentences, Two Courts, No Final Judgment. What that piece could not do: describe the structure behind the investigation — the person, the awards, the money flows. These are not in the operative part of the Berlin ruling, but they explain why the investigation had such outsized impact.
Two months after the Berlin II Regional Court’s ruling against Correctiv, two versions of the same story are circulating. In one, a “painstakingly constructed edifice of lies” is collapsing, prizes must be returned, the democracy rallies were propaganda. In the other, Correctiv has won “a victory for press freedom” and the investigation stands.
Since the beginning of her second term as President of the European Commission, public criticism and internal complaints about Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership style have been mounting. These accusations do not come from the margins — they come from former and current senior EU officials.
The Enquete Commission is running, the German Federal Court of Justice is overturning vaccine injury rulings, the Telegraph is reporting on vaccine injuries – but one question nobody asks: How many of the “Corona-positives” were actually infectious?
It is spring 2026, and the pattern is repeating itself. A new SARS-CoV-2 variant informally named “Cicada” (BA.3.2) is now detected in at least 31 U.S. states[1]. China and Hong Kong are simultaneously reporting their sharpest case rise “in at least a year”, driven by NB.1.8.1[2]. The WHO notes that “limited surveillance data” are increasingly hampering vaccination strategies worldwide[3].
Switzerland is getting serious about transparency — at least on paper. Following a ruling by the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) on 17 April 2026 published the procurement contracts for Covid-19 vaccines [1]. Among them: Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, CureVac. Unredacted, as the court demanded.
The vaccination rate among over-60s for the flu shot is, according to the RKI, at its lowest level in 17 years [1]. The COVID-19 vaccination rate in this age group has fallen by more than a third compared to the previous season [2]. At the same time, data from Denmark show that different BioNTech batches showed different adverse-event rates — a study that the PEI dismissed as “not meaningful” without presenting its own data [3].
On 1 December 2025, Christian Drosten appeared as an expert witness before the German Bundestag’s Enquete Commission on “Reckoning with the COVID-19 Pandemic” [1]. The appearance took place under police protection [2].
On 24 October 2021, Stefan Oelrich stood on the stage of the World Health Summit in Berlin. Bayer AG board member, head of the pharmaceutical division. Right in front of him: Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen [1].
