In June 2026, NewsGuard analyst Mascha Wolf contacted Tkp.at as part of the process of conducting an initial rating of the site’s Nutrition Label. The site’s publisher, Dr. Peter F. Mayer, replied on 25 June 2026. His statement is published in full below.

(Note: This correspondence was originally written in German. NewsGuard’s team translated it into English. The German version can be found here.)

From: Peter F. Mayer

Date: 25. June 2026 

To: Mascha Wolf

Subject: Re: NewsGuard Analyse: Tkp.de

Good morning,

Re: Your enquiry regarding Tkp.at

Dear Ms Wolf,

We have received your enquiry. You write on behalf of a company that is setting out to evaluate “news and information websites” according to its own criteria, declared as “apolitical.” This premise alone is presumptuous. Whoever decides what is “credible” determines public discourse. The way organisations like NewsGuard present themselves as neutral arbiters is a well-known pattern for establishing a “truth” that primarily serves the interests of those who prop up the media and political status quo.

We do not regard your enquiry as an open-ended “reporting process,” but as an attempt to discredit dissenting scientific and political positions under the guise of “factual accuracy.”

On your specific points:

On “science”: You cite “independent experts” who question causality in studies or label preprints as “retracted” in order to suppress critical discourse. Science is not a static dogma but an ongoing process of questioning. When studies — such as those on infant mortality or Long COVID markers — point to uncomfortable correlations, the reflexive demand for “proof of causality” or discrediting through reference to methodological pre-publication criticism is merely a mechanism for narrowing public discourse. We document the debate and the data that state-funded institutions all too often ignore or deliberately suppress.

On “separation of news and opinion”: Your demand for a strict separation is a well-worn instrument for delegitimising critical analyses as “opinion” and thereby excluding them from the circle of “serious news.” Our journalists do not practise journalism that submits to the dictates of state-aligned reporting. Our articles in the Science and Politics sections are well-founded analyses of current events. The fact that these analyses do not follow the narrative of “climate propaganda” or the “pro-NATO agenda” is not a question of labelling, but a question of intellectual honesty.

On “author transparency”: There are short bios for the regular authors in the “About TKP” section; for guest authors, these appear at the end of each article, after the note that editorial and substantive responsibility for the piece lies with the respective guest author.

NewsGuard functions, in our understanding, as an ideological filter that narrows the corridor of what may be said. We have absolutely no interest in adapting our editorial line to your criteria in order to improve our “trust rating.” Our readers appreciate our work precisely because it does not follow the conformity requirements that you and your financiers impose on journalism.

We consent to the publication of this letter only in its unabridged form.

Please regard this letter as our final statement.

A further position paper on NewsGuard can be found here:
https://tkp.at/2026/06/25/die-illusion-der-neutralitaet-wie-faktenchecker-als-ideologische-filter-fungieren/

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Peter F. Mayer, Publisher, tkp.at

---

From: Mascha Wolf

Date: 19. June 2026

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: NewsGuard Analyse: Tkp.de

Good day,

I am writing to you on behalf of NewsGuard, a company that evaluates news and information websites for their credibility and transparency. We assess each website against nine apolitical journalistic criteria and assign a trust score between 0 and 100 points on that basis. Our assessment process and criteria can be found here.

We are currently in the process of conducting an initial rating of Tkp.at.

As part of our assessment process, we contact the publication in question to gather responses and to give the website the opportunity to draw our attention to information we may have overlooked.

Below we have set out some questions relating to specific criteria. Please do not regard these questions as our final conclusions; they are simply questions based on our research. Your perspective, and your responses as to whether we have misunderstood anything or are unaware of any countervailing facts, form an important part of our reporting process.

We would also like to make clear that these questions do not anticipate a final assessment of the website. Our aim is to ensure that our evaluation is as fair, accurate, and thorough as possible. Any statements you provide will be included in our report so that readers can understand your position. Please therefore treat this and any further correspondence with us as intended for publication.

