Corona Investigative Committee, 138th Session on January 13th, 2023

Dr. Josh Guetzkow, PhD
Criminologist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

(Original language: English)

[Transcript from Team + Ed]

Viviane Fischer: [02:58:22]
And now [we have] Dr. Josh Guetzkow. He is a sociologist and criminologist, senior lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. And he’s looked at the CDC safety signal analysis of reports to the VAERS system. And so that’s quite interesting. We have received some alarming safety signals,

And hello, Dr. Josh Guetzkow. Are you with us?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Hi. Yes, I am. Thank you.

Viviane Fischer:
Hello, fantastic.

Andreas Sönnichsen, MD:
Good to see you.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Yeah, hi. Good to see you today.

Viviane Fischer:
Yeah, you’ve continued your work with… regards to analyzing the or these negative outcomes of the vaccination. And I’m curious what you… have found, what you have brought with you today.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD: [02:59:17]

Dr. Josh Guetzkow, PhD

OK, so what I want to talk about today is a recently released set of analyses. These were released begrudgingly by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control. That’s similar to your Robert Koch Institute. And this was begrudgingly released through a Freedom Of Information Act request. And basically what it is, is an analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System called VAERS. Every… western nation has a pharmaco-vigilance system for tracking side effects from both drugs and vaccines. And the United States version of that for vaccines is VAERS. So if you would allow me to share a screen, I have a presentation that I’d like to walk you through. … All right, here we go. All right.

So– oh, that date, I didn’t, I got the date wrong there, but that’s fine. So let’s go back. I want to… step back. Back in the fall of 2021, I published on this newsletter The Defender a safety signal analysis, OK? So why do we have these pharmaco-vigilance systems? We have them in order to detect– after of my a drug has gone to market, we want to see if maybe there’s a side effect that was missed, right?, because the trials for these drugs and vaccines aren’t really designed to pick up– they’re really more designed to study efficacy and less on safety. So we want to be monitoring this. And these are supposed to be early warning… systems, OK?, that allow us to capture, to see if there might be some safety problem that we missed.

And there’s a specific methodology that’s used in order to detect what they call “safety signals”, which are actually not safety signals; they’re danger signals, really. And I, so I basically took the CDC’s published methodology and re-did it, because they weren’t doing it, that… we could see publicly. xxxx And what I found, using their methodology, is that there were lots of safety signals, very large safety signals. They were very, for very serious adverse events. And there was no way that I could…– no… matter how I sliced and diced the data, I couldn’t get rid of the safety signals.

And then one of the things– but just to kind of give you a little sense of what I found. OK, I compared– the way that you do a safety signal analysis, is you compare a new vaccine or a new drug to an existing one that’s considered safe. OK, now what I found was 242 safety signals for adverse events. And I’m going to hit this at the end, but they were not due to the large number of covid vaccine doses given, not due to stimulated or exaggerated reporting. They were not due to being, the fact that people erre getting covid-19, and they were not due to vaccinations targeting older people.

OK now I– how did I do this? I– oh sorry, I forgot. My analysis was later verified by a paper that was published in Frontiers in Public Health, OK, by this German, researcher at a German university teaching hospital, OK, where he used both is CDC system VAERS and the European one based on all of the European countries, called Eudravigilance.

And he found many, many safety signals, basically verifying the… study that I had done. Now basically what I did was, I took this document that the CDC had up on their website at the beginning and the end of January, 2021, outlining how they were going to go about, look– which safety signals they were going to focus on, or which adverse events they were going to focus on, and how they were going to go about analyzing the VAERS data for safety signals.

OK, so I took their thing and… I found these safety signals, and I said, “Wait a second. If I’m finding them, and… you know, and they’re so big, and there are so many of them, there’s no way that the CDC isn’t finding them.” Because they were supposed to be looking every week. They were supposed to be doing a table of all the adverse events, doing this safety sweep. So I said to the lawyer, the amazing legal team at the Children’s Health Defense that published my… analysis, I said, “Let’s FOIA. let’s DO, submit a Freedom Of Information Act request to the CDC, asking them for their safety signal analysis. OK?

Fast-forward many months, we go back and forth. Finally we had an answer from them. The answer is: we didn’t do it. We weren’t doing our, they weren’t doing the safety signal analysis. OK, and I’ve…– there’s a very long story behind this that I chronicled on my blog, Jackanapes Junction, OK?

And so first they said, “We didn’t do it.” And then they came– and then, other people got interested in this, and in particular a… journalist at… The Epoch Times, named Zack Steeper, and he started going back and forth with the CDC. So first they told him– they came back and they said, “Well actually, we were doing the safety signal analysis.” And then they came back and said, “No, we weren’t doing it.” And then they came back and said, “Well we started doing it, we started doing it in March, in March of 2022, at the end of March in 2022”, a full 15 months after the vaccines had started rolling out.

OK, so this is just complete negligent behavior, right?, that they’re– the… whole purpose of VAERS Is to be an early-warning system, and they weren’t… looking at it for safety signals, which is what you’re supposed to do, ok?, for a full 15 months.

Meanwhile, in August of 2020, several months before the vaccines were ever given emergency use authorization, they hired a major, a defense- industry company, General Dynamics, paid them 10 million dollars to run the VAERS part, the part of VAERS that was going to capture the covid-19 vaccine reporting. OK?

And they said, in that contract they said, “Well we usually get about a thousand reports a week. We’re going to, we’re expecting to get a thousand reports a day, OK? Seven thousand reports a week. And, whereas we usually get five percent of all reports are serious adverse events, which is like death and hospitalization and permanent disability, like very serious things, we usually get, five percent of all of our reports are for those. We’re expecting up to 40 percent of all of our, all of the reports for covid vaccines to be serious adverse events.”

And they were saying this already in August of 2020. Come late February, 2021, they had to triple the amount of money and triple the amount of reports that they were wanting to process every week, because they were getting so much. They had a six-month backlog so they had to, they hired General Dynamics, tripled the budget. I mean, they… didn’t hire them. They had already hired them. They tripled the budget to increase the number of reports processed every week, to something like 25 thousand, just to handle the backlog and… have it taken care of within six months. That’s how many reports were… just flooding in to their system. OK?

