article- German Deaths Analysis 2022

article- German Deaths Analysis 2022

Article: German Deaths Data Analysis 2022

Re: the alarming increase in deaths since the covid injection rollout in Germany & the failure of the PEI & RKI to do this analysis


Back to All Cases

Re-post of original article: (as reported on Dec 13, 2022)

German Data Analyst Reveals Data from Health Insurance Shows 4 Times Increase in Sudden Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts

by Jim Hoft

German data analyst Tom Lausen held a conference on Monday in the Bundestag to discuss the massive rise in people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” after the Covid vaccine rollout.

Only one mainstream journalist was present during the press conference.

The National Association for Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP) provided the data covering over 72 million insured Germans.

NASHIP or “Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV),” is the coordinating body of all 17 State Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in Germany. As of 2018, it represented about 175,000 office-based physicians and psychotherapists.

“The association is also actively involved in negotiations on the range of services provided by statutory health insurance companies and the remuneration of doctors. Furthermore, the KBV carries out a “security mandate” in accordance with Section 75 (1) SGB V, which is intended to ensure that all legally insured patients can receive adequate outpatient care.”

The government agency responsible with assessing the risks of vaccination apparently did not inquire about this information, as stated during the news conference.

According to Section 13 of the Infection Protection Act, the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute have to evaluate diagnosis codes from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) at reqular intervals in order to determine vaccination effects. But since the beginning of the corona vaccinations, this data has neither been requested nor evaluated.”

“After numerous inquiries in recent months, the KBV data (period: 2016 to the first quarter of 2022) are available to our health policy spokesman, Martin Sichert,” according to the website.

More from

Since the beginning of the corona vaccination, there have been drastic changes in the number of diseases and deaths in the population. This is based on data from the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, which Martin Sichert was able to evaluate exclusively together with data expert Tom Lausen and which will be presented at the press conference.

Patient data from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) on the side effects of corona vaccinations provide frightening insights: With the start of mass corona vaccinations, the number of people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” skyrocketed compared to previous years, more than fourfold. In every quarter, starting with the first quarter of 2021, more sudden and unexpected deaths were identified by panel doctors than in every year from 2016 to 2020 as a whole.

Using coded data covering 72 million Germans available from the health insurers, the number of people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” skyrocketed compared to previous years.

“It was found that in 2021 not only were 2,487,526 patients with vaccination side effects seen by the doctor, but that there were also drastic changes in clinical pictures and deaths since the start of the corona vaccination.”

The following diagnostic keys were evaluated in order to analyze the rise in sudden deaths:

  • R96.0 Sudden death
  • R96.1 Death occurring within less than 24 hours of onset of symptoms, unless otherwise stated
  • R98 Death without others present
  • R99 Other imprecise or unspecified causes of death
  • I46.1 Sudden cardiac death

Report24 reported:

The following graphic illustrates the sharp increase in diagnoses R96 to R99 since the first quarter of 2021:

According to KBV data, in 2021 there was an increase in diagnoses of “sudden death” (R96) of +1,082 percent:

With diagnostic key R96.1, the increase is even +1,673 percent:

If you look at the figures per quarter, a first slight increase can already be seen at the end of 2020:

The diagnosis of “sudden cardiac death” has also been made significantly more frequently since 2021:

Lausen presented the following overview of the increase in deaths by quarter for ICD I46 and R96 to R99 at the press conference:

The team of analysts demanded that:

  1. Immediate suspension of vaccination with the corona vaccines until it can be ruled out that the massive increase in deaths is due to the vaccination
  2. Autopsies on all those who died suddenly and unexpectedly to determine where they came from massive increase coming
  3. Mandatory recording of the vaccination status of the corona vaccinations and the used vaccine in all deceased and regular publication of this data
  4. Immediate evaluation of the KB data by the PEI and RKI and information of the population and doctors about the increase in diseases
  5. Linking of the KBV data with the vaccination data by PEI and RKI and publication

The German PDF data is available to download here.