With that in mind, we have the following questions:

We have questions about certain claims made in recent articles on Tkp.at.

• An article from May 2026 entitled “Infant mortality +37% and malformation deaths +46%: Study shows link with Covid vaccinations” claims that a study proves that COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women increased infant mortality by 37 percent and deaths due to congenital malformations by 46 percent. The article states that “the decades-long decline in infant mortality was completely reversed within a few years — precisely during the period of massive COVID vaccine deployment.” However, the cited study itself acknowledges that it is based on population-wide vaccination rates and cannot determine whether the mothers of the affected children were individually vaccinated. Several studies and health authorities have independently concluded that COVID-19 vaccinations during pregnancy are safe. Independent experts told NewsGuard that the study design does not allow for causal conclusions.

Does Tkp.at wish to comment on this apparently contradictory information and on why it was not addressed in this article?

• An article from December 2025 entitled “Study: Child vaccination increases mortality risk by up to 112% compared to the unvaccinated” claims that a study proves that vaccination leads to a higher risk of mortality, stating: “Children vaccinated in the second month of life are more likely to die in the third month of life.” The preprint on which the article is based was retracted by Preprints.org on 14 January 2026 — less than four weeks after its publication — after the server’s editor raised concerns about its methodology and the risk of misinterpretation by the public. Independent medical experts told NewsGuard that the study analysed only deceased children and did not include a comparison group of surviving infants.

Does Tkp.at wish to comment on this apparently contradictory information and on why the article has not yet been corrected to reflect the retraction of the cited study?

• An article from November 2025 entitled “New study confirms amyloid microclots in 100% of vaccinated individuals” claims that a peer-reviewed study published in October 2025 proves that COVID-19 vaccinations cause dangerous amyloid microclots in all vaccinated persons, stating: “Every single vaccinated participant in the study had fibrinolysis-resistant, ThT-positive amyloid microclots in their bloodstream.” However, the study’s lead authors told NewsGuard in an emailed statement that vaccination status had not been a variable in their research, which focused on biological markers associated with Long COVID. “Our work cannot be used as evidence of harm caused by vaccines,” they stated.

Does Tkp.at wish to comment on this apparently contradictory information and on why it was not addressed in this article?

If we have missed any corrections made to these articles, please let us know. Should there be any information or context that would enrich our understanding of these articles, we will be happy to include your statement in the label.

One of our criteria assesses whether a website has effective practices for transparently correcting errors. In my review, I was able to find only a single published correction on the website over the past few years, and I want to ensure I have not missed anything. Does Tkp.at publish corrections, and if so, could you point me to any corrections the website has made to editorial content in the past twelve months?

One of our criteria assesses how a website handles the distinction between news and opinion content. In our review, we found that some articles in the Science and Politics sections contain opinion-language formulations that are not labelled as opinion.

• For example, an article from June 2026 in the Politics section about an interview with an Austrian military analyst states: “It is part of the currently ongoing pro-NATO propaganda in Austria, aimed at hollowing out neutrality.”
• An article from May 2026, also in the Politics section, about French government figures on deaths during a heatwave states: “The first summer days in Europe and the media climate propaganda is already going haywire: France is reporting seven ‘heat deaths,’ at least five of whom drowned. That is enough to sell them as victims of ‘climate change.'” 

Is there a section of the website I may have overlooked where a point of view is disclosed, or where articles of this kind are labelled as opinion? Does Tkp.at wish to comment on its approach to the separation of news and opinion?

One of our criteria assesses whether a website provides information about who creates its content. To satisfy this criterion, we look for author attributions on most articles as well as a short biography or contact details for most content creators. In my review, I found that while Tkp.at’s About page lists more than 60 guest authors by name, it does not appear to provide biographical information, contact details, or subject-matter focus for any of them. Is this information available elsewhere on the website that I may have overlooked? If not, do you wish to comment on Tkp.at’s approach to disclosing information about guest authors?

I am happy to be reached by phone or email should you have any questions.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Mascha Wolf