More and more people are suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's, about 1.8 million in Germany;
have depression, already more than 10 percent.
And there is also more and more medication, care, costs and fear.
Today I am talking to a specialist in general medicine, psychotherapy and naturopathy.
She is the spokesperson for the patient protection association "Naturally healthy for all" .
She is also managing director and co-founder and spokesperson for the professional medical association "Hippocratic Oath".
This association has set itself the goal of restoring ethics in medicine.
In many cases, lobbying and financial orientation have gotten out of hand.
Often to the detriment of the patient, says Dr. Sonja Reitz. Welcome to our studio.
Yes, thank you very much for the invitation. I am very happy to be here and hope that I can contribute
something to the topic that interests many people.
Yes. Dr. Reitz, you always talk about sustainability when it comes to healing.
What do you think is going wrong, for example when it comes to dementia?
Yes, you have actually already put the word, the central word, in the question.
The fact is that the healthcare system is currently very, very often not about healing.
And that is the reason why the healthcare system is not sustainable.
To enable a person to get well, you first have to clear away the things that have made them ill.
And if nobody is interested in that, then of course it's clear that it can become, let's say, a chronic disease that keeps
getting worse if I don't ask about the causes and don't treat the causes, or if I don't
explain the causes to the students in medical school.
Many general practitioners would now deny that they naturally ask about the causes.
Can you elaborate on that? Why did you come to this conclusion?
Yes, well, you certainly know that cholesterol levels are hunted down by general practitioners as a common cause of
illness, as if they were a criminal in themselves, so to speak.
However, there is sufficient literature and evidence that cholesterol levels are not a cause, but at best a
symptom of A or B and will not make you ill on their own.
The real causes lie elsewhere and are often not seen.
Coming back to your question about dementia, yes, that's that too.
Dementia is just a symptom that someone can no longer remember, that someone may have mood swings that they can no
longer explain or that their relatives can no longer explain.
This can also have many causes, just like depression.
And the (causes) are not systematically sought.
I just want to give you a few examples, if you don't mind.
For example, it is known, also published in the medical journal, that over 20 percent of
people over 60 have a B12 absorption disorder.
However, vitamin B12 is not just anything, it is important for thinking, for the immune system,
for concentration and also for the emotional state.
If this vitamin is not screened by doctors during the normal screening examinations , it is
naturally overlooked that there is a deficiency.
Then there are a whole lot of drugs that contribute to B12 not being absorbed when it is also eaten in sufficient quantities.
So we still have several factors that would lead to such a B12 deficiency. This is also not taken into account.
So I risk Alzheimer's, dementia and, incidentally, depression when it comes to B12 deficiency.
Yes, you would actually have to say that in the patient's interest, every health insurance company
should have the greatest interest in systematically screening this B12 level from the age of 50.
However, the blood level is not sufficient, urine tests would have to be carried out, as there
are parameters that indicate this more precisely.
And then to prevent chronic, serious illnesses - anemia and depression - from developing in the first place.
A B12 deficiency can also lead to severe depression and even psychotic illnesses.
Incidentally, quite a few people who now eat a vegetarian or vegan diet don't pay enough attention to this.
So there are a lot of people who are very, very conscious about it and also take food supplements.
But others think it would be enough to simply eat plants, and B12 deficiency is inevitable.
And that's why the same thing I just said also applies to younger people, to women,
especially pregnant women, who have an increased need.
And that is one example. There are other common causes of illness that are simply not looked at.
The effect is that illnesses and chronic diseases are increasing and increasing, and the
healthcare system is becoming more and more expensive.
None of this is in the interests of patients. But in whose interest is it?
And of course it is obvious that the pharmaceutical industry benefits particularly from as many
chronically ill long-term patients as possible.
And now you ask yourself, is that really the case?
So in crime thrillers, the question is always: follow the money trail. Is that really the case?
And if you take a closer look, you can see that doctors, doctors, students, are systematically trained
in reflexes from the very beginning of their studies:
This symptom of this drug, this symptom of this drug.
And the causal thinking, the logical thinking, what we are actually taught by the Enlightenment, to ask about the
causes and then also to remove causes in order to have lasting and sustainable effects, is gradually being lost.
Then later comes the brainwash that most doctors experience, in that they receive four or five glossy brochures a
week, free of charge of course, in which they are told what to think for the rest of their lives.
