Read Part 1. Part 2 of the transcription of grand jury day 2 of the court of public opinion, which focuses on Dark Winter, SPARS, Lock Step, and the WHO. If you want to listen along with the video, start from 3:00:01. Apologies that the numbers are out, the video is too large to upload here.
SPEAKERS
Debi Evans, Alex Thomson, Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt, Viviane Fischer, James Bush, Whitney Webb, Virginie De Araujo Recchia, Roman Mironov, Translator, Dr Silvia Behrendt, Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, N. Ana Garner, Reiner Fuellmich, Matthew Ehret, Brian Gerrish, Dipali Ojha
Alex Thomson 00:05
I believe we call it in one version.
Reiner Fuellmich 00:07
So ultimately what we’re dealing with is a British system of psychiatric manipulation, which has been sold worldwide, more or less. We have the City of London, again, aiming for world control. Is that why the common purpose people are creating their own future leaders? Is that a special position, apart from the Young Global Leaders programme?
Brian Gerrish 00:43
Well, as with these things, the attack comes in from parallel directions. So I would strongly suggest that many people in the common purpose network will have no idea of what the wider objective is, they are recruited. In the time I was really researching in detail, somebody would be recruited locally and asked to join, it wasn’t as if people were going to common purpose to join, common purpose sought out the people they wanted. And the agenda was clearly to train that future leader to work with other common purpose future leaders. And this is why it’s so significant when you see common purpose now operating, for example, very strongly in India. And former Prime Minister David Cameron was part of the team promoting common purpose in India. So common purpose is one of the routes by which people are being recruited and reframed. The World Economic Forum young global leaders would be another route via which probably more powerful people are recruited, reframed to bring them in line with what their new role is. So common purpose is particularly operating at low level public level in the first instance. But as time went on from 1985, it was clear to see that they got involved with the corporate, the big global (inaudible) much more strongly. And, then from there, they’ve gone to their world status. But what are we doing, we’re selecting people, their egos are being stroked, because somebody’s suggesting they’re going to become a very important future leader. World Economic Forum calls them global leaders. And then these people are being put together in order to change the world. That is the objective.
Reiner Fuellmich 03:10
Well, thank you very much. I think our next witness, Whitney Webb is under a little bit of stress. That’s why I hate to cut you off, but that’s why I think we have to give her a chance to maybe fill in the gaps, which we will try through asking questions. Unless my esteemed colleagues have any further questions, we would very much like to thank you all three of you for your excellent presentations. And then we would turn over switch to Whitney, is that okay? Well, thank you very much, Brian, and Alex and Debi. This is very important as far as the geopolitical and historical background of what we’re witnessing is concerned, and Matthew, of course. Whitney, one of the questions that I keep asking myself is what is the role of China in all of this? If you look at this as an Anglo American or City of London dominated game, really, what is the role of China in this?
Whitney Webb 04:27
Hi, can you hear me okay?
Reiner Fuellmich 04:29
Yes, we can hear you.
Whitney Webb 04:30
Okay, great. So, um, I’m not really a China expert, but I have done some work on the transnational networks of capital and influence, I guess you could say, from sort of the Nexus that people have been talking about so far today, the City of London Wall Street Nexus, and how they’re very influential in China. Probably the best most accessible example perhaps, is Steve Schwarzman, a Blackstone capital, who finances a programme at a, I forget exactly which Chinese University but it’s very prestigious, and that’s sort of like his personal version of the young global leaders programme of the wef in a sense, and of course, the Blackstone Group is intimately related to BlackRock, having come out of that same sphere in Wall Street. He is considered one of the US China “whisperers”, as is of course the original figure in American politics to have that sort of title is Henry Kissinger. Beyond that you have someone like Henry Paulson, who was Secretary of Treasury, under George W. Bush. Previously, Goldman Sachs, and he’s also very intimately involved in China [and] has a Chinese focused “philanthropic” foundation. Another individual would be Mike Bloomberg, who actually resurrected an event that used to be hosted by the World Economic Forum in China, I believe it was called the Annual Meeting of the New Champions. That just continued in 2018. And from 2018 on it’s been the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, which is essentially specifically focused on the US China relationship and having that. What happens there the decisions made at that meeting to facilitate creating this particular system that people have been discussin,g the sort of technocratic control grid, having the joint constructed jointly by the US and Chinese leadership. And essentially what you have, or something that I wrote about a couple years ago, was this organisation called the National Security Commission on artificial intelligence, which was headed by Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. In that commission, it was mainly Silicon Valley, the US military, and the US intelligence community represented.
Whitney Webb 06:56
And in 2019, before COVID, they talked about the need to either beat China in the AI arms race, or work together with China in the construction of this sort of AI driven technocratic control grid, as a way to avert World War, and this was something promoted by Henry Kissinger in one of the events of this particular commission, and Eric Schmidt has emphasised that as well. And so that in a sense ties in with the great reset, as it’s often called, going on across the world, but in the US specifically, in this context, the effort to completely digitise every sector of the economy and society in order to unmask data and to use that data to train AI algorithms. Basically, this commission and the forces represented there see it as necessary for the US to maintain its current military and economic hegemony, to have the best AI algorithms and they need to have the biggest stores of data, they recognise that China because of its large population, and more technological control systems already in place as far ahead of the US in terms of amassing that type of data. And so the US this organisation before COVID was talking about the need to urgently force people to do everything online, from shopping, to teleworking and all of these things to telemedicine, and of course, there was a huge push for that, during COVID-19. And while they sort of frames this in this sort of new Cold War type of carbon tax, they say within their their own documents that there’s a need to do this alongside China, essentially create the same system in a parallel way and collaboratively in order to avert World War, and this is essentially what is happening at events like the Bloomberg New Economy Forum and things like that. Um, I don’t know if you want me to go any further because I know there’s a time limit, and I have to go in 30 minutes. So,
Reiner Fuellmich 09:02
Yeah well, is the social credit system, then, whose invention is it? Is it really the Chinese? When I say Chinese, I mean, the Chinese leadership, not the Chinese people. Was it invented by the Chinese leadership, or was this invented in cooperation with the City of London, Anglo American financial interests?
Whitney Webb 09:28
So I’ve never really written about the origin of that system. So I don’t think I’m the right person to talk to about that specifically. But from what I understand, you know, obviously there is sort of this biometric technocratic system that exists within China. And obviously, that was developed by Chinese leadership, or at least with their blessing and implemented by the government over there, but it’s worth pointing out as well that, um, you know, ever since the opening up of China during the Nixon era, which of course involved Henry Kissinger quite intimately, there has been a lot of go between between the leadership of China, despite them being, you know, publicly labelled communist with the same transnational networks of Western capital. And also, you know, negotiations with Western leadership that ultimately, you know, have their governments essentially co opted by that same transnational network of capital.
Viviane Fischer 10:28
We see like, someone like Henry Kissinger popping up over and over again, but has that now, has that changed in the meantime, that it’s not so many not so much like individual figures, but it’s now more like a network of people connecting in between these different areas of interest?
Whitney Webb 10:50
Well, sure, well, I think Kissinger is definitely on the way out because of his age and sort of has been for some time. And so there’s a lot of the people he mentored specifically when he was teaching at Harvard, that have come out to sort of be the new generation of Kissinger’s as it were, with Klaus Schwab proundly being a leading example of that. In particular, I see that Matthew has the comment, and he probably is more qualified to talk on some of these things than myself, because I was under the impression that I was going to be talking about dark winter and Anthrax, but I cannot continue to talk about this if you prefer.
Matthew Ehret 11:31
Whoa, if you want to talk about dark winter and Anthrax, you should do that. I thought the presentation was over.
Reiner Fuellmich 11:37
No, no, no,
Whitney Webb 11:38
No, it’s fine.
Reiner Fuellmich 11:40
Do you have an answer to that question? What is the role of China in all of this, Matthew?
Matthew Ehret 11:48
Well, I was gonna add, yeah, I do, but it’s a longer thing, you know, um, I was gonna just ask, are you guys familiar with Soros getting kicked out in 89 in the ouster of Xiao-Jie Yang and the Club of Rome in China?
Reiner Fuellmich 12:00
No, I didn’t know that.
Matthew Ehret 12:03
Xiao Jing Yang is, i can maybe speak for one minute, but I don’t want to take away from Whitney at all. Xiao Jing was Soros’ man in China, he was called the Gorbachev of China. And he ran the Chinese Communist Party for two years in 87, 88, 89. He actually ran a think tank with Soros. And he brought in Alvin Toffler, the transhumanists, he called for the fourth industrial revolution, he brought in the Club of Rome, and their computer models to manage the one child policy in 79, 80. That was one of his key fig key collaborators. And the whole 80s was like an effort to get a Yeltsin process of perestroika in China, which was happening in Russia to privatise their entire banking system and bring in the technocrats, Milton Friedman, everything. But he was ousted cos there was a coup d’etat in 89 that he was supposed to run. And the CIA, MI6 I shared an article on it, but it’s useful to look at these anomalies like why is Soros not allowed to operate in China for the past 30 years, whereas he’s like running the West?
Reiner Fuellmich 12:59
Why is that?
Matthew Ehret 13:00
Yeah, so I don’t, that’s a whole thing I could address that later cos I know Whitney is brilliant, I don’t want to take away from her.
Reiner Fuellmich 13:06
If you want to try and give us try and give us the very basics of that.
Matthew Ehret 13:10
Okay, well, I mean, the very basics. I think it has a lot to do with what Guterres warned about when he said that to two different opposing paradigms are emerging around AI geopolitics last year, or not even, it was last November. But up until 2010, 11, Soros was still saying that China is the role model because they like the social credit. They like the technocratic controls, the centralised controls, they love that stuff, the you know, the transhumanist Borg’s in the West, they love that. They don’t like the actual utilisation of national credit cos China never privatise their central bank. And they also don’t like the large scale infrastructure development, the high speed rail, all this stuff that pulls people out of poverty, like a billion people out of poverty in just like 20 years. They hate that, they don’t like the idea of a nation state determining their economic destiny. So there’s a fight over like AI is not going away. A lot of these things aren’t going away, and China has been penetrated with Deep State columns, like fifth columns for a long time that they’ve been trying to purge. Jack Ma’s, a great example of the World Economic Forum trustee, you know, who called for the overthrow, essentially an economic regime change in China last year. And he was like, just take it out, like totally stripped of power. So you have evidence of these fights, especially with the Shanghai clique of billionaires who have been allied with the Western liberalists. Russia has their same thing too, they’ve got their own fifth columns around their liberal privatised central bank tied to the west that’s tied to a lot of these big pharma networks inside of Russia. So there’s fights going on all over the place. But I think the military encirclement of China and of Russia is a serious issue that people should think about, like there’s something that is frightening the oligarchy such that they are, I don’t know Whitney what are your thoughts on that? Like why would they put so much effort to do a full containment, full spectrum dominance of China and Russia?
Reiner Fuellmich 15:08
Well Whitney, James Bush is with us and he is going to give us the details on Operation Dark Winter, Rockefeller lockstep thing, and Event 201, but if you can introduce us to that, that’ll probably be very helpful.
Whitney Webb 15:27
Well, I was going to talk about something that’s probably a little separate than him, more like the importance of Dark Winter some of the parallels between 2001 and some of the figures that were, you know, COVID and Anthrax, have in common things like that. So I’ll just be pretty brief about it. So I’ll let him, since I guess he was there now, talk about dark winter in detail. But for those that don’t know, it was a simulation of a smallpox outbreak, but also included a potential threat of an anthrax attack within it. It predicted major parts of what would then become the September 11th 2001 narrative in people who participate in that exercise in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 showed apparent foreknowledge of those attacks, the anthrax attacks that would follow soon afterwards. So we have, of course, the simulation preceding the event there, and then, you know, Event 201, we have that as well. You also have Crimson Contagion, which I believe Debi mentioned just a little bit ago. And that’s significant because the person who came up speaks the name dark winner within the exercise. Robert Kadlec, was the human, the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response under the Trump administration that led that exercise Crimson Contagion in 2019. After the 2001 anthrax attacks, he assumed a lot of power and essentially constructed that Assistant Secretary position over the course of basically 20, a little under 20 years, and then he occupied it right at the time that COVID happened to take place. How coincidental.
Whitney Webb 17:18
But Crimson Contagion is significant because it didn’t just last a couple of days, like Event 201 or dark winner, or some of these other ones that actually went on from January 2019 to August 2019, and involved public private cooperation. It occurred at the federal level, the regional level, the local level, the municipal level, essentially, and was very extensive. And also, you could argue, in a sense, a little more predictive of what would come later than Event 201 even in the sense that it was focusing on the outbreak of a pandemic influenza within China, whereas Event 201 placed the outcome taking place in South America. But a lot of these, Event 201 and dark winter involved some very significant connections. Mainly the people involved in both of those like Thomas Inglesby, you know, had ties to these organisations like answer their Institute for Homeland Security created in the late 90s that was intimately tied to the CIA, and some other institutions that also had intelligence links.
Whitney Webb 18:24
Beyond the commonalities of these two simulations, between the anthrax attacks and COVID, you have the spectre of gain of function research being very prominent. So in the case of anthrax in 1997, the Pentagon created plans to generate sorry, genetically engineer a more potent variety of anthrax allegedly because a Russian scientist had claimed to have created a strain of anthrax that was resistant to the standard anthrax vaccine and animal studies, but not necessarily for the purpose of bio warfare bio defence, but the Pentagon used this to justify these gain of function experiments. And also at the same time in 1997, the CIA also began gain of function experiments on anthrax as well. And these experiments were going on at a facility called Battelle, located in West Jefferson, Ohio, that currently has ties to the Leslie Wexner foundation for people familiar with his role in the Epstein network, but is also does contract work for the CIA and the military. And most, I’m not going to go into extreme detail on this, but basically a CIA asset at the time a defector from the bio weapons bio defence programme of the Soviet Union Ken Alibek was the programme manager for these gain of function studies at Battelle. And he and another figure named William Patrick, who wasn’t actually initially suspected of the attacks but then added to the investigation, ie cover up of those attacks were essentially the people leading that gain of function research, and most people that look into the anthrax attacks and are aware that Bruce Ivin’s was not a lone wolf in all of this and are aware of how the narrative is inaccurate, including several US attorneys actually at the time, that Ivin’s had a very untimely suicide believed that Battelle was responsible in any serious 2001 anthrax researcher that I’m aware of thinks that Battelle was the site for the anthrax that was actually used in the attacks.
Whitney Webb 20:30
Moving on to another parallel bio surveillance solutions. This is arguably one of the most critical in the context of what we’ve been talking about here today. So after the anthrax attacks, and also 9/11, there was a push to create a system within DARPA, called the total information awareness. One of those programmes was called the bio surveillance programme, which was aimed at developing, quote “necessary information technologies and resulting prototypes capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically. And that this would be accomplished by the monitoring of non traditional data sources, pre diagnostic medical data and behavioural indicators obtained from civilian data”, essentially, even though it claimed to be focused on bioterrorist attacks. It wanted to acquire early detection capabilities for any sort of “normal” disease outbreak as well that would then be automated with some, I guess the precursors to today’s artificial intelligence algorithms, and it basically wanted to be a massive data mining programme was essentially the goal of that. Total information awareness was shut down by Congress because it was said it would eliminate, it was accurately pointed out that it would eliminate civil liberties for Americans entirely, essentially in the right to privacy would no longer exist, so it was scrapped. But the architects of total information awareness, including a neo conservative figure, Richard Perle, worked hand in glove with Peter Thiel and Alex Karp to create Palantir, which is a private sector, the private sector successor of total information awareness, total information awareness having been a public private partnership with the US military. But Palantir wasn’t so involved with the military after its creation, it was more intimately involved with the CIA, the CIA could help them create their product and the CIA was their only client from 2005 to 2008.
Whitney Webb 22:27
Some aspects of the total information awareness programme, which was scrapped, like this bio surveillance programme had been resurrected in the COVID era under people like Robert Kadlec, like the monitoring of wastewater systems to detect disease outbreaks, that was all planned out during that earlier period of time. And there’s, and it’s no coincidence that all of that data in the modern day now in this particular COVID era, if you want to call it that, is being fed into a database that’s being managed by Palantir. And also in the UK, the NHS COVID data is being handled by Palantir, as well. So it’s sort of the Anglo American total information awareness control grid that’s come up in and Palantir certainly doesn’t get enough attention they deserve but their origins go back to this particular period of time, and in 2001 involve a lot of the same actors who were setting it up. It’s also worth pointing out that Peter Thiel is a major funder of right leaning media, including in the alternative media sphere. So I’m just, I’ll just leave that though, because that’s for another time. The last thing I want to point out is that both the anthrax situation and what happens, you know, with COVID-19, is the fortuitous rescue of imperilled vaccine companies with the deep ties to the US military. So the first one is, would be bio port, which today is Emergent Biosolutions. They changed their name in 2004 because of the controversy around their anthrax vaccine, which they had a monopoly on the production and in sale of to the US military, the US, this sort of same network responsible for the anthrax attacks mandated the use of the anthrax vaccine for US troops. It ended up causing what is often referred to as Gulf War Syndrome and a litany of adverse effects. And they were bailed out by the Pentagon multiple times because their factories were being shut down repeatedly because of violations of safety regulations and health regulations, among other things, and they didn’t use the money to fix those factories, they were using executive bonuses and executive office refurbishments, among other things, which is quite typical in these circles, it seems.
Whitney Webb 24:44
But anyway, they teamed up with Battelle at the end of 2000. As I mentioned, Battelle was doing this gain of function research for the Pentagon and the CIA at the time, and those that research entered a new phase when this partnership began because it directly involved the anthrax vaccine. The Pentagon was going to release a report on how to continue their mandatory anthrax vaccine programme without this company in September 2001. This is derailed by 9/11 because that administrative wing working on that report was hit by a plane on September 11 2001, essentially ending that inquiry, and Donald Rumsfeld decided to rescue that programme essentially. And the concerns that were heard in Congress and throughout the US political system at the national level during that time about this particular vaccine product disappeared in the panic of the anthrax attacks, and it was replaced with calls not just to make the vaccination campaign mandatory for the military, but for first responders, for teachers, firefighters, policemen, and so on. And, of course, the commonality in terms of that sort of company today is Moderna, which was essentially and they’ve even admitted was going to collapse if it wasn’t for COVID-19 coming at the exact time it came. I want to stress that, you know, a month or two of difference and they would have totally gone under. And of course, Moderna has very deep ties to the US military, DARPA specifically, which has been funding them since I believe 2012. For more information on either of those things, you can go to my website unlimitedhangout.com and look at the investigative series, engineering contagion on the anthrax issue. And then I have one called Moderna, about Moderna. I forget the exact name of the series, I think it’s called like Moderna gets its miracle or something like that for COVID-19. I’ll stop there, cos I have 10 minutes in case you wanted to ask about another topic or issue.
Viviane Fischer 26:54
A quick question this emerging Biosolutions they’re involved in the production of the vaccines now, is that right?
Whitney Webb 27:01
Yes, well, initially, they were I think they after they produced, I believe six, a very significant number of doses for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that were deemed contaminated and unusable, I think they were scrapped. But it’s worth pointing out that Robert Kadlec, who I mentioned earlier, has long running deep ties to that company and actually founded a separate company with the founder of Emergent Biosolutions. And he basically was even the Washington Post was forced to admit that he showed them favouritism in the awarding of contracts for COVID-19. So despite their really horrendous track record, and even complaints from within the system, they were given contracts to produce vaccines. I forget exactly which companies were doing it but the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was one and they got a lot of pushback so I’m not sure if they’re still manufacturing. But I would say that some of these mRNA companies specifically Moderna have now shifted to using a new company that was created during the COVID era called Resilience to produce their RNA specifically for their vaccine that has people from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the FDA, the Pfizer board, member of the 9/11 Commission, the head of in-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm, among other groups, producing their products, and that was made, that company was created in November 2020. And they’re hoping to produce mRNA for (inaudible) forward within the United States of Canada.
Reiner Fuellmich 28:44
Okay,
Viviane Fischer 28:45
Well, so it seems there’s some infighting going on, but they’re basically all these different interests are pulling in the same direction. But it’s not clear who’s gonna make, who’s gonna be the leader of the pack?
Whitney Webb 29:05
Yeah, I think. I think the infighting is more over, like the (inaudible) much over the overall end of the day, you know, agenda.
Reiner Fuellmich 29:16
Both of the mRNA companies Moderna and BioNtech, which is being used by Pfizer, both of them have come under a lot of pressure recently. Their share price is more or less collapsing and this is due to the fact that there’s a decision in the United States, which forces Pfizer to more or less declassify the documents that they wanted to hide from the public and all of a sudden and there is a recent interview by an investment banker by the name of Ed Dowd, who explains this in great detail. All of a sudden when people can see what’s really going on, they decide to dump their shares. so the rescue seems not to really have worked. But that is only as a result of other people exposing what’s really going on.
Whitney Webb 30:14
Right, which I don’t think they anticipated, necessarily, –
Reiner Fuellmich 30:17
– I don’t either –
Whitney Webb 30:17
because they, right yeah because –
Reiner Fuellmich 30:20
– it proves Matthew’s point that they don’t really have everything under control.
Whitney Webb 30:25
Yeah, I would agree with that, as well. And I think that’s why we’re seeing them, for example, in various countries, particularly Western countries, sort of roll back restrictions for the time being, as Leana Wen, one of the CNN medical experts said this was so that public trust could be sort of restored so we can use these measures again in the future for “pandemic two” or some sort some sort of event to that extent. And if you look at the World Economic Forum since last year they’ve been, the theme their whole theme for last year was rebuilding trust with the public. So this is something that really concerns them, the lack of trust the public have in the elites. But I think they’re sort of in this mindset still, well even if they start to not trust us en mass, what are they gonna do about it? I think that’s essentially where this says, but I think they’re also planning to try and ramp up different things that are not necessarily COVID as that particular narrative crumbles, to try and keep people divided and distracted and confused by just the mass of information coming out all the time from these people, which is, you know, as people have explained before, this is, you know, sort of the psyop the psychological operation side of what’s going on. Yeah.
Reiner Fuellmich 31:46
Okay, well, are there any further questions from you, Virginie, or Dexter, or Ana? Or Dipali?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 32:01
No questions from me. Thank you very much. Mrs. Webb.
Reiner Fuellmich 32:05
Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much. And we will now, you do that please.
Viviane Fischer 32:11
Yes we’ll now do a little insertion of some witnesses, because, you know, we have to, for the records, and for the audience to see that we have what’s really going on. And I think we have to, it has been so crazy like through these two years now that we sometimes seem to forget like what we used to have, like what we used to think was like the normal way, things would be handled like that you could choose without like deception, whether you wanted to have like a medical treatment, or whether you wanted to protest against something like without having to deal with the police and so on. And so we have prepared, I think it’s two videos. And we have two witnesses, one live here with us, and another one in the zoom. And I would like to start to show you what we experienced when we got word from a whistleblower that in an old people’s home here in Berlin, some vaccination was going to go on, like on a Sunday, I think it was, and it was actually the vials were provided by or like accompanied by soldiers. And so the old peoples were confronted with soldiers, like, do you know, working with the doctors to get the vaccine, and some one person was not really voluntarily accepting it? I mean, it was like a dementia section of this old people’s home. And some of them obviously were not quite able to sign the papers themselves clearly. But you have to still like respect like a natural will kind of that they express whether they wanted to be treated or not. So we’re going to see that because, like, so we had one whistleblower verbally telling us about this incident, and what happened afterwards that was of these 31 people who got vaccinated, eight passed away rather quickly after the vaccination like within a few weeks, and I think the last person who died was like two or three months later, and they were really in good shape –
Reiner Fuellmich 34:46
before the vaccination –
Viviane Fischer 34:44
before the vaccination. So it was the section where they would freely roam basically, and some were jogging everyday, one was a piano player. And so, you know, they had like singing songs the night before basically and then already on the evening some of them had serious problems. And what’s also interesting about this is that later on we got in touch with the police and I personally filed like a criminal charge or complaint against the [home] and asked them because there was like of the two people who deceased like at the latest in time there were still, the corpses were still like with the undertaker. So we informed the police and said that they should investigate this and the district attorney, and then they sent us a letter and saying they don’t even see like anything suspicious, where they could even start investigating, you know. That’s very, I think very remarkable. And so after we had done this whistleblower interview, a second whistle blower came forward and provided some footage that you can see now and for you to see this you have to turn to the screen, take a look at the screen. .
