German public broadcasting staffer decries suppression of Covid information: ‘I cannot do it anymore’

Ole Skambraks is very brave mid-level employee of German public broadcaster ARD, an organization with an annual budget of $8 billion and multiple television and radio services.  He writes that he  can no longer remain silent about the lopsided coverage of issues related to COVID-19 and its countermeasures, and has published what amounts to a cry from the heart at a website called Multipolar Magazin, available in German, English and French. I take it for granted that ARD does not approve of his essay, and use of their logo here is only for informational purposes to an American audience that may not understand its size and prestige in Germany.

The situation in Germany and most other countries in Europe is similar to that in the United States, with only one viewpoint allowed, even though it changes over time. Mass media act as enforcers of the orthodoxy.

What follows are excerpts from the English Language version of the article. I urge readers to read the entire thing but will provide excerpts.

Skambraks writes from an idealistic posture, calling on his organization to live up to its ideals as a public broadcaster.

From the beginning, I felt that public service broadcasting should fill precisely this space: promote dialogue between advocates of measures and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their basic rights, between vaccination supporters and vaccination sceptics. For the past year and a half, however, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably.

Scientists and experts who were respected and esteemed before Covid, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly labelled cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or Covidiots. (snip)

Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic, will reap indignation and scorn.

He uses a German example of suppression of heterodox views:

As an oft-cited examp`e critical of the Government’s Covid-19 measures were labelled right-wingers. Which editor will still dare to voice similar ideas?

He covers the suppression of information on therapeutic approaches.

For months now, it has been clear that effective and cheap treatments do exist for Covid-19, but their use is not allowed. The data on this is unequivocal. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these medications are indicative of the state of medicine today. Hydroxychloroquine is a drug known for decades and used routinely against malaria and rheumatic disorders. Last year, the drug was suddenly deemed dangerous. The statement by then-President Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine would be a “game changer” did the rest to discredit the medication. The political reasoning no longer allowed a scientific debate on HCQ.

In the spring, the catastrophic situation in India caused by the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported in the media (then still referred to as the Indian variant). But the fact that India rather quickly brought the situation under control, and that the use of Ivermectin in large states such as Uttar Pradesh had a decisive role in this, was not deemed newsworthy. (7)

Why are the health authorities taking such a strong stand against treatments, which have been available since the beginning of the pandemic? I would have liked to see some investigative research by the ARD here! It has been made clear that the new Covid vaccines could qualify for emergency use authorisation (EUA) only because there was no officially recognised treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

This is not about celebrating any one Covid miracle drug. My aim is to highlight facts which have not been given due consideration. From the outset, the message given in public discourse was that vaccination was the only way out. The WHO even went so far as to change the definition of “herd immunity”, implying that it can only be achieved by vaccination and no longer by previous infection, as was previously the case.

What about if the road chosen is a dead end?

Repression of contrary views, anathema to real science is now firmly established.

The most vocal critics must count on house searches, prosecution, account suspensions, transfers or dismissal, or even referral to psychiatric care. Even if they hold opinions you do not share — this has no place in a state subject to the rule of law.

In the United States, it is already being discussed whether criticising science should be labelled a hate crime. The Rockefeller Foundation has announced a grant of 13.5 million dollars to censor misinformation in the health field (snip)

The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations drafted and financed the WHO guidelines for digital vaccine passes. These passes are now being rolled out everywhere. Only with these passes will public life be possible – whether you want to take the tram, have a coffee or get medical treatment. An example from France shows that this digital pass will stay even after the pandemic ends. MP Emanuelle Ménard demanded the following addition to the legal text: The digital vaccine pass shall end when the virus spread no longer presents a level of danger which justifies its use. Her proposed amendment was rejected. Thus we are but a small step away from global population control or even a surveillance state via projects such as ID2020.

These questions are enough to get anyone labeled a kook, a fringe conspiracy theorist, and to be suppressed by social media and “respectable” corporate outlets. Yet, they are of obvious concern to anyone who takes a moment to think about where all of this is heading.

Mr. Skambraks may be jeopardizing his career in broadcasting by raising these questions, but as a man of conscience, he writes from the heart. We'll try to follow what happens to him.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to