So there are indications that the pharmaceutical industry exerts influence at a very early stage, the professors who receive
third-party funded research from the pharmaceutical industry - if the desired results are not achieved, the study is not published.
We are familiar with all of these problems, so it remains with the usual suspects.
Well, it has to be said that the current version of the healthcare system does not primarily serve the interests of the patient.
And that is a very, very difficult situation, a very bad situation that we urgently need to change.
If values are important to us, if humanitarian values are important to us, we must
establish a patient-oriented healthcare system.
And it will not succeed as long as decision-makers are unaware of the healthcare system, its content and the errors in its
content and make purely political or purely financial decisions.
There is always talk about the revenue side of health insurance companies, contribution increases and so on.
But increasing contributions does not make medicine any better.
Every legislative period there is talk of reducing costs in the healthcare system - then there are
budgets, then there are flat rates that doctors receive.
But there is also control over this. Can you elaborate on this?
Yes, unfortunately that's the case, you're absolutely right.
So we see a severe underpayment of speaking medicine in the fee schedules.
However, talking medicine is not simply me telling you what to do, but talking medicine is first
of all me finding out how the illness came about.
What happened? What did you experience? Were there any shocks? Were there operations?
Are there scars? Any wound healing disorders?
This is also something that many people don't know, for example, that scars can be a significant cause of illness
because they cut through meridians . Medicine: pathways in the body in which the life energy (Qi) flows].
The problem with the meridians is again that doctors don't learn this during their studies.
During their studies, doctors do not systematically learn which meridians do what in the body and what the
consequences are if they are cut or energetically blocked.
This means that the lack of knowledge in holistic medicine also has an impact on the quality of medicine.
So that's why we, for example, from the patients' association, as well as from the doctors' association, are calling for greater
integration of holistic medicine, because the knowledge there can prevent many, many pain
patients and chronic diseases, for example.
But a general practitioner will argue that the meridians do not exist because there is no physiological correlate .
So there is no guideway that represents this.
So I wouldn't like to start that discussion today. So what you say is not true.
If the general practitioner says that it is so, it does not mean that it is so.
General practitioners are constantly taught during their studies that they have to believe in homeopathy or that they
have to believe in meridians or whatever, which is nonsense.
That is simply nonsense. It has been scientifically proven both that high potencies are effective and that the law
of similars works, i.e. homeopathy, in its basic principles and also the outcomes , has been proven.
Just as in acupuncture, Russian researchers have discovered that acupuncture meridians,
for example, exhibit altered conductivity.
This is all scientifically proven.
Only it does not find its way into medical studies.
In other words, medical studies are no longer scientific, no longer really scientific, but rather
a kind of "dressage act", you could almost say.
I don't want to put it too harshly, but the fact is that students don't learn what they need to keep people
healthy or to be able to treat diseases at their roots.
That's why we need a reform, also in medical studies, that is cause-oriented.
We talked about sustainability at the beginning.
Is symptomatic treatment then not sustainable?
Yes, so symptom treatment is sustainable if, for example, you have eliminated the cause.
That means you have an accident, the accident has stopped.
Then the symptom treatment, the treatment of the broken bone, the skin abrasion, whatever
it was, is extremely healing and very helpful.
Symptom orientation is correct when the cause has ceased to exist.
But if you have chronic existential stress, for example, and that's why you have stomach
pain, and then you just take a stomach remedy...
And then you stop taking it and you have stomach pains again - because the cause hasn't gone, that goes without saying.
So if you don't get rid of the causes, the symptom will remain.
And of course that's not always as easy as I'm making it out to be.
Sometimes you also have polyfactorial diseases, which means you may have four or five causes at once.
And then, of course, you have to look for and treat the main causes.
And then you also have higher effects on sustainable long-term healing.
I can say this from over 30 years of practical experience.
I have a focus on the treatment of chronic illnesses, which of course have previously been to Pontius and
Pilate and have experienced the whole conventional medical program, and it has not helped them.
And then I do, what do I know, a scar removal, and then the problem is permanently solved
within, let's say, three quarters of an hour.
Well, I can give you an example of a patient who came with depression, sleep disorders and alleged psychoneurosis
, who had previously had two operations on her lungs.
The doctors didn't take this seriously and treated her with psychotropic drugs, sent her to a
psychiatric ward - a psychosomatic clinic, etc.