Reiner Fuellmich 36:06
This is to illustrate what we’re really talking about because we have today tonight we have been talking about the run up to what is actually happening and now we’re looking at the consequences because I do think it is important for us and for the jury to understand that we’re not just talking about irrelevant games that are being played, power games, but that these games have very serious consequences and that is what this video clip very clearly illustrates.
Reiner Fuellmich 38:56
So this shows that when you Brian said that they’re killing people. They’re not killing people in theory, they’re killing people in real life. One of the people who we saw in this video which was filmed with a hidden camera died, the old man in the pyjamas died. So this is what this is all about. There are real consequences. As a result of these so called power games, this is really about control. And this is really about population reduction. As I think this short video clip clearly illustrates and this is just one example. There are many more such examples. We have gotten lots of information from similar nursing homes where the same thing happened. This is particularly impressive for us because it’s right here in Berlin. 31 people were vaccinated and within two weeks or so, eight of them had passed away. 11 more had developed very serious symptoms. We don’t know what happened to them. But these eight people who died one of them, as Vivian mentioned, had been playing the piano the night before he got the shots. Another one was a runner and he was running the night before he got the shots. This is what we’re really talking about.
Viviane Fischer 40:34
Yep, so now we have another ideo clip that we’re going to see. It’s from a little small demonstration like a vigil basically that took place for I think it was, he’s gonna the witness is going to tell us in a second, like for several days 62 days and this was like the final basically the final day where it was supposed to be like a little get together there, but it was a small event and you will be surprised by the amount of police compared to the size of the event that you’re going to see and how harshly then they sort of ended it I think we’ll show the clip first and then we’re going to talk to a Roman.
Viviane Fischer 42:38
Yeah you can see how out of proportion this is for what’s going on, and there was not even like hygienic aspects like violated. And I mean like in earlier times, we would have thought this is a normal event. And so but maybe let’s just talk to Roman Mironov. Hello.
Reiner Fuellmich 43:00
Roman, what happened there?
Roman Mironov 43:04
I don’t speak English so well so I’ll have to speak in German.
Translator 43:14
Good. Let us just briefly talk about it and I’ll translate. In a few words, can you tell us you had done this demonstration 60 times and then it ended that way?
Roman Mironov 43:32
Exactly. I had held a vigil in front of the chancellor’s office. Because demonstrations weren’t possible in Berlin anymore because we always it always escalated in police violence. It always ended in police violence. And so I organised a vigil because with a few people right outside the chancellor’s office, the police can’t overreach as easily and we did that over a period of more than two months, and very frequently there were lead media with us and they [were] left and right to us. And they never reported on us. They were just there because there were something happening at the Chancellor’s Office. One of us had registered with the Chancellor’s Office and the last day the first of June was the World Children’s Day. We resisted there we did not put on masks. That’s the least level of resistance you can offer and of course it escalated and our demonstrate our assembly was disbanded
Translator 44:59
Translating in German.
Viviane Fischer 45:12
Do you know also going in the direction of the children. And actually when this when they saw, so there was a lot of media usually there and but they never reported about this demonstration because they actually they obviously wanted to keep it under the rug or like and you know not talk about this. And then the only thing that was not complied with was that outside you’d have to wear masks, although people were keeping their distance. And so you can see that the police immediately decided to even kill this small demonstration or this small protest at that point in time. So Roman, thank you very much for your statement and for sharing this experience with us. Yeah, now we have
Reiner Fuellmich 46:04
(inaudible) to James Bush.
Viviane Fischer 46:11
Okay. Then we will continue with other examples in the future.
Reiner Fuellmich 46:16
Yes. Now James, you’ve been waiting for quite a while but we are very interested in hearing about Operation dark winter. The Rockefeller lockstep simulation and Event 201. You are muted. You are muted, Jim.
James Bush 46:45
Okay. I’m absolutely flabbergasted by everything I heard today. And the intelligence and the experience of the team that’s producing this. So I want to thank you all. My credentials are very simple. I retired after 20 years in the United States Marine Core as a lieutenant colonel. I was an infantry officer, a force recon officer. And then I became an engineer and I worked as an engineer for the Honeywell Corporation as a launch guidance engineer for the shuttle programme. And then I became a Special Operations Engineer for special environments in mechanical systems. I was the engineering officer and manager for the North Colorado medical centre for the Infectious Disease Research Centre at Colorado State University and Colorado, and for the Centre for Disease Control vector Ward research facility in Colorado, Fort Collins, Colorado. My interest in this well actually piqued well before I had gotten into the knowledge of what was going on today, I was working for Hewlett Packard. And in my engineering capacity, I was the Biosafety Officer for the Rocky Mountain West and I was invited to go to a programme called Dark Winter in Oklahoma City in June of 2001. And at this point, I’m not sure how I share screen I’m going to share my screen and I’m gonna pull up a fairly quick and I am sincere it’s quicker than the other’s presentation. Let me see. It’s (inaudible) up, there we go.
James Bush 48:39
I don’t know why that’s still showing up there, yeah there you go, so that’s my resume. I already went through that with you. I’ve a Master’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering, a BS in epidemiology. This is dark winter, and you’ve heard it referenced in [and] you may already be aware of it but it was an ostensibly a programme supported by the government and private organisations in June 22nd, 23rd of 2001 at Andrews Air Force Base in Oklahoma City. You’ve heard when he just mentioned answer, Homeland Security and CSUS. The Oklahoma National Memorial Centre for civilian bio defence, these are all organisations that were precursors of all of the elements that it takes to eventually create a bio weapons system in the United States. So dark winter this slide they’re seeing is only a very, very small part of a slide set that was generated during that presentation. And it was a presentation, It was a real study, they called us and said we’re going to study this. But basically when we got there, they said, okay, here’s what we’re doing and sit back and watch and here’s what we have come to conclusions. Please take this back to your companies into your organization’s and share it with them, because the government was totally in control of this. I was next designed to simulate the possibility reaction to a deliberate introduction of smallpox in three states in 2002. Dark Winter was developed as a programme by the Centres for Strategic and International Studies, and the Johns Hopkins Centre and the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and you’ve all, I believe you’ve all heard those names before you’re going to continue to hear as you go through this process of analysing what’s happening to our country. Anser Institute for Homeland Security was eventually converted to a nationally funded cabinet posts called Homeland Security.
James Bush 51:13
The key participants, we’re going to show you who they are, what the goals are with the introduction. It was a scenario so our government, as you know, and many governments really love scenarios they like to well, what if we do this? What if this happens? What will be the next steps? So this was supposed to be a scenario study, but please note the characters that were playing this. This is in 2001 and some of the most key people in the government and the defence of the United States of America took their time off to go to Oklahoma City and ask the question, what happens if we get hit by smallpox and smallpox is clearly defined by every organisation out there, the World Health Organisation and the CDC, FEMA everybody says it’s a pandemic disease because it has a fatality rate, a true live fatality rate of about 32 to 33 percent. As opposed to the Coronavirus, which, depending on who you’re talking today is maybe point zero one two percent (.012 percent). So they were using a true pandemic disease to see what would happen. But the people who came was Sam Nunn, US Senator Frank Keating, he was the governor of Oklahoma, the National Security advisor to the United States, the CIA director from the United States, the secretary of defence John White, the chairman of the United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Tilelli, Secretary of State for the United States was, Frank Wisner, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was Margaret Hamburg, the Attorney General, George Tenwilliger, the director of FEMA, Jerry Hauer, and the director of the FBI.