You can watch the conference below:

Press Conference Extract (English Subs) -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Full Conference (Deutsch) -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Delivery of Data Analysis to Paul Erlich Institute -Dec 12 2022 (Deutsch)

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Related Videos

Prof Fukushima “Stop the Vax – You’re Killing People!” -Nov 29 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

UK Cardiologist Dr Malhotra on Vax Dangers -Oct 19 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Florida Gov DeSantis Announces Vaccine Grand Jury -Dec 14 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Vaccine Injuries in Australia -Dec 6 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

2 US Army Flight Surgeon Vaccine Whistleblowers -Nov 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Massive Birthrate Reductions as Jabs Increase -Oct 29 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

US Lawyer Shows All Vaccines are Harmful -Oct 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

2 US Army Flight Surgeon Vaccine Whistleblowers -Nov 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Science Summit Uncensored: 2nd Experiment -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Scottish Govt “Repeat Experiments” Show Vaccine Harm Causality

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

German Pathologists say NO to Vaccine Mandate


“We’re Coming For You!”: Aussi Sen Roberts on Vaccine Crimes

source: Odysee\Kenan SonofEnos

NZ Scientist Examines Pfizer Jab Under The Microscope -Apr 2022

source: Odysee/ drSamBailey

NHS Doctor confronts Sajid Javid -Jan 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

related articles


accounting, Afd, article, Autopsies, Data, deaths, evaluation, German Infection Protection Act, germany, Großenbach, Health Insurance, INEK, Infection Protection Act, Insurance, Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, KBV, Lausen, myocarditis, NASHIP, National Association for Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Paul Ehrlich Institute, PE, Plötzlich, press conference, risks, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Safety, Sichert, side effects, Sudden death, underreporting, Unerwartet, Vaccination, Vaccine

Back to All Cases


Virus Science Case

Virus Science Case

Virus Science Case

Re: the Legality of Health Acts supported by Science that does not follow the Scientific Method


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 2022
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany
  • Court: Hamburg District Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Marvin Haberland
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: City of Hamburg
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Oct 16, 2022



A German engineer and researcher Marvin Haberland has challenged the court for a fine he received for not wearing a mask. As he describes in an online interview with New Zealand Dr Sam Bailey, he is taking this as an opportunity to challenge the legality of the German covid measures. These measures he says are based on invalid scientific methodologies which the German law says should be illegal. [1]

He states that if he were to directly challenge the law, the German courts would not allow his case to be heard. However a case challenging a fine would be heard and offers an opportunity to challenge the health law and the science of virology. [1]

A court date was set for October 19 at the Hamburg District Court. It was awaited with great excitement – and many people had also already announced their intention to attend the public hearing. So this trial is not only unique, but also explosive. [2]

But now the district court has canceled the date. The reason given is that the judge has fallen ill. The court has not yet announced when the trial, scheduled for October 19, will be rescheduled. [2]

Regarding the merits of his case, Haberland said

“If the judge should actually rule against me, then that would be okay for me personally in a way. Because then we would have a verdict that says: In virology, you don’t have to do any control experiments, so to speak. But that would, to a certain extent, make the whole thing ridiculous. [3]

In any case, the judge has everything before him – and he is actually completely free in his decision. Either he examines all my evidence requests and then makes his judgment or he does not look at all this and rejects the evidence requests. Then, however, he would have to justify why he does that. After that, I would go to the next court instance. And there is no “alternative” anymore, i.e. everything has to be examined. In this respect, nothing bad can actually happen now. One way or another, it will lead to success in terms of educational work.” [3]



If this case is upheld it would show that the science of virology has not followed the scientific measures and all measures and restrictive acts would have to end.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Essentially the plaintiff argues that the German Law  and the Infection Protection Act, requires all science to follow the “Scientific Method”. This would entail controlled studies and detailed recording of methodologies to show that whatever is claimed could not be falsified. Mr Haberland argues that this required process was never completed and that consequently none of the covid measures are legal. [1]

In a German interview with Transition News:

“I have been working intensively on the subject of health, nutrition and medicine for five years now and have come across the fact that there is quite a controversial discussion in science as to whether things are done scientifically in virology and whether the scientific method is applied correctly. After all, even in the German Infection Protection Act, which is quite unique in the world, it is explicitly stated right at the beginning in paragraph 1 that everyone involved, every researcher, every institution, every authority, every university and ultimately also every doctor is obliged to work according to the state of the art in science. [3]