I treated the scars from this lung operation accordingly, I treated the trauma that the patient had
suffered from not being taken seriously by doctors - this is also a trauma that can lead to illness.
You should also realize that. So the doctor is not always right, nor is the psychotherapist.
Yes, so depression doesn't just have to be caused by a neurotic conflict or something like that. It can also have other causes.
And then, as I said, I removed the scars and treated the trauma.
That took three quarters of an hour and then she was back at work after three weeks.
And she was supposed to be retired early. That's how bad the condition was.
So I just wanted to say that holistic medicine has many solutions.
And the medical system as a whole would become much, much more effective and also cheaper if it
were systematically applied in a cause-oriented way.
So it's not just holistic medicine for the sake of holistic medicine.
Instead, holistic medicine looks for many causes of illness. It looks for heavy metal poisoning and deduces.
And how many people lose their cardiac arrhythmia because they have eliminated the heavy metals?
How many people can suddenly become pregnant when they were previously infertile?
Because they eliminate heavy metals. These are just a few examples.
Electrosmog is a different topic - and is not taken seriously enough these days.
But there are also studies that show that brain tumors are increasing, the tendency to develop cancer is
increasing or concentration disorders in children are increasing and that this is dependent on cell phone use.
I just wanted to say that there are many, many examples.
What other causes of illness are important that are often overlooked? Trauma-related disorders.
A very important point is that people don't even know when they are anaesthetized, for example, that the
body still experiences pain, it just doesn't perceive it.
Yes, and sometimes the anesthesia is not deep enough and then trauma sequelae can develop, which can also
lead to chronic illnesses, both mentally and physically.
And all these things can be taught to people, let's say students.
It doesn't take me long to simply say, you can find out this way, that way, you just have to take an anamnesis .
And now returning to your question, the fee system, if it prevents doctors from taking medical histories at all,
and if this medical study prevents doctors from getting to know the causes, yes, there is no sustainability.
That's why I say that we could save billions of euros if we were to integrate the causes into medical studies and
treatment into doctors' practices, and holistic medicine is part of this, it's not possible without it.
But that in itself is good news, that the costs could really be reduced and patients could be given additional benefits.
We'll come back to this psychosomatic medicine.
That's basically the last card the doctor pulls, if all his diagnostics and conventional medical
knowledge don't work, then it's a psychosomatic case.
Yes, you already know that you are talking to a specialist in psychosomatic, psychotherapeutic medicine.
Okay, so once again you are right to put your finger in the wound here.
Psychotherapists, whether they are psychologists or psychotherapists, actually learn that if they have a
depressive syndrome, they have to look for the conflicts.
What you have forgotten or have not been told is that there are often underlying causes of a physical nature.
And that's not just hyperthyroidism, that's what the family doctor knows, what he also checks once.
But B12 deficiency, folic acid deficiency , B6 deficiency, post-traumatic stress disorder, heavy metal poisoning.
I have had many patients in my practice who have developed obsessive-compulsive disorder because they had mercury
poisoning or epilepsy because they had mercury poisoning.
And all of this could be treated and also permanently treated chronically, i.e. cured, through detoxification.
So these are the important points where I say that medicine is looking away, away, away, away, away...
There are other points where she also looks the other way.
But it goes to completely different levels, for example the topic of out-of-body perception.
Yes, that might go a bit beyond the scope here, I just want to touch on it briefly.
There are some phenomena that many thousands of people have experienced that medicine simply cannot explain,
and since it cannot explain them, it simply ignores them.
People just look the other way as if it didn't exist.
As if we were in the Middle Ages and we hadn't had the Enlightenment and there wasn't really a call to
clarify contradictions to the current doctrinal system, to the current hypotheses and to expand the hypotheses .
This is urgently needed and overdue in medicine.
This also touches on the topics of organ donation, organ removal, determination of death, etc.
So another framework where I say we need a Reformation 2.0 in medicine so that patients are better off.
We need people who get involved and bring this to the fore, because politicians don't listen to patients'
demands when they are put forward by an individual.
Yes, if you call them and say, I know something, don't you even want to save three billion euros a year?
Then he listens anyway, because he's told by someone else: Let's not do it, let's not do it.
If, however, perhaps a million patients are storming the politician's letterbox, or the parliamentary group or the group
as a whole is speaking out at the same time and formulating a concern, then it has a much better
chance of being heard, because then you realize:
Okay, at the next election, it could be close.