Here’s some articles from The Epoch Times covering all of this. OK. So what happens… they said “We’re doing the… safety signal reporting since March for– we did it from late March until early– until late September and of–

Sorry, late March 2022 to late July 2022. So Zach Steeper got, finally got from them … some tables from this analysis. And from late July 2022 through a Freedom Of Information Act equest, OK? Now here’s something that’s really important, and you’ll see why it’s really important when you see what… they found, OK? They’re saying that the results of the CDC safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with [the FDA’s] data mining [methodology, OK,] revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.”
So basically, according to that document I pointed to earlier, the CDC was supposed to use one method to analyze VAERS for safety signals, and the FDA was supposed to use another.

And the CDC said, “Well we didn’t do it, because the FDA’s method is better”, which is arguable. But anyway, when they finally did do it, they said, “Well look, we didn’t find anything that the FDA wasn’t seeing, anyway.”

OK, keep that in mind, all right?

So this is a table, this is, so basically they gave Zach Siebert, Epoch Times, a bunch of Excel tables. This is the one, this is from eight, this is, covers adults 18 years and older this is for the mRNA vaccines, the Modern and the Pfizer vaccines only, OK? And they’re comparing them to previous vaccines. And in particular they’re comparing them to all reports received since January 1st of 2009 for all other non-covid vaccines, OK?

And that– so the… column on the left there shows all of the different adverse events, and the yellow column, that’s the PRR value. The PRR value is the safety signal value, OK? Now how do you do a safety signal– all of these, this is how you do it, OK? This is the PRR calculator. You take … the reports for a particular adverse event as a percent of all reports for that vaccine, OK?, divided by the reports of the same adverse event as a… percent of all reports for other vaccines. OK?, and you get a ratio.

So for example, if say, 10 percent of your adverse events, of all adverse events reported or all of the reports come in for myocarditis
for the new vaccine, and you have this same percentage of reports for other vaccines that are myocarditis, then your PRR is 1. The values is 1. If 20 percent of your reports are showing myocarditis, versus 10 percent for the existing vaccines, then your PRR is 2, OK?

And the CDC considers of a safety signal to be a PRR value of 2 or greater. It has to be statistically significant, and you have to have at least three reports, three reports in order for it to be counted tas a safety signal. And that’s important, because if a certain adverse event had never been reported for the other vaccines that they’re comparing to, then by definition you will never get a safety signal.

All right. So what are the basic, the main results of the CDC safety signal analysis? Keep in mind, this is not my analysis; this is their’s. I’m simply telling you what is in their report, the CDC’s report, OK? So they can, so again they compared all mRNA vaccines to all non- covid vaccines since 2009, OK? They found 770 safety signals for adverse events in 18 years, the 18 years and older group. Later, I’ll talk about the teenagers and the kids, OK?

Two– now here’s… a really key point here. Two-thirds of those safety signals had a larger signal than ver– than myocarditis did, OK? So if you look at the value of the PRR that I showed you, and you say, “What’s the value for myocarditis. two-thirds, over five hundred of these adverse events have a safety signal that’s larger than the signal for myocarditis.

Why is that important? Because myocarditis is something that has been acknowledged as being caused by the vaccine. It has a causal, the vaccines have a causal relationship to myocarditis. So if that’s, if… that is being picked up as a signal, then it’s… reasonable to assume that anything that has a higher safety signal might also very well have a causal relationship to the vaccine. A lower… a lower safety signal could do, right?

But this is, I mean this is huge. And what you have to understand is that the CDC in it’s– you know, it has other methods for studying adverse events and their relationship to the vaccines. And if you look through all of their published reports and papers and stuff like that, you might find 30. You might find that they’ve studied about 30 different adverse events very closely. And… not because they were making safety signals; just because they were concerned about them from the get-go, OK?

So there, you know, so 30 versus like 500, OK? Really vs. like 770, OK. The… rate of serious reports for the 18 and plus doubled, is double the… previous vaccines, other vaccines. And then if you look at the total number, it’s even higher, right? It’s like 73,000 serious reports for the mRNA vaccines, versus 13 thousand for all other vaccine since 2009. And by the way, you– if you do– I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The total number of vaccines, doses, that have been given out since 2009 is about double what are the number of… covid vaccine doses that have been given out in the… USA, right?

So if you were to normalize this, you know, control for the number of vaccine doses, it would be even worse, OK? This… difference would be even worse. So let’s look at what some of these safety signals are. OK?

So now, here is where I’ve added on to what the CDC did, by basically taking the adverse events and categorizing them into different types of adverse events, which you know, you– maybe one could quibble about where to put this exact adverse event. So this just gives you a kind of a general picture. But you know, you’re looking at– so these are just, OK, so what you’re looking at is categories of… adverse events that generated a safety signal. We’re only looking at safety signals here, different categories of… safety signals, OK? And the total number of reports associated or that were generated, that had an… adverse event in that category.

So there are about, you know, like 70,000 plus, or more than 70,000 cardiovascular adverse events that were reported, that generated– adverse events that generated a safety signal. Neurological; thrombo-embolic– that’s the blood clots, right; pulmonary the chest– lung- and chest-related; menstrual problems; the death safety signal– death made a huge safety signal; hemorrhaging; gastrointestinal problems; hematological problems; immunological; cancers. And there are others that I, you know, aren’t even in here, OK?

So there’s, yes, 770 of them. There… there’s a lot OK? Now if you look at, started like a top, the top ones in each of the, in some of these categories. You have the at– cardiovascular adverse events. Now the two biggest ones for… cardiovascular were chest pain and heart palpitations like when your heart is beating really loud. I didn’t include those in this… graph, but you have the next one down is atrial fibrillation, right, when you’re, like, the way your heart is, the valve is moving is kind of off, it’s wrong it’s like febrillating. And that can cause, actually can lead to a blood that in your heart congealing and creating a a deadly blood clot.

You have the irregular heartbeats, myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardiac arrest– the difference being, as I understand it, cardiac arrest is like when your heart kind of just suddenly stops beating. Whereas cardiac failure would be like suddenly your your heart isn’t able to pump enough blood. Pericarditis, ventricular extrasystoles, where you have like an extra beat in your heart which by itself can be OK, but if it depends how frequently it happens and if it happens in the context of other cardiac problems can be, is a huge predictor for sudden cardiac death; cardiomegaly, like just your heart, a general heart problem, illness; OK, cardio respiratory arrest.