James Bush 53:15
Now, I’m sure that this type of an assemblage of people has been formed before. But I don’t think in the history of the United States they’ve ever coming into a meeting like this, created a document created a scenario and then disappeared, because within two or three days of this programme being ended, some of us got actual copies of the slide set. And everywhere else it disappeared. It was on the internet for a while. But if you recall, back in 2001, the internet is not what it is today. And it took me several years to find this on the Internet. In the meantime, I have a copy of it on my computer. And later, when I worked for the Infectious Disease Research Centre, the CDC, I would bring this up to various researchers and ask them what they think of it, and they would all kind of turn green and walk away. They didn’t want to talk about what this was about. So the question is, what would happen if a local biological weapons attack were to hit America with a contagious pathogen that could cripple the country. The government response would pose enormous challenge to civil liberties, the less prepared you are the more threats there will be to civil liberties. So in the beginning documentation, some of the first turns are civil liberties and what they are going to take away during this event. So I’m going to stay on that page for a moment and just say to you that during this study, it was two days long and we got out early because this study when we got there, they had all kinds of slides and I’ll be glad to show these slides to anybody who wants to see them. But the slides really show the thought process, the initiation of an agenda, whereby they wanted to share with the people in the room, and the people in the room were people of science and industry in business. And they were saying to us, how will this affect you? They showed what happened after one day, after six days, after three days, how many people are sick, how many people are injured? How many people have died? And how does it progress?
James Bush 55:41
This document was provided as a means to create two or three things. One, is a tutorial on how to initiate and get the results we want from a pandemic disease. The other would be is how would we control, what would be the results? How many people would die? How do we take care of inoculations. This was of a known disease, which had an extraordinarily high fatality rate. And they translated that and that gave them the opportunity to create an outline, a primmer, a document that they can use when it comes time to create a bio weapon, national security pandemic event. That’s what they did, and like I said, I will be glad to share the rest of these. My current presentation on Dark Winter is about two and a half hours long, because I go into all the details about what a biosafety level 1,2,3, and four facility is and where they are and how they’re used and how our government and our universities are studying this. But there’s a wealth of information on slideshow and Reiner asked me to keep it relatively short, so this is the beginning. This is the first stage where our government engaged some of the most powerful people in our administration to bring forth this concept.
James Bush 57:23
The next one was Operation Lock Step and operation lock step was ostensibly done by Ralph Emerson. He kept referring to John D. Rockefeller. it was claimed to be a three step approach to a permanent lockdown, resulting in massive depopulation. Now, I’ve done some significant research on this and Operation Lock Step was actually a concept that was created by people doing research on, not just on operation lockstep, the book which was a 54 page book by Ralph (inaudible). I’m sorry, Ralph Epperson wrote the book, The New World Order and it was 320 pages. And the prime facie information from this entire operation lockstep came from page 18 in that book. There was two elements, the operation lockstep was created by information from the new world agenda, and another programme that did come out of the Rockefeller institution. So my question is, what is it really? So the published document is basically people got together and they said, okay, based on us reading the information in a new world order, here’s what we see is happening and it fits fully well [with] what’s in the 320 page document of the New World Order. And this is very, this clearly patterned on what actually did happen, and the reason for that is, is that operation lockstep came out in the middle of June or July last year, there was a lot of people trying to refute it, but there was nobody that (silence).
Reiner Fuellmich 59:48
What happened?
James Bush 59:51
created according to the documents in 1989, so we have 2001 Dark Winter, they have 1989 with operation lockstep and the birthing documents were created for that. And then we move forward as we go through our nation’s history. We now have, you see the New World Order by Ralph Epperson you see the Rockefeller Foundation and the global trading organisation which contributed to the New World Order. Rockefeller contributed to the next book, which is about a 54 page book called Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. That was done by the Rockefeller Foundation. And on the internet you find that it keeps referring back to what you see on the right side of the page, which is the first phase, the second phase, the third phase. Back in 1989 nobody knew anything about 5g radiation. Nobody knew anything specifically about Coronavirus. So, somewhere this information came out, but it was truly a combination of data created in the New World Order. And I don’t know how many people have read the New World Order, but it is a malevolent and a disgusting tutorial book on how to destroy western civilization. And it cites George Bush and the whole litany of people that we keep talking on.
James Bush 1:01:38
The lockstep is –
Reiner Fuellmich 1:01:39
– James, can you do us a favour and read those three paragraphs? Because I think this is extremely important for people to understand what happened in 1989.
James Bush 1:01:52
I’ll be glad to. First phase common cold, flu mild symptoms at most. Media endorsement of mass paranoia and fear. Flawed testing system utilised which picks up any genetic material in the body and triggers a positive result. Inflation of COVID cases numbers through changing of death certificates double counting and classifying all death, including other diseases and natural causes, as COVID-19. Lockdown will condition us to live under draconian laws, prevent protests, and identify public resistance. That’s step one. Phase two. The first phase will lead to the top compromised and frail immune systems through lack of food, social distancing, wearing of masks and lack of contact with sunlight and healthy bacteria. Exposure to 5G radiation will further attack the immune system. Thus, when people reemerge into society, more people will fall ill. This will be blamed on COVID-19. This will all occur before the vaccination is ready in order to justify it. A longer and more potent lockdown will follow until everyone takes the vaccine. That’s their intention. Third phase if a majority of the people resist the vaccine, a weaponized SARS HIV MERS virus will be released. A lot of people will die from this, it will be survival of the fittest. it will also be the ultimate push for everyone to be vaccinated in order to return to normalty. Those who have taken the vaccine will be at war with those who have not. it will be anarchy, and the predominance of that came from that page 18. And the other document which is Scenarios for a Future Technology, and International Development. So this is all tied together. And this was poured out, and it was meant as a document to do two things – tell people where it’s going, and if you tell somebody this is going to happen you keep repeating it eventually people get okay with it happening. We’ve heard that all day to day.
James Bush 1:04:35
Let’s go to the next one. Lock Step is the fulfilment of the concepts and goals expressed and solicited in the philosophies of the “New World Order”, and the Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. Those concepts and agendas were put into operation for COVID-19 pandemic The actual author of the lockstep documents is unknown, but it is clear that the lockstep was created in 1989. I’m sorry, the New World Order was created in 1989. And the Scenarios for a Future Technology were created in 2010. And that’s when the other document known as Lock Step was created.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:05:30
Just the next page, I don’t know if you all can read this, and I’ll try not to read too much of it. But this is the concept in the scenario. This is the Lock Step scenario. So this was a scenario done by our government studying what lockstep should be, a world of tighter top down government control, and more authoritarian leadership with limited innovation, and growing citizen push back. In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain originating from wild geese, that’s a wild guess, was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population, and killing 8 million in just seven months. The majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies, international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt debilitating industries like tourism, and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally, bustling shops and buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. The pandemic blanketed the planet – though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in the developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, I’m gonna skip to the next, however, a few countries did fare better – China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near hermetic sealing off of the borders, saved millions. This information was written, this is where the entire concept came from.
James Bush 1:07:47
So they had dark winter, they decided that they really didn’t want to use something like smallpox, and the enhanced development and genetic modifications of diseases is practised all over the world, and ostensibly it’s used for the development of medication and preventive medicine. But the reality is, and I say this having been there running the laboratories, I’ve worked on six coronaviruses I worked on 78 other biosafety level three and three plus diseases. The reason that the universities and the military and the government do this research is a bio weapons programme. They are trying to find tools that are less expensive to use against a common enemy. Use develop tools that they can control the whole development of the process.
James Bush 1:09:00
When I worked for CDC and CSU, there was never a time that I saw any vaccine go out in less than six years. And they tried to tell us, they tried to tell people of science that they have created vaccines that are safe. And there are four different vaccines that do different things to the human body. And oh, by the way, we did it in less than nine months. Ladies and gentlemen, I can only tell you that from my perspective, it’s lies, lies and damn lies. Finally on October 18th 2019, many of you already know what happened but the Johns Hopkins centre, the Bill and Melinda Gates group, and the World Economic Forum, here we go back to the financial side of this atrocity. The Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates hosted Event 201, a high level pandemic exercise on October 18th 2019 in New York. The exercise illustrated areas where public private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large scale economic and social consequences. Statement about the novel Coronavirus and our pandemic exercises. In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and so on. The experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the epidemics become global. How could they possibly put together a meeting with all of the most important people in the East Coast in New York City on October 28th, and all of a sudden, less than a month later, we now have Coronavirus coming out of the Wuhan province?
James Bush 1:11:12
And I will tell you how they manage these facilities. I’ve managed one of the largest in the country at Colorado State University. They don’t accidentally get out. You can take them out. When I worked there, I could walk out any day with Yersinia pestis, with HIV, with tuberculosis with all kinds of Corona. The Coronas weren’t even used in level three facilities. They worked on level two. You asked why I left the Central Intelligence Agency. So the question still remains, how come all of the media, you get up in the morning and you listen to one radio station or a TV station and they all say exactly the same thing. Did you all know about Operation Mockingbird? Mockingbird is a CIA programme that was created after World War Two and it is still operational today. It’s where the CIA creates the dialogue and works with the six or seven Ultra-media systems in the world. And I can say this cos you don’t know her name, but my daughter is a military intelligence officer with the US Army. She’s been in for 12 years. She’s a major selected full Lieutenant Colonel. And I showed this to her and she said “yeah, that’s what they do. They do it now”.
James Bush 1:12:38
So the question, there’s lots of questions as to why. And I think the question is just exactly as every one of you have have spoken to today. But this is an important piece of information that I wanted to share with you. When I started managing the infectious disease research centres, both of them in Fort Collins about 14 years ago, there were 25 to 27 biosafety level three and four laboratories in the world. It’s now 2022 and this is directly off the CDC’s website. I’ve compared it to other websites as well. And this is the distribution of biosafety level three and four laboratories around the world and you can see that Australia has four. Almost all the rest of the countries have them. Germany has four. India has three. The United Kingdom has six. The United States has 15. And I when I started in this business, there were three. And the biosafety level three’s, now these are the ones that work on diseases like Coronavirus, which is the influenza which is HIV, the things that are not extraordinarily capable they made into a bio weapon, but the BSL three’s are the test beds for the fours. There are several smaller countries that have one or two BSL’s. All of the countries on the BSL four list have similar numbers of BSL three labs now, as the BSL for the United States of America has over 200 biosafety level three labs in the continental United States. So between BSL three and four, the United States of America has 215 bio weapons research facilities. They call them normal research, but I can tell you it’s not true. So that’s, yes.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:14:19
One question. I must ask you these two questions, because having looked at the documents you showed us from Operation lockstep? I mean, you quoted these three paragraphs. Is it, I mean were these terms really included in that document? I mean, terms like COVID-19. And what’s the other one? 5G? Was that really included?
Viviane Fischer 1:15:28
That’s from a book?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:15:30
Very observant. And that’s absolutely the answer to the question is in the document that people are using for Lock Step, that’s exactly what they are. I found that document all over the internet. I said I could not find an author of that particular document. It said it was page 18 in all references, instead it was page 18, and the page 18 that was referring to was the scenario page that I had pulled up. Let me see if I can go back.
Viviane Fischer 1:16:06
Okay, but that’s basically like maybe an inspiration that they used for the lockstep scenario.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:13
No, the question is, was it really included back then? Was it in 1989, were these two terms included?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:20
So there’s the 2020 document that was on the internet. And it is the Scenario for Future Technology and International Development. I apologise. I was going to put page 18, well, no, this is page 18 – the lockstep scenarios?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:42
No. The other one with the three paragraphs. We just looked at it.
James Bush 1:16:47
Yeah,
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:48
It is slide number 10. That’s it.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:52
That is the woman that was on –
Reiner Fuellmich 1:16:54
– this one slide number ten.
James Bush 1:16:57
Ten. Yeah that one.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:17:00
That one.
James Bush 1:17:00
Okay. This slide on the right hand side?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:17:04
Yes. Is that really originally from that book written in 1989?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:17:10
No, it is not. And what I’m saying is, the document here and this slide was made up from someone going in and referring to this page. Can you see that?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:17:28
Yeah,
James Bush 1:17:29
That’s from the lockstep which was done by the Rockefeller Institute. They took that and they transmorphised the current events, and they plugged in the concepts from this paragraph and they made it, but the the world believes this. And the irony is, if you look at the content of the paragraph from the Scenarios for the Future of Technology document, that’s where they got this information from, and the 5G and the COVID-19 are not in that of the paragraph.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:18:07
That’s why I thought, uh huh.
James Bush 1:18:09
Yep, but it still ties it all together, because the information was there in 1989, 2001, 2010. And then again for Event 201 in 2019. So there is a progression that goes along with the historical dialogue that your other history speakers and experts presented. And this one really shares the information, and from my perspective Dark Winter is a critical factor in showing that they have the ability and the intent to do a preparation that actually reflected the same thing as Event 201. 201 was just a second dark winter.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:19:12
So that’s dark winter and that’s the information that I can share with you on Operation Mockingbird and the lockstep. The lockstep, after we started doing some more research, I wanted to do exactly what you said I wanted to find this particular page in that book, the New World Order by Ralph Epperson. I went there looking for it, it’s not there. I went for the Scenarios for the Future of Technology it’s not there. And I looked up all the information I could on the internet. And clearly someone made that particular document to match it, and it was an attempt to coordinate that, and it gives some credence to the New World Order. I don’t know how many people on the group right now have read the New World Order. I’m gonna try to get it out of here.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:20:21
Well the thing, the problem with documents as such as that one is that it is not only confusing, but it makes us look bad if we turn the documents –
Reiner Fuellmich 1:20:35
– that’s why I wanted to show it to you. Because I’m not sure we can use Lock Step unless we simply refer to the New World Order and the scenarios. Those two stand all the test, Lock Step does not.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:20:55
I got it.
James Bush 1:21:00
Here we are, there you are.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:21:02
Okay, well thank you James, that leads us all the way to probably the World Health Organization’s role in all of this. But we have two more speakers for that. In the meantime, however, are there any questions that Virginie, Dexter, Dipali want to ask?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:21:28
Thank you Mr. Bush, thank you for the evidence. But I just want to find out from you, you have mentioned that based on your experience, it takes approximately not less than six years before a vaccine goes to market. I would like it to make a connection with Operation Warp Speed. How does that basically tie in, because in a sense it seems like when it comes to the fact that they’ve actually expedited these vaccines, these COVID-19 vaccines to the market? They justified and they say no, but this is in line with Operation Warp Speed. Can you basically just give some clarity in relation to that sir?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:22:13
The answer to that is they are not doing a true vaccine, they are creating a DNA modifier. it’s an injection that has nothing to do with the normal process of taking a live disease and learning how to fight it with the human biome and applying the right chemicals and the right endurances to the testing, and going over time doing human animal testing and doing human testing and developing an actual vaccine. The material they’re injecting into people today, as far as I’m concerned, and like I said I’ve worked on vaccines for 12 years in environments where, my job in those facilities was I operated the biosafety committee and I kept the disease from getting out, and I kept people. During my tenure, there were 6000 researchers in those facilities, no one ever got sick. So we knew what caused the sickness and we were able to stop that. But it was also built into the understanding of the knowledge that you cannot develop a vaccine accurately in less time than six years. And so when I started hearing people say, we’re going to have one this year, they’re injecting materials that who knows what is in it. I’m not a physicist, I’m not a MD, and I’m not a research doctor. I worked with them and I can tell you that there will never be inoculation going in my arms or anyone in my family because I fear what’s in there. And that’s what some of your other experts are going to testify to as well. Look at the results we’ve already talked about today with how people are reacting. They are reacting to something very quickly shortly after getting the inoculation, and that doesn’t stand the test of a true vaccination.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:24:16
Thank you, sir.
James Bush 1:24:20
And I just want to reiterate for if there’s any question at all. When the illusion was that some type of Wuhan disease got out of the B, the Wuhan laboratory is a BSL three and four. BSL, the Wuhan the virus they were working on in China was in a BSL three, so it does not meet the requirement for the extreme care and consideration and security that a BSL four does. And when I managed the facilities in Colorado, we did tests to find out if people could get out of our building with a select agent. Again, go to the CDC’s website and look up select agent and it basically tells you that a select agent that can be genetically modified to make it into a weapon of mass destruction. That’s why they call them select agents. But at that time we did tests. We had US Army Corps of Engineer, US Amber people come in, the FBI, the local fire department, police, and we did testify that if somebody could get out of our facility, there was no way to stop them. If somebody wants to get out with that material, it couldn’t be stopped. So of those laboratories that I just showed you the numbers on, there’s no way to stop anybody from getting those things out. So what they are working on in these, as far as I’m concerned it’s a bioweapons programme, and what they’re working on is basically the ability to modify other forms of injection to control and to kill the general population. And that’s why they’re doing it in lockstep. It’s a chimeric, are you all familiar with the chimeric concept?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:26:29
You can explain the concept.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:26:32
A chimeric drug is, you develop a drug and you inject that into an animal agent or a person, and it sets up the body for certain reactions. And then you come back with the second part of the chimera, the two-part, and you inject that, and that causes extraordinarily big changes and or death. So I believe the inoculations are chimeric, and to go along with your question about the vaccines themselves. How is it possible that you have a disease, there’s two questions here, how is it possible to have a disease that is being solved and has the solution being created at 95 to 100 percent efficacy with four different types of inoculations that don’t even resemble each other in their content. And beyond that, in the history of mankind, science, medicine has never come up with a cure for the common cold and the common flu, both of which are coronaviruses. I’ll leave you with that.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:27:51
in the meantime, I’m sorry, Dexter.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:27:53
No it’s fine. You can put (inaudible) Reiner,
Reiner Fuellmich 1:27:57
I just meant to mention that. Other experts who will testify have, in the meantime, clarified the situation at least as far as Pfizer, BioNTech Pfizer is concerned. It has not, it does not have an efficacy of 95 percent. It’s less than 1 percent. Some people even say it has absolutely no efficacy whatsoever. This is because we see countries that have a very high vaccination rate, also have very high, like Israel, like the UK, also have very high what they call breakthrough cases. So in other words, the vaccines don’t seem to work at all. In other words, you’re probably right, Jim. We cannot call these injections vaccines, but we will learn more about this from other experts.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:28:48
I applaud everything you’re all doing, and if I can help anymore I shall do that.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:28:54
Jim, thank you so much. Thank you very much for walking us through these three exercises.
James Bush 1:29:00
A pleasure.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:29:01
Okay, now let us talk to Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger and Dr. Silvia Behrendt, both of whom work for the World Health Organisation. Do you have, who’s going to go first?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:29:17
I think it’s me. And then Astrid will go on.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:29:21
All right.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:29:23
So thank you very much. Just my credentials are I have received my PhD from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland on the topic of the International Health Regulations, and the executive authority of the World Health Organisation during Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, very long title. And, it’s not my phone, and I was a visiting researcher at Georgetown Law under Professor Gaston funded by the Swiss National Fund. Later I collaborated with the International Health regulation secretariat in Geneva at the World Health Organisation and conducted (inaudible) commissions for the purpose of national implementation of the internet health regulations. So good, the other experts that were providing the expertise, the last we heard from Mr. Bush. Bush was speaking about financially and political and security issues, but particularly under the paradigm of bioterrorism that provide evidence that there is a path that led to the current COVID 19 pandemic. I would like to focus the attention to the fact that we are currently not confronted with a medical pandemic response. Most of the criticism raised by the scientists and doctors centre around the issue that from a pure medical perspective, all health measures recommended and required by national health authorities or WHO are actually contrary to the epidemiological and medical state of the art. And this is so on purpose, I contend, because the underlying concept used for COVID-19 does not follow established scientific principles, but rather a different ideology, which is called or framed as global health security and means to treat health as a national security issue requiring national and global states of exceptions to deal with it.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:31:25
Therefore, I consider it crucial to provide a short historic analysis of this concept in order to understand why the current global health crisis we face is not about medical science and health in the common sense, we would expect. So the progressive replacement of medical the political aims started in the context of emerging infectious diseases in the early 1990s and originated actually from the US, as we already heard. Within a short period of time, WHO institutionalised this new approach with a rapid set up of an entirely new division called emerging and data communicable diseases. And interestingly, they didn’t engage the staff of the communicable disease control department at that time. This policy confirmed that the new paradigm shift from lowering the incidence of regionally endemic diseases was to the sole focus on preventing the international spread in real time, and most preferably within a 24 hour time frame. There was a need for a technocratic apparatus of surveillance networks that were capable to deal with these new threats. So consequently, in 2001, there was a resolution of the World Health Assembly that already inserted this novel concept and called for the first time to find a definition for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern for the purpose of revising the outdated sanitary laws called International Health Regulations, because nobody was interested in sanitary laws at that time. The problem was, they had a very narrow scope and applicability only for yellow fever, black, and cholera. So at the same time, particularly in the US bioterrorist scenario planning, we all heard right now a lot about it, within the military and at the academic level, but the most prominent exercise like Dark Winter was launched. And interestingly, all those events went real shortly after that. But what is also very interesting and we did not hear, is that not only the exercises were held, which turned into reality, also the legislation in the US was prepared to curtail civil liberties for the fight against bioterrorism from 1990 onwards.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:33:44
This undertaking was started by the CDC and eventually finalised by professors from Georgetown University like Professor Gaston, together with the Johns Hopkins University, and it was called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. This model Act has been sharply criticised at that time in the US for transforming governor’s into dictators, but was used over many states eventually. So the most important milestone in in the revision process of the International Health Regulations, which is an international treaty, was the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, abbreviated as SARS as we all know in 2002, which was accompanied by an alerted media attention that was not proportionate to the threat of the disease, which was remarkably low. In addition, there was a quasi consensus among scientists that the novel SARS outbreak could have had bioterrorist potential. This political bioterrorist framing of the SARS outbreak led to the agreement of the international community that the old (inaudible) laws needed to be rewritten to include bioterrorism without naming this goal officially at WHO. This came under the paradigm of an open all hazards approach which means that not only various sources of risks were included, but also that any intentional release would come under the paradigm of the WHO, and that the IHR needed to be revised.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:35:15
So, the legal dimension of the global health security concept was eventually successfully integrated into international health regulations in 2005. And first?? the US model of public health emergencies has been exported to the international community, and has now merged international constitutions which were never having such constitutional emergency provisions. Then the outdated IHR provisions of disease containment were replaced to include pathogens that pose a threat to national security and require an emergency regime that enable that irrigation of legal standards, not only in terms of medical safety regulations, but also in terms of fundamental standards, freedoms and civil rights. According to this new paradigm, endemic diseases, which count for the most deaths do not fall under the attention of this global set of rules, which are now the standard procedure for pandemics, but only newly identified pathogens without medical treatment that therefore require an emergency licencing as these substances are all unlicensed. In addition, the importance of diagnostics emerged under the global health security ideology as a new priority issue because the threat needs to be identified as threatening prior to devastating effects according to this ideology. So this, the availability of diagnostics is labelled as necessary requirement for pandemic preparedness and response. So I hope you can follow.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:36:54
