On 28 April 2026, Berlin’s senator for science, health and care, Ina Czyborra (SPD), issued a press release titled “Senate weighs options to improve HPV vaccination coverage”. Core sentence: “HPV can cause cancer — and we have it in our hands to protect ourselves effectively against it.” The plan: information letters to parents of pupils in grades 4 through 10, integrating vaccination into the new U10 child-health check-up, and reminder systems where check-ups are missed.
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].
The COVID-19 vaccination campaign was the largest immunization effort in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. Within months, millions of people were vaccinated — initially voluntarily, then under increasing pressure. The Cologne Corona Protocols document how this pressure was enforced down to the municipal level. And they reveal a remarkable gap: the question of side effects.
This series is not a call to avoid vaccination. It is a call to verify the foundations — before building mandates, liability exemptions, and social division upon them.
What would be needed to answer the questions from the previous five parts?
The previous parts of this series described historical patterns: methodological weaknesses, late discovery of contaminations, liability exemptions. Part 5 shows that these patterns with the mRNA vaccine are not the exception but the rule.
There is a question that is rarely asked, but that puts the entire debate in a different light:
Why do vaccine manufacturers need statutory liability protection if their product is safe?
The question “was it ever properly examined?” can also be answered historically. Three cases show what happens when the answer is “no.”
The Cutter Incident 1955 # April 1955. The USA celebrates the first polio vaccine. Mass vaccination campaign, national euphoria.
A randomized controlled trial is considered the gold standard of medicine. The logic is simple: one group gets the active substance, the other gets a placebo — and the difference shows the effect.
When discussing vaccinations, you quickly end up with the individual case: this side effect, that study, this expert. What’s rarely asked is the foundation: was the central assumption — vaccination protects — ever empirically established?
Before discussing side effects, efficacy rates, or mandates — a foundational question must be asked:
Was the central assumption that vaccination protects ever empirically established?
This isn’t a question from fringe corners of the internet. It’s a methodological question raised by physicians and researchers in peer-reviewed literature — people who have been vaccinating for decades.
In a recent interview, Bavaria’s Minister-President Markus Söder offered his view on the Corona era. Two minutes that pack a punch — not for what he says, but for what he leaves out.
This article is for all those who lost an infant — and never got an answer.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the most common cause of death in infants between one month and one year. The cause is by definition unknown — “sudden” and “unexpected” is the medical diagnosis.