And it, and then there’s a long list, goes on here, I’ve just live pasted onto this slide kind of a list of all of the other cardiac problems, right?, that are listed as safety signals. So there’s tons of them. They’re, you know, they’re very very serious, as you’d expect from a heart problem.

And we’ve got our… blood-clotting issues, we’ve got thrombosis, which is just kind of a generic blood clot. Cerebrovascular accidents, these are strokes caused by blood clots. Pulmonary embolisms, right. This is when you have a blood clot that air deteches from where it forms, in the, usually like a vein in the leg and goes up a travels into the lung and causes difficulty with lung function. Myocardial infarction– this is when you have a blood clot in the arteries that feed blood to your heart, otherwise known as a heart attack. Not to be, not to be confused with a cardiac arrest. So– is this something that you would categorize as a blood clot or as a cardiovascular issue? Depends on what you want to do with it. And in fact, in the system, the official system that’s used to classify these events, it’s called the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities MeDRA, they have, you know, specific coding that they do. And then they categorize those codes into larger categories. And even in their system, you can, there are some, you know there’s different sort of ways of categorizing these things.

Anyway, it’s really beside the point. It’s a myocardial infarction, whatever you want to call it, it’s a problem. OK? Deep-vein thrombosis as is a big a problem if you have a big blood clot in one of your veins in your legs, for example. Transient ischemic attack is kind of like a mini stroke that resolves itself. Pulmonary thrombosis — blood clot in your lungs. Ischaeminc stroke, cerebral infarctions those are kind of the same thing, right, it’s a blood clot in your brain.

And yeah. So now here’s one, arteriosclerosis in your coronary artery. We normally associate that with advanced cardiovascular disease. But it’s interesting because you know, Aseem Malhotra, the cardiologist in the UK, has talked about this, and how his father had an accelerated case of arteriosclerosis. This usually is like a hardening of the arteries, and then you get plaque buildup that can often either cause a blockage, or it can become, part of it can become detached and cause a blood clot or…

Anyway, the point is is that usually we think of this as something that happens over a long period of time, but Aseem Malhotra said well my dad like two years before he died he had a scan done and his arteries we’re looking great and, you know, he didn’t have any of this. And then when they did the autopsy on him, he had this advanced arteriosclerosis. Like what happened? It wasn’t because of his diet and his lifestyle, right? So… he says it must have been related to the vaccine.

Here’s another, here’s a list of all of the rest of the thromboembolic events. We don’t really need to go through all them. Again, when you have a… blood clot, it’s a serious problem. OK? Here we’ve got our neurological events. So the big one, oh by the way, OK yeah. So the big one is tinnitis, which is when you have a ringing in your ear, which can be very loud and incessant. That’s, you know, why they think van Gogh cut off his ear: because he might have had tennitis, he was trying to get rid of it.

Apparently, talking with vaccine victims, this is one of the major drivers of suicide among vaccine victims, is this tinnitus. There is a… major vaccinologist who gave testimony to the FDA committee, because he himself suffered tinnitus after the vaccination, and he wanted them, wanted to bring it to their attention. There’s another, a federal employee that started a… support group for this. He wrote to the CDC, the federal employee wrote to the CDC and said, “There’s this problem. I’ve got it; we’ve got a bunch of other people who’ve got it. We have some research on it; we need to do more.”

And John Sue, the head of the VAERS– this is all from internal FOIAed e-mails– John Sue, the head of the VAERS team at the CDC– wrote to the person interfacing with him at the CDC and said, “Tell him thank you and cut him off.” Right? This is their kind of mentality that these people have. It’s really just gross, I mean, it’s really just very, very sad.

Taste and smell disorders: this is a… category I combined a few different taste and smell disorders.


Paresthesia, is when you have like a tingling or a stinging feeling, kind of like when you come, when you’re…, you have a leg, on arm falls asleep, and it starts to wake up again, and… it feels like all tingly… The two ones that trigger big, the biggest two big safety signals of this are oral paresthesia in your mouth or in your pharynx. And… this is if– they did a… survey of vaccine victims, the organization, and this was the– they said. “If you could get rid of one symptom, what would it be?” And the most one, the biggest one was paresthesia. They, they’re getting it all over their bodies in different places.

Bell’s Palsy.

Dementia. You don’t want to see that as a safety signal. You don’t want to see people getting dementia. Of course it makes sense. They’re getting, like, micro blood clots in their brain, in the… vascular system. In their brain, it would induce some kind of dementia.

Metabolic encephalopathy: is basically a term that doctors use when they know there’s something wrong with your brain, but they don’t know exactly what it is.

And then here’s a list of some of the other ones… that we have here, of the other neurological… problems that people have reported.

OK, we’ve got the menstrual issues. So this is important, because for a very, very long time, so many women were reporting this. And the doctors were basically saying, “No, it’s in your head.” Or “It’s just because you’re stressed.” People can get vaccine, you know, can get intermenstrual bleeding or whatever just because [of] a lot of stress.

But now it’s been admitted that the vaccines can induce menstrual changes. Now what they say is that it’s very minor and short-lived, OK, which many women will report that that isn’t. I’m not going to get into that, but… the point is is that they admit that this can be caused by the vaccine. And here we go, we see a safety signal for this thing that they’re now admitting can be caused by the vaccine. So that’s very important.

It means that– these safety signals are meaningful. These safety signals are meaningful. Now we’re going on to hemorrhaging, different types of hemorrhaging. This is like when your… arteries or your veins burst or… tear open, right? You’ve got gastrointestinal hemorrhaging, cerebral, this is in your brain. Your eyes, all over the place, OK, just hemorrhaging. So you’re either getting… a blood clot or a hemorrhage. It’s just horrible. It’s… really bad.

Now that number… one form of head hemorrhaging that was reported is nose bleeds. I didn’t include that in this, but because it’s like off the charts, the number of people who are reporting nose bleeds. But you’ve got, you know, every part of the body, there are… people who are reporting these… hemorrhages.

Here’s a, the… list of the next, all the other hemorrhaging that’s… in this report of their’s, of the CDC’s. OK now here we go. We’ve got gastrointestinal… so the biggest one is colitis, right, which is a major disorder in digestion and colon, and it’s not something you want to have. Diverticulitis, the same thing, it’s a little bit different.