Do we really want to make it clear to these people that we will continue to ignore them or do we want to take them seriously?
And that's why I say that people need to organize themselves, they need to come together and make their voices heard.
Before we go any further. You mentioned the parties.
How is that? There are now quite a few new parties on the market, if you like. Do they have that on their radar?
So I think that the new parties still have too little expertise in this area.
I don't want to say that there is a lack of will, I wouldn't want to put it like that now.
There are certainly approaches to be seen where I say they want to take citizens' interests more seriously.
But there is still a lack of expertise to really integrate this knowledge from holistic medicine, which
actually improves medicine in a cause-oriented way.
Because, once again, the central idea is that there is no cure if the cause persists.
No permanent cure, is not possible.
That's why we need to restructure the healthcare system in a cause-oriented way.
This also applies to science, where we also have the corresponding errors.
And the ICD code as well.
You know that the doctors' diagnosis code is purely symptom-oriented.
It only says "gastritis" - it doesn't say "gastritis due to existential angst" or
anything like that. Yes, so it's not linked.
And in this respect, the research that is carried out often makes the mistake of not differentiating
between causes and then not finding what matches this cause.
Then you only find something that goes with everything at the same time.
And that is usually the most poisonous thing.
And then I have the side effect problem again and the consequential damage.
So you're saying it's a systematic error that pervades medicine?
Yes, at least one. So if you take the systematic error cause orientation, we have one.
The next one is called mismanagement in the healthcare system.
In other words, the financial mismanagement that all this is not paid for.
What helps, what really heals, is not paid for.
Anything with few side effects is excluded.
What has side effects is narrowed down.
It is still permissible for chief physicians to have bonus contracts - in other words, they are paid extra for particularly
expensive treatments, while cheaper treatments are not paid for.
So there are several systematic errors that lead to patients not getting what is really good for them.
Therefore, on the subject of the Medical Association, restoring ethics in medicine:
It should be about the patient getting what is best for them and with all the knowledge the doctor has.
And not because he gets more money or less money for it.
For this reason, all medical treatment should be paid for equally. Regardless of the method.
And the doctor must decide which method should be used.
And for him to be able to make that decision, he must also be trained in all methods. And not just in three out of five or six.
So we really need a Reformation 2.0 in the healthcare system to make it cheaper, more sustainable, more patient-oriented
and - here comes another very important sentence: safer.
Yes, safety is an important issue. Where do you see a need to catch up?
Yes, this is now a very important topic, because there is a need to catch up in several areas.
So it is officially the case that many more people are operated on in Germany than in
the well-industrialized neighboring countries.
This means that the indication for surgery is obviously a little more generous here.
There's the question, every operation has risks and side effects - there are infections, there are deaths
from anesthesia, from side effects of surgery, etc.
This is a topic that is also widely discussed in the medical profession.
But other issues are perhaps even more important.
And that is the topic of the nemesis of medicine .
This was already published in the 1970s , whether medicine does more harm than good in many areas.
And if I now turn to the side effects of medication, there are figures that have been determined both in Germany, by Prof.
Schönhofer in Bremen, and at the time in the USA, that around 50,000 people in Germany die every year as a result of the
side effects of medication that they have taken properly - i.e. not overdosed or with suicidal intent or something like that.
That was before we had corona, before we got the modRNA vaccination.
That was already a very, very big issue, where people - there are 200,000 admissions to
hospitals because of side effects, i.e. from medication.
This means that a very important point must be to reduce the drugs with many side effects and replace them with
other drugs or substances that also have a healing effect, alleviate symptoms and have fewer side effects.
This brings me back to the subject of holistic medicine.
Plants are often much safer than many other things.
Of course I need conventional medicine, I would never want to do away with it.
So we are very, very grateful for the performance of intensive care medicine, trauma surgery, etc.
But there is a real need to catch up in many areas in order to make the low-side-effect alternatives visible
and also to place them in the first line of prescriptions.
So we from the patient association demand that the drug with the fewest side effects must always be
administered first, with the same, shall I say, efficacy.
So it should not be the case that one thing is paid for by a fund, the thing that causes the damage and the thing
that is safer, so to speak, has to be paid for by yourself.
This is second- and third-class medicine, which is unethical, which makes people who have less money the victims of any side
effects, unnecessarily. These are things that should be stopped.
