The claim

The recently scandalized protocols (RKI files) allegedly reveal new concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines and lockdown measures.

Our conclusion

Research shows that the points discussed in the minutes were already known and discussed publicly. The current excitement is based on a context distortion.

The revelation of the RKI files: An in-depth look into the crisis protocols

The protocols (period January 2020 to April 2021) of the Corona crisis team of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which were publicly accessible for the first time and were released after a successful lawsuit by the magazine “Multipolar”, which is close to the Corona denier scene, are over 1,000 pages, despite some redactions, detailed insights into the internal deliberations.

Key questions about the revelation of the RKI files: insights, reactions and open questions

The “RKI Files” are over 200 written protocols from the crisis team of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). They range from January 2020 to April 2021 and contain more than 2000 pages. Journalist Paul Schreyer published it citing the Freedom of Information Act. The protocols contain key assessments by the RKI on Corona measures and restrictions on freedom.

The explosiveness arises from the crucial role of the RKI assessments for lockdown and other measures at the beginning of the pandemic, in particular the risk assessment from “moderate” to “high” and the discussions about herd immunity through vaccination, which raises questions about the independence of the RKI and the political influences.

The minutes were published late because there were lengthy legal proceedings against the redaction of the documents. The journalist Schreyer decided to publish the papers on the anniversary of the RKI's risk assessment.

The RKI argues that the redactions are appropriate for legal reasons in order to protect the names of employees and other sensitive information. A new lawsuit was filed against these redactions.

Although the media has reported the contents, political reactions have been limited. Health Minister Lauterbach emphasized the independence of the RKI. Critics such as the dismissed member of the Bavarian Ethics Council, Christoph Lütge, see the protocols as a confirmation of the RKI's considerations on vaccines, lockdowns and mask requirements, which were previously dismissed as conspiracy theories.

No, the information was publicly known and discussed.

No, this recommendation was based on solid side effect data.

No, the protocols refer to indirect effects in Africa, not to Germany.

No, the authorities have communicated transparently about effectiveness and safety.

The decisions were made by politicians based on the recommendations of experts and authorities.

Not necessarily. The RKI files, i.e. the protocols and documentation of the Robert Koch Institute regarding its measures and decisions during the corona pandemic, suggest that the decisions made were based on the best available knowledge at the time and in the context of the global situation at the time. This does not automatically mean that every decision can be viewed as “right” in hindsight, as knowledge levels and circumstances can change quickly, especially in a situation as dynamic and unpredictable as a pandemic.

Science is by nature an iterative process based on the collection and assessment of data. With new information, recommendations and decisions can also change. Critical reflection and evaluation of past measures are therefore essential in order to learn from experiences and improve future responses to similar crises. Looking at the RKI files from this perspective is important in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making processes and the challenges that the RKI was faced with.

While some aspects of the protocols may have been misinterpreted or overstated, it is important to promote transparency and critical discussions. Nevertheless, the analysis shows that many of the denounced “revelations” were already known or misunderstood.

In detail:

This publication sparked excitement on social media and some press reports. The discussions about the so-called 'RKI files' also contain unfounded allegations. It is alleged that the institute changed its risk assessment on COVID-19 under political pressure. However, upon closer inspection, this accusation has no basis and misinterprets parts of the document that have been taken out of context.

The alleged political influence

A closer look at the protocols and the timing reveals the allegations to be largely unfounded. In fact, the risk assessment, as recorded in the minutes of March 16, 2020, was a reaction to the rapid increase in the number of infections in Germany and worldwide. The RKI's decision to classify the risk from "moderate" to "high" had already been prepared and was simply awaiting approval from an internally unnamed person - contrary to the claim that this was due to external, political pressure.

The context of the decision

The critics overlook the fact that the number of infections in Germany and globally has recorded a significant increase, which is a classic sign of exponential growth. From the beginning of March to mid-March, cases in Germany rose from 262 to over 6,000. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11th. These data points underline that the RKI decision was based on a solid epidemiological basis and was not made out of thin air.

Misleading by omission

A key aspect that is often lost in the heated debate is the nature of scientific and political decision-making in times of crisis. The RKI and other health authorities worldwide had to make decisions based on rapidly changing data and under enormous pressure. The minutes show that the RKI carefully weighed the situation, including the advantages and disadvantages of various measures. Ultimately, the decision about the implementation of these recommendations rested with politicians, based on the current state of knowledge.