Now here’s– one of the most interesting ones is appendicitis. And I’ll tell you why it’s interesting. So first of all, it’s been reported it’s a safety signal for every age group that the CDC looked at: the 18 plus, 12 to 17, and 5 to 11, appendicitis comes up. sometimes also appendix rupturing or perforated appendix and appendectomies, OK? Now why is this interesting? Because in, I think August or September of 2021, a group of Israeli researchers, based on electronic medical records in Israel published a paper on adverse events after vaccination. Now keep in mind that they only looked at about two dozen different adverse events. They were pre-specified and chosen. They weren’t– not because they triggered any kind of safety signal. They just put them on the list for various reasons, OK? And appendicitis was one of them. And they found that the risk of appendicitis was increased, elevated, OK, after vaccination– like not after covid infection.

OK so here we have again another safety signal that by more, that uses, that when you use better data, you, you also find this causal connection between vaccination and this adverse event. OK.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:27:37]
…because in the clinical trials for, for this RNA, appendicitis was one of the most observed, the most observed side effects. This, it was, it was in the report of the clinical studies. Appendicitis was more than, it was much more than in the control group. So this is another hint for that.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Thank you, Wolfgang. I actually was not aware of that. so you’ve–

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
It’s a lymphatic organ. It’s a lymmphatic organ, and if… these RNA is… just aiming to… go into the lymphatic cells, this would be an indicator for that.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Right. OK. Excellent. Thank you for pointing that out. So I didn’t do a graph for the cancers and neoplasms that made it up to safety signals, but you know, you’ve got breast cancer, colon cancer metastases and… this sort of thing. But there’s not a lot of reports of this, but there– I mean, you don’t want to see this many safety signals show up for… cancers after somebody… you know, giving people vaccine.

And then here’s kind of a grab bag, just some miscellaneous ones. You’ve got, you know, like aortic dissection. Dissection is not good, because that’s when one part of the artery comes off on the inside and causes a blockage problem.

Ezema. And then you’ve got kidney, all kinds of problems with kidney adverse events. You’ve got you know, you got kidney transplants and


Viviane Fischer: [03:29:30]
He’s been cut off.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
… blood sugar… regulation and that sort of thing, OK. And so these are all coming up as… serious adverse– Now let’s look at the teenagers, 12 to 17-year-olds. So if there’s… a… if there’s a ray of light in this very stormy picture, it would, it could, you know, you could say, well the 12 to 17-year-olds and the… younger kids don’t have as many safety signals. But we have to remember that if an adverse event was never reported for the other vaccines, it would not come up as a safety signal for these age groups. So there are less safety signals but we haven’t looked yet, and it’s something I’m going to do, what are the, what are all the adverse events that have been reported for these age groups, for the… mRNA vaccines that were never reported in the past? OK? So, but of the 96 safety signals, here’s a list of kind of the worst ones.

We’ve got myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s palsy, genital ulcerations, tachycardia, menstrual irregularities. Cardiac valve incompetencies is when your heart isn’t pumping enough, basically, to supply blood to the rest of the body. Pulmonary embolisms, arrhythmias and decided– so it’s just… immune thrombocytopenia, this is something that has been admitted as being caused by the DNA vaccines, right, your Astrazeneca vaccine and the… Jansen vaccine. They don’t say it’s a problem for these vaccines but there are many reports of it, and it comes up as a safety signal for all of these vaccines, in this age group and the 18-plus.,And higher rates of being… in intensive care following vaccination, OK? So this, these are very, very concerning safety signals.

And then we have for the 5-to 11-year-old group, we have 66 safety signals. Myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and again, heart dysfunctions, cardiac valve incompetencies. There’s like more than one that’s listed. Appendicitis and appendectomies. Menstrual irregularities. You don’t expect to see menstrual irregularities in 5 to 11-year-olds. So that’s… a concern. And there’s Kawasaki’s disease, which is very similar to a disease that they created when they were, when covid came onto the scene. They call it multiple… Multi-organ Inflammatory Syndrome. They have it for kids, they have it for adults. And that also comes as… a signal for this age group, but it’s, because it’s a newly invented adverse event code and a newly invented disease, it’s not really fair to compare it to previous vaccines. So I didn’t list it here. It comes up, but because it’s so similar to the Kawasaki’s disease and because it’s very difficult to distinguish or differentiate between Kawasaki’s and [MIS], we can assume, we can… infer that… there’s a good chance that many of these MIS cases were diagnosed as Kawasaki’s or vice-versa. And so to see it here is… a concern. It’s definitely a concern.

OK. Let me now, I want to take you through, because people hear about these systems. They hear about these safety signals, they hear about all this, the huge… unbelievable, unprecedented increase in the number of reports to VAERS and deaths and stuff like that. And then they… come… back at you with… a couple of… with several different types of arguments.

I want to talk about why none of those arguments are valid, OK? So the first is… that these reports are unreliable or even fraudulent, OK? And… it’s true that there are a couple of very weird reports that seem to be fraudulent. That’s true. But that doesn’t invalidate the rest of them, right? You could maybe find three, four, five of those out of now millions of reports. So you can’t just use that and say that’s no good, OK? And especially because the CDC itself uses VAERS. And it uses VAERS, and it publishes it uses VAERS to publish in the world’s top medical journals. So from early 2022, they have a paper on myocarditis, using VAERS data. And in that paper, they found that 80 percent of all the myocarditis reports that they found were reliable enough and complete enough that they could be included in their analysis that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, OK?

So if these reports are unreliable or fraudulent, then they shouldn’t be being published in the world’s top medical journals. So you can’t have it both ways, OK? And it doesn’t, it stretches disbelief to say that the myocarditis reports are reliable, but not the other report, right? So that’s, you know. and then, you know, finally it’s their system; if it’s broken, they need to fix it. They it’s not that you [5 seconds loss] right? And by some estimates, two, up to two thirds or more of the reports are [loss of sound, 20+ seconds]

Viviane Fischer: [03:35:55]
Hello … Hello, you were just cut off. Maybe could you repeat what you said the last two minutes?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
I don’t know what happened. Basically what I was saying is that– I don’t know exactly when I got cut off– but basically I was just saying that the CDC has the… ability, the information and the budget to follow up on VAERS reports, to … to verify them, if they want, right?

So OK. Now here’s the other one that [one] usually hears. That well, the reason there are so many reports is, so many more reports, is because we’re giving out so many more vaccine doses. But here’s the key: it’s that the safety signal methodology that they use doesn’t depend on the number of reports; it depends on the percentage of… if you take all of the reports for a given vaccine, the percentage of a.. particular adverse event, out of all of those, compared to other percentages. So it’s not about the total number. And actually, if you have an inflation in the number of reports that you’re getting, it would tend to minimize or hide safety signals, rather than the opposite, OK?

And in the analysis that I, the one that was published in the Frontiers in Public Health, we… looked at it per dose. And the safety signals are even worse if you control for the number of doses. So that doesn’t help you.

And finally, as I mentioned earlier, if you look at the… signal analysis that they did, right? comparing the mRNA to all vaccines since
2009, there were twice the number of vaccine that it were given out since 2009. Right there, there’s like a hundred million flu doses every year in the US given to people 18 and over. So it– plus all the other vaccines that adults are getting, OK? So… that… argument just doesn’t hold, for many reasons, OK?

Another thing that you… hear is: well… look. What happened is that people got upset and they got worried about adverse events. They got worried, I’m sorry, they got worried about the vaccine. And so– and people started…
they started to be hearing about VAERS and knowing about VAERS, right. And they started hearing from xxxxxxxx that there was a problem. And… also the government was telling people there are certain types of adverse events that needed to be reported by law, right?

So all of this could be put under this umbrella this either exaggerated reporting or stimulated reporting. But basically they [say] here that people reporting more now for the mRNA vaccines than they did in the past, OK? But here again, the CDC has a methodology that they’ve developed to… distinguish between a real increase, and a stimulated or exaggerated increase, OK? They did this; they… published a paper in 2010, when there was this a huge increase in reporting for the H1N1 swine flu vaccines.

And what they said is that if the increase is similar across different adverse events, then that means it’s stimulated, right? It’s just because people are reporting more. But if the safety signal, the PRR value, is different for different adverse events, then that’s an indication that it’s not due to just exaggerated, stimulated reporting, but it’s real increase, OK?

So if you look at the PRRs, you can see they’re very different; the values are very different. So it’s not just about exaggerated or stimulated reporting. Also and here’s the other indicator, is that the… reporting rates for existing vaccines, for other vaccines, didn’t go up during this period. So if it’s about people’s awareness of VAERS, for example, then… they would be aware for all the other vaccines, too, not just the mRNA one.

So there’s another data point that shows us it’s not due to this. Yet people come back say, “Well there was a big pandemic of this horrible virus that was causing all of these problems, and that’s really what you’re picking up here. People had a problem and then they just blamed a vaccine or something like that.” OK?

Now this, the CDC’s analysis doesn’t do this, but in the one that I did, I took out all of the reports that had any mention or indication that the person either had a SARS infection, a SARS-CoV-2 infection, had covid, had long covid, had an– had covid in the past, whatever. All of that, I took it out. I took it out, and still it didn’t make a single difference. All of the safety signals were still there, OK?

So it’s not due to covid-19. Xxx age differences, right?

Martin Kulldorff of Harvard said, “Well I’m not surprised there’s such a big increase in reporting, because we’re giving these vaccines to older people.” Well we also give flu vaccines to older people, by the way, but if you control if you break it down by different age groups, you see this, that this isn’t the case. This isn’t why you’re seeing these signals, right? The CDC broke it down into three different age groups and in the 18-plus age group, OK, that’s pretty wide, but you still see the safety signals. In my analysis, I broke it down into even finer age groups, looking 65-plus, 50-to-64, 18-to-50. And there, too, you see lots of safety signals.

So it’s not about age differences. So if anybody would like to read, kind of my full analysis– oh, this was the, these are the two papers that the CDC published. xxxxxxxx they published using the VAERS reporting for the covid-19 vaccines, JAMA, Lancet, right, top medical journals. Anyway, if anybody wants to see, read the full report on this, you can go to my blog on and… read more about it.

It was also picked up by Zero Hedge, where they had about a million views by now. So that’s it. That’s… what I have to say about that. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Viviane Fischer: [03:42:32]
Super. Fantastic analysis. I think it’s very important that we look at all these details, and I mean, it’s clearly showing, or it’s, like proving what we’ve been suspecting, or like the expert that we listen to for very long time, you know, that basically everything is becoming evident now.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
You know, when they didn’t do the safely signal analysis they said they were going to do, that’s negligence, right? But now they’ve done it. They’ve done it, they’ve known this. I don’t– they’ve done it since the end of March. I don’t think the results were very different, because most of the reporting had been done by then. But so they’ve known, and we’ve known that they’ve known since at least mid-July about these safety signals. And they haven’t said anything. As far as I know, they haven’t… launched any investigation into the into the safety signals.

So we go from negligence to malfeasance at that point, right? They’re just– it’s wrongdoing by people in positions of authority. And you know, that’s what the system is there for. It’s not there to prove anything. It’s there so they can pick up safety signals. They have other methods and other data that are more appropriate to trying to tease out a causal relationship between the vaccines and any of the safety signals. but it’s… on, you know, it’s on them to do that. They have to do that. And if they’re not doing that, they’re… failing us. And they, you know, they’re not, they haven’t presented any of this information to any of their experts. They also have an expert outside committee et cetera…

So it’s… very troubling. And they said the FDA was finding the same types of things, remember. And the FDA, we have good reason to believe, has been doing their… safety signal analysis from much earlier on, because the CDC initially said, “We didn’t do because the FDA was doing it. Why don’t you go and talk to them?” — which we did. And the FDA said, “No, we’re not going to show you any of our safety signal analysis.”

By the way, they… back in November, there was a FOIA that came out from the Australian regulator, where they also did a safety signal analysis with the PRR method, and they also found tons of safety signals. There’s someone right now actively trying to get this from the MHRA, the UK. And you know, imagine every other European country in their plans of how they’re going to track the safety of the vaccines has something similar that they were planning to do with their system.