And anyone who then makes fun of homeopathy or herbal medicine simply doesn't know what this medicine is capable of.
Yes, that's something where I say we need to catch up.
We have a very big problem when it comes to vaccinations.
The more recent study in America, which has now been published by the Henry Ford Foundation, shows that the vaccinated children,
who have a very broad vaccination schedule in the USA, that 57 percent of these
children become chronically ill by the age of 10.
While 17 percent of unvaccinated children develop chronic diseases by the age of 10.
To put it bluntly, 40 percent of children become chronically ill because they are vaccinated.
Of course, I can't sign this sentence with a bit of scientific thinking, because there are certainly a few accompanying factors.
But a large number, a large number, 30 percent, 35 percent, one can say with great certainty, only
become ill because they have been vaccinated many times.
And there are no studies on the effects of combination vaccinations.
There is no research at all. There are no real placebo analyses.
In other words, here again we see the money trail. Why weren't they made?
This means that children are administered substances without a placebo-controlled study.
I think that is criminal, as do we at the Patient Protection Association and the Medical Association.
Things should be scrutinized, analyzed evidence-based .
With the Covid-19 vaccination, it has to be said, mod RNA vaccination, we have a new technology at the start
where, let me say, little machines are produced that produce proteins that can be very harmful to the body.
And these little machines were transported into all body cells via the packaging, the lipid nanoparticles .
They still have an effect even after months and years, as studies and research are now finding out.
In other words, people have been implanted with time bombs and led to believe it is a vaccination.
The effectiveness of this vaccination, as well as its safety, has never been proven.
It has also never protected against infection. Nor has it ever been the subject of research.
This has become a huge health problem, so we are calling for all authorizations for these substances to be
revoked until everything has been properly clarified.
Because more people are still dying from the side effects, even if these vaccinations were given two or three years ago.
This can be determined on the basis of blood tests, on the basis of tissue tests, on the basis of vascular tests -
for example, if you do an autopsy, stroke patients who have thrombi contain these spike proteins .
According to what we were told, they should be gone after 14 days.
After two and a half years, they are still there. This is found in tumors.
So all of this also needs to be reviewed.
And that's where you need the recall of the approval.
In the case of childhood vaccinations, all recommendations must actually be put on hold for the time being, so that for the time
being it is only the doctor's recommendation and, I don't know, perhaps also the parents'
discretion, and until the study situation is confirmed.
And you have to conduct clean studies.
This means that we can no longer allow a manufacturer to claim something and present a study and
nobody checks it. They are currently not being checked.
We have a drug safety authority, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, for the Covid-19 vaccination, which blindly accepted
the manufacturer's information and did not carry out any batch controls and did not check many things.
When it comes to childhood vaccinations, things are reported, but not checked.
This is something where I say we have some catching up to do when it comes to drug safety.
To achieve this, we need to appoint independent experts to all the higher health authorities.
In other words, all the decision-makers who have been active in these bodies over the last
few years should be dismissed at this point.
Because it can be proven that each individual has not acted scientifically and not in the interests of the population.
And at this point, an independent team of experts must be formed who can independently review studies again and again.
And of course it is not acceptable for lobbyists to come and go in the corridors of the Ministry of Health and dictate the laws.
Here, too, we need independent politicians to do this.
And that is why it is perhaps necessary to remove the politicians from this party system, the health politicians from the
party system, and fill them with experts who are pluralistic.
In other words, where specialist expertise from the most diverse areas comes together.
I can't show the final design for this here and now.
I just see that we have mismanagement on many levels, the influence of lobbyists at the very top on politics.
Politics determines what the higher health authorities, the STIKO, the PEI and the RKI
have to say to the outside world, so to speak.
It is not science. And that puts patients at risk.
And that is not, as they say, a good thing for a democracy.
It should be about patient interest, it should be about education and knowledge, about evidence-based medicine.
I have another question. What does evidence-based mean?
Yes, evidence-based can be interpreted in several ways.
We only consider it justifiable to talk about evidence-based if the individual patient experience is also taken into account.
Evidence-based basically means weighing up the benefits and harms.
So you have to end up with a plus bill.
So all things also have side effects and dangers.
But there has to be a clear plus for something to be justifiable, morally justifiable, ethically justifiable.
And this consideration must be possible on an individual basis.
