Scientific reviews (known as systematic reviews) are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine.
They are often used as a source to gain an overview of the current state of research on the
effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, such as vaccines.
The Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), whose vaccination recommendations are considered authoritative by many in Germany,
also uses such reviews to issue vaccination recommendations.
A recently published study has now shown: Over 91%—or more than nine out of ten—of such reviews have a “critically low”
level of reliability in terms of reporting quality and therefore do not meet the standards for methodological reliability.
The study was conducted, of all places, by the RKI, which houses STIKO.
Does the RKI currently feel compelled to take a critical stance in response to growing
criticism of STIKO and its vaccination recommendations?
Dr. Alexander Konietzky, spokesperson for the ÄFI Executive Board, explains:
“STIKO always bases its vaccination recommendations on scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines.”
The study now presented by the RKI and the WHO proves the opposite:
The low level of credibility of the vast majority of vaccine studies contradicts this expectation—an
expectation that the public is, however, entitled to.
Vaccination recommendations must be based on the highest level of evidence.
After all, vaccinations involve the preventive administration of substances to healthy people (…).
"All of STIKO's vaccination recommendations, which are based solely on its own testing methods, would have
failed to meet the standards set by the current study. They all therefore need to be re-evaluated."
Kla.TV – The world's largest news network for suppressed dissenting voices.