The current excitement is based on a context distortion. But why is that so?

The fact that the current excitement surrounding the RKI protocols is based on a context distortion can be explained by several factors:

Many of the wordings used in the protocols are subject-specific and can be misunderstood without the appropriate background knowledge. Public discussion tends to take individual statements out of their scientific and temporal context, which can lead to misinterpretations.

The RKI's decisions and assessments were made under the conditions of a rapidly evolving pandemic, based on the data available at the time. What may seem inadequate or wrong in retrospect was often a reaction to the uncertainty of the time and the best available knowledge.

Public debate tends to simplify complex scientific deliberations. This leads to a distorted perception of uncertainties and discussions within the RKI as signs of incompetence or manipulation, instead of understanding them as a normal part of the scientific process.

The pandemic response has become increasingly politicized, leading to polarized perceptions. Information is often interpreted through the lens of political beliefs, leading to selective perception and evaluation of the facts.

The spread of conspiracy theories helps to fuel distrust of official sources and institutions. This results in even routine or sensible actions and assessments being seen in a suspicious light.

Social media and some media channels have a tendency to amplify controversial content. They provide a platform where extreme opinions and misinformation can reach a wider audience, contributing to a distorted perception of reality.

Overall, the factors listed above mean that the discussion about the RKI protocols is characterized by a context distortion. It shows how important it is to critically question information and strive for a comprehensive understanding of the underlying facts and connections.

Official clarification from the RKI from March 25, 3024: Context and perspectives of the crisis team protocols

The crisis team minutes are summaries of discussions that took place within the RKI's COVID-19 crisis team. These discussions reflect open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed. However, individual statements made in the context of such discussions do not necessarily reflect the agreed position of the RKI.

The minutes reflect the discussions and decisions in the crisis team at the respective time and level of knowledge. However, the context and data bases are not always mentioned, as these were available in other documents, such as the daily and weekly reports (still accessible on the RKI website) or other publications. Therefore, the protocols must always be seen and interpreted in their context.

To classify the protocol from March 16, 2020, it should be remembered that the number of infections in Germany increased very sharply (see daily situation reports and in particular the two reports from 15 and 16, 2020 - Figure 3 "Epidemiological curve"), that the WHO The pandemic was declared on March 11th, that a lot of people died of Covid-19 in Bergamo in February/March, that several countries imposed an entry ban shortly beforehand (including the USA), that several countries shut down public life (Spain , Italy).

Various media outlets have speculated that the risk assessment upgrade was not done independently. That's wrong. Rather, it is true that an RKI employee is behind the redaction in the sentence “The risk assessment will be published as soon as (name redacted) gives a signal”.

Blacking out names when internal minutes are released to the public is common practice and serves to protect employees.

As of: March 25, 2024

Source: RKI

Conclusion

The debate about the RKI files should remind us that in times of crisis, well-founded, scientifically based decisions are essential. It is crucial to critically examine information, but it is equally important not to get lost in unfounded conspiracy theories. Let's learn from the past to make the future better.

When dealing with the RKI protocols and decisions during the pandemic, questions and doubts may arise, especially if information is taken out of context or misunderstood. Science is a dynamic process that evolves with new data and insights.

It is therefore important to emphasize that it is normal for findings to change and need to be adapted. The RKI's decisions were based on the current state of knowledge. This could change quickly in such an unprecedented situation. Transparency and dialogue are essential. Criticism is an important part of a vibrant democracy. However, criticism should be made on a well-founded basis and take into account the continuous learning process of everyone involved.

Note: The long-term effects of disinformation and the need for fact-checking are challenging. Inaccurate representations often become deeply embedded in the minds of those who are already plagued by insecurity. In similar future events, these entrenched ideas could be revisited to sow doubt. This scenario repeats itself again and again. Fact checks are necessary to maintain information integrity and protect public discussion from distortions caused by misinformation. It is therefore crucial that fact-checking is carried out.

Also read:

The deaths of heads of state and the COVID-19 vaccination: conspiracy or coincidence?
217 COVID-19 vaccinations: fact or fake?
COVID-19: Does not attack the brain, but has consequences
Airy lies: The impossibility of hidden vaccinations

Sign up for the Mimikama newsletter

Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )