Posté le 18 mai
Télécharger | Reposter | Largeur fixe

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Worum geht es, wenn es nicht um Gesundheit geht? (9. May 21)

What is it, if it is not about our health? (May 9, 2021)
Translation and voiceover: Minima

How would you have reacted if we had told you at the start of 2020,
- That from mid-March 2020 until today, not only in Germany, but all over the world, populations, including children, would be forced to wear masks,
- That, in the name of what is called confinement, the entire German middle class as well as the middle class throughout the Western world, would be threatened with bankruptcy,
- That millions of surgeries, health measures such as cancer screening, rehabilitation and other necessary medical care would be postponed, with immeasurable consequences for the health of those concerned,
- That thousands of terminally ill people in Germany and many other countries would be forced to die alone and in isolation, without the presence of their loved ones?
- That all over Germany and much of the world, people would be deprived of their liberty for weeks on end, without a court ruling, just on the basis of so-called "quarantine decrees"?
- That, in Germany and in many countries, people would be prosecuted for celebrating a birthday, sitting on a public bench, jogging, or daring to sing?

Parliaments filled with our elected representatives are de facto deprived of power, and governments, federal and Länder have issued a multitude of arbitrary regulations, of which no one understands neither the content nor the constraints, and this without any legitimation by the people. ?
All fundamental democratic rights have been de facto suspended, including our most important fundamental democratic right, freedom of expression.


Would you have thought this to be normal and quite natural, or would you, on the contrary, have jumped in disbelief, and asked yourself, "But how is this possible in a democracy?"
That was a rhetorical question on my part, of course, because of course, you who are listening to me, you would have asked yourself that question.

In the meantime, everything I just listed has become a reality, but it seems that no one among our rulers has asked themselves the most relevant question in the world, namely: Why has all this happened? been set up? Because until today, we have not received an answer to this question, neither from the federal government nor from the Länder. We just had the right to: “We are in a pandemic, so obey. Do what you're told and do it without asking questions. "
This is exactly what the Director of the Robert-Koch-Institut RKI, a veterinarian by the name of Wieler, expressly explained to us when he demanded on behalf of the federal government - because it should be known that the RKI is a higher federal authority, which must obey instructions from governments, to the Federal Ministry of Health - when it publicly explained to us that we should not ask questions, but obey injunctions.
This should have stunned us, taken the breath away in democracy, because a democracy lives precisely on moral competence, and this moral competence requires two things: the ability to ask questions instead of blindly following orders, and the ability to discuss other opinions instead of slandering them en bloc.
Both the freedom to ask questions and the ability to debate are at the very heart of freedom of expression, and therefore at the heart of democracy.
This government decree - let us recall once again that the RKI is an administration bound to respect instructions - was the beginning of the most serious attack ever perpetrated against our democracy.

The resulting underlying questions are therefore:
In whose interest is this attack by our own government against our democracy, that is, against the power of the people?
And more specifically, who has an interest in destroying the power of the people, democracy, and replacing it with what we have seen over the past year, a fascist totalitarian regime.

Let's start with the basic question:
What evidence is this decree based on, which destroys democracy and causes gigantic damage?
If concrete questions had been asked on this subject, and if the federal government had engaged in a public discussion, even if it had only respected the general principle "audiatur et altera pars", "Let the other party be heard as well. "instead of following exclusively the increasingly brazen demands of a certain Mr Drosten, then these three specific questions should have been asked:

- First, what is the real dangerousness of this new suspected virus?
The answer would have been to agree with the opinion of the admittedly very controversial WHO and that of the highly respected Professor Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, according to which, with a death rate from infection of 0.1.4 to 0 , 2.6%, the virus is not more dangerous than the seasonal flu.

-Secondly, what is the health and economic impact of the so-called “Anti-Corona” measures?
The very detailed and precise answer to this question has been available at the Federal Ministry of the Interior since May 2020 in the form of what is now called the "document on false alarms". This document was prepared by a specialist from the Ministry of the Interior who is highly qualified and trained in risk assessment to protect the population, and in the meantime, everyone knows the answer as described above: the effects of So-called Anti-Corona measures are devastating.

-Third, how reliable is the infection detection PCR test that Drosten developed as early as January 2020?

At a time when he, Wieler and the others were still saying publicly that there was nothing to fear from the coronavirus. And this test was immediately recommended by the WHO around the world.
The answer is this: a PCR test cannot provide any information about an infection, it is not even licensed for that purpose. This is why this test only has an "emergency use authorization" in the United States, and not a full-fledged true authorization.
Where did I find the answers to these three questions? These are the results of the work of the Corona Committee, which my colleague Viviane Fischer and I founded with two other lawyers on July 10, 2020, and which has since been continuously advised by the pulmonologist and former head of the public health service of longtime Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, Professor Dr Ulrike Kämmerer, Professor of Human Biology at the University of Würzburg, and Professor of Law Dr Martin Schwab at the University of Bielefeld.

This committee has since consulted with over 100 respected and world-renowned scientists: doctors, lawyers, economists, psychologists, psychiatrists and many more.

It is no longer even necessary to explain to anyone that the damage caused by these measures is devastating. A third world war would not have done worse.
The fact that the real danger of the virus - whatever it is exactly, and regardless of the fact that it has never been isolated in a scientifically correct way - does not exceed that of seasonal influenza, this fact has even been admitted by the WHO, which assumes an infection rate of 0.1.4%, as I mentioned earlier.

And the overwhelming majority of those who die, are over 80, and have multiple serious pre-existing pathologies. This is proven, among other things, by the autopsies carried out by Professor Püschel from Hamburg, and, curiously, carried out against the express wishes of the RKI.
Meanwhile, dozens of scientists have confirmed that the so-called “Drosten PCR Test”, which has become infamous around the world, does not allow conclusions to be drawn about infections, contrary to the claims of its inventor Mr. Drosten. Even the WHO and the CDC, the American benchmark institute counterpart to the German RKI, admitted this and stressed that a positive test does not say anything about the infectious nature of the person tested.

This is because this test cannot distinguish between living material and dead material. It therefore cannot say whether what it detects is a dead fragment, a vestige of the body's successful defense against a viral attack overcome in the past, or whether a live virus has indeed entered the cells and multiplies there. However, only that would lead to infection. This test also cannot tell us whether the symptoms that appear in a person are not from another pathogen, such as a cold or flu virus.

Moreover, the CDC indicates in two sentences that "the demonstration of a viral RNA does not suggest the presence of an infectious virus or that the Covid 19 is the agent responsible for the clinical symptoms", and that "this test does not exclude disease caused by other bacterial or viral agents ".

Oh yes, and of course: These two statements presuppose that the person tested has symptoms, for example headache or throat pain, pain in the limbs, diarrhea, etc.
Normally, a person who has no symptoms, that is, no disorder, and therefore could not give the doctor any indication for a medical diagnosis of anything, well a person who does not nothing is wrong with the doctor. What to answer in fact to the doctor's question: "What are you suffering from?" if you have no symptoms?
Normally, at least until Corona's arrival, people with no symptoms were considered to be healthy - and perceived to be so.

It should also be noted that this assertion according to which there are infections without so-called “asymptomatic” symptoms is a thesis that Mr. Drosten also supported. However, as recently shown in a study of 10 million participants in Wuhan, China, at the end of last year, there is no asymptomatic infection.

So let's summarize: These two bogus claims - the claim that there are asymptomatic infections and the claim that Drosten's PCR test can detect infections - both come from Drosten himself.

He published them in early 2020 in two documents that do not even meet accepted scientific standards. In fact, about these PCR tests, 22 internationally renowned scientists have agreed to make it known in their so-called retraction paper "retraction document".
Moreover, when he published these statements, he knew full well that they were false. He knew, at the time of publication, and regarding the asymptomatic infection, that the case he cited as an example of a Chinese woman visiting Germany was not asymptomatic at all. She had even treated her symptoms with a commonly used flu medication.

And according to an interview he gave to the Wirtschaftswoche in 2014, he was fully aware that a positive PCR test does not mean anything when it comes to infection.

But Mr Drosten, besides serious financial conflicts of interest, has a whole other problem of credibility. Indeed, doubts hover over his doctoral thesis, and whether he in fact has the right to carry that doctoral title. In this regard, legal action is underway.

About his credibility as well. During the 2009 swine flu epidemic, and with the now completely discredited Englishman Neil Ferguson, he warned the public of the dire consequences and millions of deaths if a mass vaccination did not take place immediately.
These predictions turned out to be completely unfounded and wrong, and the swine flu turned out to be a "mild flu". However, the vaccines had already been purchased by many countries around the world - on terms that have remained secret to this day - and were then injected before all stocks were destroyed at great expense. As a result, around 1,300 children, especially in Scandinavia, are severely disabled for life because they suffer from narcolepsy.

The question is why the federal government, without even a hint of empathy or compassion, heeded this man's advice and requests for massive containment, why he ordered these devastating measures which, among other things, left terminally ill patients die alone, without the support of their loved ones.

And why has the government not only refused to take notice of other opinions, but rejected them outright, calling them far-right, anti-Semitic and conspiracy theories, without even considering them, let alone discuss it?

In short, how is it that the government - and, in the process, the government of the Länder - knowingly and voluntarily ordered deadly and devastating measures, that it demanded that no one ask questions and that it be besides ignored and deliberately denigrated, all the other scientific and medical opinions which affirmed that the suspected new virus posed no greater threat than the influenza virus, that there were effective treatments that cost next to nothing and that the measures taken together would cause the most devastating health and economic damage.
How did the federal government come to ignore even the corroborating data detailed in the voluminous "false alarm document" I mentioned earlier, written by a highly qualified Home Office official responsible for civil defense?
And above all, why does the federal government, in complete disagreement with the Nuremberg Code, authorize a medical experiment on its own population, and to do so, deliberately lie to it.
Why is the federal government allowing the population, which has been pushed in this direction for a year, to be treated with a product called a vaccine, which is in fact a genetic treatment, the effectiveness of which is very controversial, and the dangerousness of which is not has never been adequately tested in any scientific study, and is being tested right now, "live", so to speak, on an unsuspecting population.
Why, after massive side effects, including a slew of reported deaths, for which any serious study would be immediately halted, why is the government allowing this experiment to continue?

To sum up: What interests does the German government represent when it orders such destructive measures? Those of the German people, or others, totally different?

Given the obvious fact that intelligent and empathetic government officials would never do this against their own people by taking measures that would seriously damage their health, economy and, most importantly, democracy, the question which arises and must be asked is: In whose name is the government acting in this way? And why ?
When we know that the principal advisers of the German federal government are, in addition to Drosten, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, high-ranking representatives of the vaccine-producing pharmaceutical industry and of the technological industry, who all unisono demand the introduction of a digital vaccination passport, one can suspect that it is their interests which are represented here, and not those of the population, and this, without any empathy.

A growing body of international lawyers, particularly in Anglo-American law, are working closely together to shed light in the dark and find answers to the following questions: Who is behind it, and who needs to be held responsible. Because as the lawyer Louis Brandeis, former member of the Supreme Court in the United States said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" - "sunlight is the best of all disinfectants" -

And that sunlight is the light at the end of the tunnel that we can all see now, it's getting brighter and brighter.

Éditer le texte

Merci d'entrer le mot de passe que vous avez indiqué à la création du texte.

Télécharger le texte

Merci de choisir le format du fichier à télécharger.