New initiative: a dubious offer of reconciliation

A new initiative claims to want to reconcile the hardened fronts in the dispute over the corona measures. However, your statements so far cast doubt on this.

“In a few months we will probably have to forgive each other a lot,” said Health Minister Jens Spahn in the spring of last year about the corona measures. This also seems to have been a German-Austrian initiative called “Corona reconciliation”.

However, the majority of the 16 participants in the collective stood out as opponents of the corona measures, and there are no outspoken supporters among them. They include the political scientist Ulrike Guérot, the lawyer Jessica Hamed, the gender researcher Magdalena Hanke, the physicist Tobias Unruh and the former President of the Medical Association Ellis Huber. Together they wrote a thesis paper.

Old accusations, disproved theses

How the group intends to achieve a reconciliation dialogue on an equal footing is questionable – and the theses raised raise doubts all the more: Many sound less like offers of reconciliation than like confrontation. The authors complain about massive framing in relation to the opponents of the measures, but criticize the fact that this does not exist in relation to the proponents, in order to then themselves from the “cane state”, “self-appointed truth judges”, “masterminds *” inside “and” Covid-19 hysteria “to talk about.

In the text, disproved claims, for example about autopsies, the PCR test and Intensive care beds repeated. Without any evidence, the authors whisper about millions of deaths from the corona measures. The claims are underpinned several times, among other things, with the “vaccination study” by the psychologist Harald Walach, although this was withdrawn from the publishing journal due to several errors that fundamentally influence the interpretation of the results. Walachs University then terminated the collaboration with him due to the “lack of scientific care and appropriate methodology”.

Authors emphasize willingness to enter into dialogue

The collective insured against tagesschau.de Nevertheless, his willingness to engage in dialogue: “We actually strive for a dialogue between all those involved and an appreciative listening to all opinions. In our paper, almost exclusively proponents of meaningful and effective measures against infectious diseases and pandemics have their say. That is why we are already subdividing into Proponents and opponents of the measures’ fundamentally problematic. ”

The fact that supporters of a different Corona policy have their say should show that there is a very large number of very different critics of the government measures and that these are neither “right-wing” nor “unscientific”, as is often attributed to them. In contrast to other actors, they do not claim to be truthful, the authors emphasize: “Opposing views should and should be brought to them.”

How this can be reconciled with the self-chosen claim to represent the “meaningful and effective measures against infectious diseases and pandemics” remains open. Despite its shortcomings, the thesis paper may serve as a basis for discussions. It does not – yet – meet the challenge of overcoming rifts. This is also supported by the fact that the word “reconciliation” beyond the title and the campaign hashtag can not be found once on the 66 pages.