And there is, for example, one of the co-founders of evidence-based medicine, David Sackett.
For example, he clearly stated that there is evidence from studies.
I have already talked about the problem that studies can also be manipulated and falsified.
Therefore, although the study evidence is important, it is not the only decisive factor.
In addition, statistical averages are often the only way to go.
And if the statistical mean is that someone is 1.70 m tall and the statistical man is 1.90 m, then you simply won't fit in.
And this is also the case with many diseases, where the study results do not reflect the actual reality.
And that's why it's important that there is also an individual level of experience, that the patient's wishes
are also taken into account, wishes and values above all.
One person still wants something to be treated, the other no longer does.
And that the specialist expertise of the doctor is also incorporated.
He has many years of professional experience with A, B, C, D, E and also with this patient.
And if he comes to an opinion on this now, then it must not be wiped off the table.
Just because a study with some mean value exists somewhere.
However, it is often not clear whether the study has actually properly randomized the causes that are present in this patient .
As I said before, we have a systematic shortcoming at the scientific level because the various
causes of disease are not properly randomized.
Randomized means that I examine different study arms.
Some now have many scars, so to speak, while others have no scars at all.
That the topic of scars and environmental pollution is included.
For example, one has mercury poisoning, high scores , another has allergies and the next has none of that.
That you have to look at this in a differentiated way in order to see: Okay, how do the different
cohort groups react to certain treatment measures?
So evidence-based must be thought of in three tracks.
And the study evidence must be subjected to further scrutiny, because we see considerable shortcomings there.
This is also officially known and has already been the subject of major scientific conferences.
That many studies here have methodological flaws and that there have also been obvious
manipulations - i.e. forgeries, attempted forgeries.
And this is then sold afterwards as science.
This exposes patients to a false concept of science or to the wrong science.
And this means that science is no longer our friend and helper, but the danger we are dealing with.
And that is why we need Reformation 2.0, I repeat myself here, especially in the field of medicine, in order to ensure
and establish safety for people and the best possible quality.
Regardless of the profit interests of certain players in the healthcare sector.
But that would also reduce the costs for the economy, which would also be a desirable side effect.
You can assume that.
Now we have the problem that the powerful are reluctant to give up their power and are unlikely to do so voluntarily.
And if they say that the new parties don't really have this on their agenda either, no improvement can be expected from there.
What is your approach? How can we as a population influence this?
So I wouldn't paint it quite so black. We don't know.
So far, the only perception I've had is that they are not getting enough plural advice.
So I have the impression that they still just go to the health insurance companies or to the pharmaceutical people and get
told something and haven't heard the patients' voices properly.
So if you make patients' voices heard, I believe that various parties would certainly open up.
And that is why it is necessary for patients to organize themselves.
That's why there is this patient protection association called "Natürlich gesund werden für alle e.V."
(www.natuerlichgesundwerdenfueralle.org) website. The annual fee is 30 euros.
We would of course be delighted if many people who are listening today would say, okay, we
support this. It's like a kind of patients' union.
So there's no direct benefit, but that may come if there are a lot of them and so on.
But we can pool our voices and take joint action.
This means that if there is an issue that we want to change, we can all write an email at the same
time or write a letter or a card at the same time.
And that makes an impression. This is also how women managed to get equal rights enshrined in the Basic Law.
That was a postcard campaign. Okay, it was the masses that counted.
You talked about this patient protection association that you can register with.
Are there any other ways to support this cause?
Yes, that's how it is with the Patient Protection Association.
You can become a member for 30 euros a year, as I said. Anyone can afford that.
And the other thing is that we at the Hypocratic Oath Medical Association have a
button on our website called "Join in actions".
And you can sign up to be notified when we run campaigns, for example, to promote one or other
topic in the healthcare system for improvement.
And there is also the possibility - I have shown this briefly here, perhaps I can hold it up
like this - we have prepared a list of signatures.
So if you are at home and meet up with friends and talk about health and how bad it all is or what doesn't work, then
you can please present them with this list of signatures [the list can be found on Kla.TV under the program!
Then you will also be notified when there is another action to bring one or two points forward.
So it is the case that you can simply be notified.
This is a declaration of consent that we may use the e-mail address.
Yes, thank you very much.
With pleasure.
Dr. Sonja Reitz, thank you for this interview and I wish you all the best and see you next time.
Thank you very much as well.