So I would encourage everybody who’s listening to this: try to see what your government was supposed to be doing in tracking the safety of the vaccines. They should have been doing a safety signal analysis. And if your government allows you to do a Freedom Of Information Act try… to get that information. See what they knew and when they knew it. And there was somebody who did this– who now that we know what the CDC did exactly, we can go back and compare and say, “Well what would they have known if they had done this from the beginning?” And he found that the death signal, the safety signal for death, would have been triggered in mid-January 2021 on the basis of… their analysis, of just copying their analysis, going back to the early VAERS data. It would have been triggered that early. We don’t, we haven’t looked at the other adverse events. But I’m sure they would have also been triggered very early.

Viviane Fischer: [03:46:05]
And what are the… thresholds when usually like a medication, a you know, like something like that would be pulled off the market?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
I don’t know what it is for medications. As far as I’m aware, for… vaccines there is no specific indication, right? We know that in… the past, they’ve pulled vaccines for very few reports, regardless of what the PRR value was, right? I think the RSV vac– not the RSV, I can’t remember now, the… vaccine they were giving… to… babies was pulled off the market after like 20 reports of intesiception [sic]. That was before they had identified any causal link. They were just suspicious of the causal link. It took them three more months of study after they pulled that vaccine to pull it permanently, because then they said, “Well yeah, it’s causing this problem.”

So you know, we go from 19 to several million reports. I don’t know, I don’t think inflation, you know, could explain that. I don’t know, you know, it’s just… complete, it’s just criminal. It’s, frankly it’s just criminal.

Andreas Sönnichsen. MD:
I think the problem is that we have the same the same, very similar situation all over the world. I mean, the… German authority, which is the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute here, hasn’t done the signal, the safety signal analysis, and neither has the European Union. We also have a–

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
As far as you know. I mean, are you sure that they haven’t done it? I don’t know, I mean–

Andreas Sönnichsen. MD:
I’m pretty sure they haven’t done it.

Viviane Fischer:
Or they’re just not publishing it.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
That’s for sure. They’re definitely not publishing it. That’s, that’s actually– you know, here’s something that’s kind of interesting, is that … we had this Freedom Of Information Act request in the works, and then on March 22nd, one of the lawyers from the Children’s Health Defense wrote to the CDC and said, “Hey, what’s up with our Freedom Of Information Act request?” March 22nd. I happen to know that another group of researchers totally by coincidence, also around that same time, I think the day… after or something, also wrote to the CDC, asking them, “Hey, you were supposed to be doing this. Where is this?”

And isn’t it a co– an interesting coincidence that the CDC said they started doing their safety signal analysis on march 25th, 2022? that’s quite a coincidence, even more of a surprising coincidence: there is a researcher, [Albert Benevidas], who is tracking– so every week, when the CDC updates it’s VAERS data, it deletes a certain number of VAERS reports from the public data. So he’s tracking that. And what he found is that right at the beginning of April, 2022, right when they started their safety signal analysis, there’s a huge increase in the number of VAERS reports that they started deleting. And the, and there’s, this increase continues for about two months, and then it kind of dies back down.

So it’s a very interesting coincidence that they… have this huge increase in the reports they were deleting, just as they were doing a safety signal analysis. So it’s … doesn’t smell good.

Viviane Fischer:
Do we have like a, did they give us a reason why they were deleting all the cases?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
No. No, there’s no reason. And I think in some cases they… may be duplicates. But there, there’s, there’s no… reason given. And by the way, you know, there’s all kinds of problems with VAERS. I mean, VAERS is… not good data. I wish… we had access to better data, but for the moment that’s what we’ve got. But you know, just the fact that this is… the CDC this is coming straight from the CDC showing all of these problems I think is very, very significant.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Is it possible that when people are afraid that they might get side effects they… attribute what they experience as illnesses, that they attribute it to their, to the as a… consequence of the jab? So that the awareness, all the people think, many people think of side effects, are afraid. And when something happens, they, that they… give it to VAERS more easily. and this… isn’t, this may be a factor which… we should have in mind, which could distort a little bit the numbers of… this.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Right. Well that’s one of the objections that people make, but… here’s the, the point that I was trying to make earlier was that first of all, the CD– so this is what I would call as part of the exaggerated or inflated reporting, right? That for whatever reason, people are more likely to make a report to VAERS, maybe because that are more likely to connect something bad that happened to them to the… jab. But if that’s the case, then you would expect to see a similar increase in their reporting rates for all of these different adverse events, in which case the the PRR numbers would be either stable or they would go up kind of at a… similar… rate. That’s [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] anyway.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
There a very interesting question. Because the doctors, they won’t change their way of reporting, because they give the jab.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
They are not interested in… telling that this is from the jab. But the patients may be. So then if the… rate of reporting from the doctors and from the… patients is… not, is changing, this may be an indicator for… what I just said before.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Possibly. But it could also be that doctors are simply reluctant, but the actual number of–, well things that happen has gone up. We don’t know, there’s been no, we don’t, you don’t actually know who submitted the VAERS reports. Maybe they do at the CDC. Scott McLachlin, a researcher in the UK, has done a very careful analysis of death reports. He just recently released his second version of that. I… didn’t read the second version yet, but [in] the first version, he found about two-thirds of reports seem to clearly come from healthcare professionals, and those are death reports for covid vaccines. But he didn’t compare that to other reports for other vaccines.

But again, it’s not really– if you take that the CDC’s methodology for trying to understand that, whether that’s what’s happening, that methodology tells you that that can’t– maybe it could explain some of it; it can’t explain all.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:53:01]

Viviane Fischer:
OK. Wow, that’s been a lot of information. And I think it’s really important that we keep breathing down their necks, so we, you know, we can get the, even better picture. It’s also going to be interesting to see what kind of symptoms or problems people develop, like further and further along, you know. Because it’s, right now we’re looking at basically it’s… a few months or like a year, or like two years for like some of the– also depending on whether it’s been booster shots or not, and so on. But who knows what’s going to happen in the next half year, or like in a year’s time?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:

Viviane Fischer:
Maybe we’re going to see–

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Yeah, well, and that’s one of the disadvantage of the VAERS system, is that if you put in a report for an initial reaction, and then something else comes up later, you could have another diagnosis later on, and you update your VAERS report, that update is not made public. They have that information in their, in the internal system. They don’t… get it publicly. So there’s a lot of stuff that could be going on here that we don’t have any idea about. There’s certainly a lot of stuff going on that we don’t, that isn’t making it into the VAERS system.

There was a recent paper published in Nature, one of the Nature journals, based on medical record data from southern California showing [an] increase in pox and dysautonomia in the first three months after vaccination. Dysautonomia is a diagnosis that can take some time to diagnose, so I expect the rates of dysautonomia are actually significantly higher than that. But that’s a kind of an example. You know, many of these diagnoses take a long time to get, because they’re, you know they’re tricky.

Andreas Sönnichsen. MD: [03:54:55]
Even the people affected by it might not draw that connection between the vaccination which has been taking place a long time ao.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Right. But then the Nature paper was important because it’s based on medical, you know, medical records, not based on people’s reports. So they’re just looking: what is the rate of, you know, dys– the people who got vaccinated, what is the rate of dysautonomia diagnosis three months before they got vaccinated, compared to the three months after. And that’s the best kind of methodology to use for this type of research, for a variety of reasons. And… just on that basis, they’re finding this increase.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
It is very interesting when… we see all those possible side effects. We now have many people who are not sure whether that’s a side effect or not, and who are afraid of side effects. And because we know there are so many different symptoms that may… happen. And the doctors know, who are critical of all this, they try to find out a routine which… where you could check, what you could check whether there’s some side effect or there is some… yes, some damage done by those RNA vaccines.

And if you, if we know all this, the frequence of those, we should think of which examinations could give us a hint where there’s something like that happens in the body. Which examinations which are easily done. It’s not always that you have an [xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] graphic a picture or something or computer tomogram or something. But are there easy ways of detecting early detecting side effects which are developing? And I think we should… regard all the list of… possible side effects and try to find out as doctors which… scanning, what… screening we could do with patients to find out early symptoms of possible intoxication or possible damage. And I think this is, what you… showed us is… very, yeah. I… start thinking what… we could do, and it’s… a good, I think it’s a good overview. Thank you very much.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD: [03:57:19]
Thank you.

Viviane Fischer:
I have one last question. With these update reports, would they be accessible through FOIA requests as well?

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
They’ve been, it’s been, the question has been asked to the, posed to the CDC. And they’re not, there’s no way they’ll make it public. I mean it’s you know, it’s private, presumably private information. I don’t know, actually, what their excuse is for not making it public, to be honest, because they’re making the other, you know, the other data public.

Viviane Fischer:
I don’t know. Maybe it would need to be tried in court to get that information.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
Maybe. Maybe.

Viviane Fischer:
I think it’s very, I can’t see any reason–

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
I also know that there are a ton of people– they did another survey of vaccine victims, and they, a ton of people went to look and fi– and submitted a report, and it never made it into this system, for reasons that are unknown, right? So– and then, of course, they had this other system they created for the covid vaccines, called the V-safe system. This was a, you know, a system that was based on the, on your phone app, OK? And there were like 10 million people that signed up for this. So now those reports to that system didn’t go to VAERS. They weren’t automatically transferred to VAERS. They did encourage some people who reported very serious problems to report to VAERS, but the reporting rate from V-Safe to VAERS was extremely low. A very, very small percentage of people actually did it, even when they were, like, actively encouraged to do so.

So they siphoned off a ton of VAERS reports into that other system which has been bla– you know, which is also black-boxed, not public, unlike VAERS. And they’re finally starting to get some information from that system through FOIA requests and legal actions, but it’s taking a long time, and there’s still a lot of information there that… we haven’t gotten.

So yeah, it’s just … negligence and malfeasance all the way up. I mean, these… agencies are hopelessly captured by the… very, you know, industries and companies that they’re supposed to be regulating.

Viviane Fischer:
But I mean, the more important it is that you continue, we continue with this work and trying to shine… the light on… what’s going on there. So it’s really, it’s… great that you’re doing such a good job and, like presenting it also to the public. Very important. Thanks so much.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD: [03:59:48]
Thank you.

Wolfgang Wodarg, MD:
Thank you.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:
[Thank you all] for the work you’re doing.

Viviane Fischer:
Thank you.

Andreas Sönnichsen. MD:
Thank you.

Viviane Fischer:
OK, we’ll stay in touch and talk to you again soon.

Josh Guetzkow, PhD:

Viviane Fischer:
[continuing with simultaneous translation from German]
Yes, that’s Dr. Josh Guetzkow, who spoke again about the latest publications from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of safety signals with a view to the so-called vaccinations. It doesn’t look good, but it’s important that we should look closely


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active



Die Betreiber dieser Seiten nehmen den Schutz Ihrer persönlichen Daten sehr ernst. Wir behandeln Ihre personenbezogenen Daten vertraulich und entsprechend der gesetzlichen Datenschutzvorschriften sowie dieser Datenschutzerklärung.

Die Nutzung unserer Webseite ist in der Regel ohne Angabe personenbezogener Daten möglich. Soweit auf unseren Seiten personenbezogene Daten (beispielsweise Name, Anschrift oder E-Mail-Adressen) erhoben werden, erfolgt dies, soweit möglich, stets auf freiwilliger Basis. Diese Daten werden ohne Ihre ausdrückliche Zustimmung nicht an Dritte weitergegeben.

Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die Datenübertragung im Internet (z.B. bei der Kommunikation per E-Mail) Sicherheitslücken aufweisen kann. Ein lückenloser Schutz der Daten vor dem Zugriff durch Dritte ist nicht möglich.

Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google Analytics

Diese Website nutzt Funktionen des  Webanalysedienstes Google Analytics. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. Google Analytics verwendet sog. „Cookies“. Das sind Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Computer gespeichert werden und die eine Analyse der Benutzung der Website durch Sie ermöglichen. Die durch den Cookie erzeugten Informationen über Ihre Benutzung dieser Website werden in der Regel an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gespeichert.

Im Falle der Aktivierung der IP-Anonymisierung auf dieser Webseite wird Ihre IP-Adresse von Google jedoch innerhalb von Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union oder in anderen Vertragsstaaten des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum zuvor gekürzt. Nur in Ausnahmefällen wird die volle IP-Adresse an einen Server von Google in den USA übertragen und dort gekürzt. Im Auftrag des Betreibers dieser Website wird Google diese Informationen benutzen, um Ihre Nutzung der Website auszuwerten, um Reports über die Websiteaktivitäten zusammenzustellen und um weitere mit der Websitenutzung und der Internetnutzung verbundene Dienstleistungen gegenüber dem Websitebetreiber zu erbringen. Die im Rahmen von Google Analytics von Ihrem Browser übermittelte IP-Adresse wird nicht mit anderen Daten von Google zusammengeführt.

Sie können die Speicherung der Cookies durch eine entsprechende Einstellung Ihrer Browser-Software verhindern; wir weisen Sie jedoch darauf hin, dass Sie in diesem Fall gegebenenfalls nicht sämtliche Funktionen dieser Website vollumfänglich werden nutzen können. Sie können darüber hinaus die Erfassung der durch das Cookie erzeugten und auf Ihre Nutzung der Website bezogenen Daten (inkl. Ihrer IP-Adresse) an Google sowie die Verarbeitung dieser Daten durch Google verhindern, indem sie das unter dem folgenden Link verfügbare Browser-Plugin herunterladen und installieren:

Datenschutzerklärung für die Nutzung von Google +1

Unsere Seiten nutzen Funktionen von Google +1. Anbieter ist die Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043,  USA.

Erfassung und Weitergabe von Informationen: Mithilfe der Google +1-Schaltfläche können Sie Informationen weltweit veröffentlichen. über die Google +1-Schaltfläche erhalten Sie und andere Nutzer personalisierte Inhalte von Google und unseren Partnern. Google speichert sowohl die Information, dass Sie für einen Inhalt +1 gegeben haben, als auch Informationen über die Seite, die Sie beim Klicken auf +1 angesehen haben. Ihre +1 können als Hinweise zusammen mit Ihrem Profilnamen und Ihrem Foto in Google-Diensten, wie etwa in Suchergebnissen oder in Ihrem Google-Profil, oder an anderen Stellen auf Websites und Anzeigen im Internet eingeblendet werden. Google zeichnet Informationen über Ihre +1-Aktivitäten auf, um die Google-Dienste für Sie und andere zu verbessern. Um die Google +1-Schaltfläche verwenden zu können, benötigen Sie ein weltweit sichtbares, öffentliches Google-Profil, das zumindest den für das Profil gewählten Namen enthalten muss. Dieser Name wird in allen Google-Diensten verwendet. In manchen Fällen kann dieser Name auch einen anderen Namen ersetzen, den Sie beim Teilen von Inhalten über Ihr Google-Konto verwendet haben. Die Identität Ihres Google- Profils kann Nutzern angezeigt werden, die Ihre E-Mail-Adresse kennen oder über andere identifizierende Informationen von Ihnen verfügen.

Verwendung der erfassten Informationen: Neben den oben erläuterten Verwendungszwecken werden die von Ihnen bereitgestellten Informationen gemäß den geltenden Google-Datenschutzbestimmungen genutzt. Google veröffentlicht möglicherweise zusammengefasste Statistiken über die +1-Aktivitäten der Nutzer bzw. gibt diese an Nutzer und Partner weiter, wie etwa Publisher, Inserenten oder verbundene Websites.

Widerspruch Werbe-Mails

Der Nutzung von im Rahmen der Impressumspflicht veröffentlichten Kontaktdaten zur Übersendung von nicht ausdrücklich angeforderter Werbung und Informationsmaterialien wird hiermit widersprochen. Die Betreiber der Seiten behalten sich ausdrücklich rechtliche Schritte im Falle der unverlangten Zusendung von Werbeinformationen, etwa durch Spam-E-Mails, vor.

Auskunft, Löschung, Sperrung

Sie haben jederzeit das Recht auf unentgeltliche Auskunft über Ihre gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten, deren Herkunft und Empfänger und den Zweck der Datenverarbeitung sowie ein Recht auf Berichtigung, Sperrung oder Löschung dieser Daten. Hierzu sowie zu weiteren Fragen zum Thema personenbezogene Daten können Sie sich jederzeit unter der im Impressum angegebenen Adresse an uns wenden.


Die Internetseiten verwenden teilweise so genannte Cookies. Cookies richten auf Ihrem Rechner keinen Schaden an und enthalten keine Viren. Cookies dienen dazu, unser Angebot nutzerfreundlicher, effektiver und sicherer zu machen. Cookies sind kleine Textdateien, die auf Ihrem Rechner abgelegt werden und die Ihr Browser speichert.

Die meisten der von uns verwendeten Cookies sind so genannte „Session-Cookies“. Sie werden nach Ende Ihres Besuchs automatisch gelöscht. Andere Cookies bleiben auf Ihrem Endgerät gespeichert, bis Sie diese löschen. Diese Cookies ermöglichen es uns, Ihren Browser beim nächsten Besuch wieder zu erkennen.

Sie können Ihren Browser so einstellen, dass Sie über das Setzen von Cookies informiert werden und Cookies nur im Einzelfall erlauben, die Annahme von Cookies für bestimmte Fälle oder generell ausschließen sowie das automatische Löschen der Cookies beim Schließen des Browser aktivieren. Bei der Deaktivierung von Cookies kann die Funktionalität dieser Website eingeschränkt sein.


Der Provider der Seiten erhebt und speichert automatisch Informationen in so genannten Server-Log Files, die Ihr Browser automatisch an uns übermittelt. Dies sind:

  • Browsertyp/ Browserversion
  • verwendetes Betriebssystem
  • Referrer URL
  • Hostname des zugreifenden Rechners
  • Uhrzeit der Serveranfrage

Diese Daten sind nicht bestimmten Personen zuordenbar. Eine Zusammenführung dieser Daten mit anderen Datenquellen wird nicht vorgenommen. Wir behalten uns vor, diese Daten nachträglich zu prüfen, wenn uns konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine rechtswidrige Nutzung bekannt werden.


Wenn Sie uns per Kontaktformular Anfragen zukommen lassen, werden Ihre Angaben aus dem Anfrageformular inklusive der von Ihnen dort angegebenen Kontaktdaten zwecks Bearbeitung der Anfrage und für den Fall von Anschlussfragen bei uns gespeichert. Diese Daten geben wir nicht ohne Ihre Einwilligung weiter.

Impressum / Kontakt

JAMI Diallo, Länggassstr. 91, 3012 Bern, ​Schweiz

info @




Wir sind freischaffend und unabhängig. Durch deinen Support wird es so bleiben.


Wenn du Uns unterstützen möchtest, hast du folgende Möglichkeiten.


PayPal Logo


Save settings
Cookies settings