In particular, this also includes conducting control experiments. That is quite clear. Therefore, I have meticulously reviewed all relevant publications and asked the Robert Koch Institute and all authorities for publications in which the pathogen has been detected. You, Torsten, had also written to five authors who have carried out authoritative studies in the matter of SARS-CoV-2 detection – and I have also read all these studies. I noticed the same thing that Stefan Lanka and other scientists have found out, namely that in none of these studies corresponding control experiments were made.” [3]

A control experiment he explains is:

“For example, I want to prove that I can break a window pane with a feather. To do this, I have to do an experiment that can prove or verify this hypothesis – and then I also have to offer an experiment that can be used to falsify the hypothesis. [3]

For this I tie the feather to a stone so that it can fly better. Afterwards I throw the stone and the feather in connected form through the window and see what happens. Of course, the window also breaks. [3]

If I did not do a control experiment, I could theoretically conclude that it was the spring that caused the pane to break. The control experiment would now consist of taking away the independent variable to be investigated, i.e. the spring, and throwing the stone alone through the window – and then seeing whether the glass then remains intact or not. Only then will I know for sure whether the spring can be held causally responsible for the glass breakage. By the way, the spring stands here for the particles, which are claimed to be viruses. But the spring cannot be held accountable for the shattering of the window, because of course this also happens when the stone hits the glass alone. [3]

Such an experiment has really never been done. And there are even institutions that openly admit that.” [3]

“As part of my court case, I sent a request based on the Freedom of Information Act to the Doherty Intsitute at the University of Melbourne. This institute had published a study in 2020 that was the first outside of China that virologists claimed to have isolated “SARS-CoV-2.” I wanted to know from the authors of this paper whether they had carried out corresponding control experiments. And they actually wrote me back that they had not done such control experiments. [3]

Thereupon I asked: Why don’t you do any controls? And the answer was that they didn’t have enough capacity left for that. Their study was published as having no control experiment. But also in the guidelines of the German Research Foundation, for example, it is clearly stated with regard to what scientific work means that one should not publish early before one has finished all documentation and thus also all control experiments. [3]

I also received an answer from France, namely from the scientific director of the world-famous Institut Pasteur in Paris, which corresponds to the Robert Koch Institute here. According to this, no control tests were carried out there either. This, too, is now before the judge. He must now decide whether, according to Section 1 of the Infection Protection Act, the scientific character is still given.” [3]

“It is completely undisputed in science that you have to control your results. That is also recognized worldwide. The Charité itself also writes that in its guidelines. Just like the Robert Koch Institute, they are committed to the methods of good scientific practice published by the German Research Foundation. And every researcher has these guidelines in his or her employment contract. Among other things, it says that you should always and consistently challenge yourself, that you should document everything you do. And everyone who receives research funding in Germany is obliged to comply with these scientific rules. In this respect, this also applies to the Charité. [3]

I have submitted numerous motions for evidence. These include a request to the judge that he ask a biologist of his choice whether he can present a study in which a virus has been detected, including a control experiment. Another request to the court is to ask a laboratory or virologist to perform an appropriate experiment.” [3]

“In the soldiers’ trial before the Federal Administrative Court, for example, extensive motions for evidence were filed and experts were even heard – and yet in the end, this highest German court did not appreciate all this and ruled against the plaintiff soldiers. Does something like that affect your confidence? [3]

Of course, you can never say that there are no viruses. Because you can’t prove the non-existence of something. You can only prove the existence of something. And, it should be emphasized again, at least according to the current state of science and according to the scientific methods, no one has ever proven a virus.” [3]


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • …More information is needed…
Supporting Documents:
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…



COVID Goes To Court

source: Odysee / DrSamBailey

Dr. Stefan Lanka: Biology as it is not

source: Odysee / Lanka

FOIAs Collected form around the World show no evidence of Covid Isolation

source: Odysee / shortXXvids



  1. Marvin Haberlands Gerichtstermin am 19. Oktober in Hamburg abgesagt

  2. Selbst das Institut Pasteur machte keine Kontrollversuche – und hat somit ‹SARS-CoV-2› nicht nachgewiesen



Bailey, Charité, Control, Controlled Experiment, Doherty Intsitute, Engelbrecht, Existence, FOIA, German Infection Protection Act, Germany, Haberland, Hamburg, Isolation, Lanka, Mania, Marvin, Massey, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Science, Scientific Method, University of Melbourne, Virology, Virus

Back to All Cases