Moreover, under the threat of bioterrorism the establishment of laboratories boosted throughout the world as Mr. Bush already explained to us, because biological weapons are defined as weapons of mass destruction and constitute a crime under international law, the only legal pathway to lawfully undertake research and medical treatment is called bio defence, which takes place in laboratories as we learned. I would like to remember that all SARS coronaviruses come under the US category C of potential bioterrorism agents and also classified under the expert regime of the EU for dual use, that refers to the potential of civil and military use. So I hope now the picture becomes a bit clearer by some historic knowledge is needed to understand by WHO and the global community do not address SARS-CoV-2 in accordance with the state of the art of medical knowledge, but rather fight the virus as a threat to the nation in an unproportionate manner with military instead of medical terminology refered to as medical and non medical countermeasures.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:38:03
And throughout all health ministries in the world new departments are established called national health security departments. So this was part one of my kind of expertise. And if you have questions, because then I would like to explain how all those newly identified diseases came to WHO or should I just go forward? Okay. If you have no questions. As a second step, I would like to explain in more detail why the small number of atypical and pneumonia cases of Wuhan in late 2019 and in the first days of 2020 were reported to WHO and soon ended up as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and soon later as a pandemic. This is all due to the International Health Regulations and the revision thereof. Also, the IHR referred to as IHR include an all hazards approach, some pathogens like any novel strain of an influenza subtype, or any SARS coronavirus are still prioritised and have to be reported within a 24 hour time limit to WHO. The identification of this novel virus was possible because China has a very tight screening regime for respiratory diseases since the SARS outbreak in 2002. This it was possible for China to identify ths novel pathogen. Already on the 1st of January WHO requested more information about the outbreak to information by Divan. On the 3rd of January, China notified WHO officially of have a cluster of 44 patients of which 11 were severely ill with pneumonia of unknown aetiology at the WHO. So.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:40:07
That doesn’t sound like a pandemic.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:40:12
Yeah, that’s true. After the WHO already requested more information and there was the closure of the Wuhan market. So this politicisation and interest of WHO at this very early stage at the 1st of January when only 44 people had this atypical pneumonia and 11 people suffered severely from this atypical pneumonia is indeed an interesting aspect that should lead to some precautions about how the entire crisis started, as there were no deaths reported and no international cases, and the potential of human to human transmission was not assessed at that time. In the meantime, the novel virus was identified as a SARS coronavirus. So this means the identification of this new virus falls under the International Health Regulations that formally requires an automated official report to WHO and the Director General is obliged to constitute an emergency committee under the IHR. Once such an official notification has been received, so he’s legally obliged to constitute this Emergency Committee. Then now it’s becoming interesting, at the same time, Professor Drosten and others worked in Germany to deliver to WHO a diagnostic test assay via the PCR method for this novel virus. And Professor Drosten was also the lead author in 2003 when the novel SARS coronavirus was identified, and since then nominated as WHO expert. His first protocol was officially delivered to WHO on the 13th of January 2020, which implied that he had of course work prior to this date of submission, and WHO immediately collated his first protocol of this assay, which member states later this assay was a bit revised and finally published in the Eurosurveillance journal on the 23rd of January. So he also contributed to the WHO interim guidance they did on the 10th of January, and this interim guidance was published, you can have more information if you want to later, but it’s getting complicated otherwise. This information guidance was published as a part of a comprehensive package of about ten?? guidance documents of WHO, for countries covering topics related to the management of an outbreak of the new Coronavirus disease. So on the 10th of January WHO had a comprehensive package already published at that time. Yeah. Interesting.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:42:57
At a time when there were literally no cases except for the 44 cases, okay.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:43:01
And these were getting officially, and it normally takes a very long time at WHO to get something published because it has to be cleared. Importantly, as any SARS Coronavirus requires an official notification under the IHR, the Director General had to convene a COVID-19 emergency committee as a legal obligation under the IHR. You can find that on the WHO website the experts who are on this committee, and you can find their CV’s there. This Emergency Committee advises the Director General in the proclamation better about the public health emergency of international concern exists, which is an executive authority of the director general in accordance with the legal principles set out under the IHR. So the first meeting was held on the 22nd of January, where the experts found no agreement whether a PHEIC, that’s an abbreviation of Public Health Emergency of International Concern, what WHO uses, so a PHEIC exists or not. And they agreed that there was no international spread of the novel Corona virus outbreak, which was (inaudibl) 17 deaths and 557 confirmed cases on the 22nd of January.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:44:20
So they had an idea they said in 10 days, within 10 days they will again meet and consult and assess the current situation of new cases. That’s what the date on this 30th?? of January and by then the cases have risen from over 500 cases to 14 times higher to 7711 confirmed and even much more 12,167 suspected cases. That’s all in the statement of the second Emergency Committee of the WHO. It’s all official information you can look up yourself
Reiner Fuellmich 1:44:57
How are the cases defined, positive test results?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:45:02
Well, yeah the cases defined, confirmed will have been confirmed by this assay of Professor Drosten because it was an official publication circulated by the 13th of January. And it was also worked into the later published interim guidance, laboratory testing of humans suspected cases of novel Coronavirus. So these documents are still all online at WHO because sometimes it could be that they are withdrawn afterwards, but they are still online and can still be looked up. And it’s still all reference to Drosten and his publication.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:45:03
When was the first emergency meeting and when was the second one again?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:45:48
First was at the 22nd of June and then they agreed –
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:45:52
January,They did not have enough cases because there were only 557 cases, and there was no international spread and international spread is a precondition for calling and for defining a public health emergency. So they had to wait 10 days, and then there was a 14 times increase of cases, of course, with the rapid diagnostics, which was also referenced in the statement that they were very grateful that there were rapid diagnostics so they could identify and diagnose this new threat called SARS coronavirus two..
Reiner Fuellmich 1:45:52
January?
Reiner Fuellmich 1:46:35
So what had happened is Drosten had delivered his test kit to the World Health Organisation, and through the use of his new test, all of a sudden we had 14 times the number of cases that existed before he used his test.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:46:55
That’s what the documents say,
Viviane Fischer 1:46:57
Okay, I would like to make a remark on this, because we have like also information from a Freedom of Information Act requests that we did with Charite. And, you know, it turns out that actually, you know, the company Tib Molbiol, they would which produced the test together with, or like produced it for and developed it together with Drosten, they were listed so that the constellation came that basically they were doing the logistics Charite claimed and when someone got in touch with Drosten, and the companies, the the countries knew that Drosten was the one in charge or had developed this test, like from the information kit that you said that was sent out through the WHO
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:47:53
The test assay
Viviane Fischer 1:47:54
The test essay –
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:47:56
– to the member states because it was then an official guidance.
Viviane Fischer 1:47:59
Exactly, but there was the contact information was to Drosten and to Tib Molbiol so they knew they could get in touch with them, and then Tib Molbiol would do the send out like for Drosten or for someone else. So it was basically all at their hands and they could deliver it worldwide. I think it did not go through via the WHO itself but like through this connection of the first mover advantage basically of what the two had developed.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:48:30
But what this boils down to is that the cases that they needed, in order to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern came into existence because of the test. Is that correct?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:48:48
At least they needed the danger of transmission, and they have to diagnose it and without diagnostic test assays, it’s not possible. So the only one who gave this test assay is on the document referenced as Drosten. That’s what the documents say.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:49:06
Had it not been for his test, the WHO 10 days later would still have probably had 44 cases or maybe 500 cases, but not 14 times that many.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:49:19
If there is no test you cannot qualify it as the new virus. That’s the problem. And that’s also, the really important thing everybody should know is that the proclamation of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern because this is connected to vaccine manufacturing. That’s actually the most important thing any legal person or anybody should know. it’s not the pandemic. There is no legal consequence if WHO proclaims or defines a pandemic. That’s just interesting for the media. But the public health emergency is connected to the regulatory pathway for emergency use authorization.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:50:03
Without a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, there cannot be any use of untested drugs like vaccines?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:50:11
Right, because all secondary laws like the EU, the FDA in the US, they use the concept of the public health emergency also proclaimed by WHO.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:50:24
Okay. Virginie wants to ask a question.
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 1:50:27
Yes, Mrs. Behrendt, Virginie Dr Araujo Recchia. I would like to confirm with you that Mr. Bill Gates put pressure on the WHO to declare a pandemic and that we know that Charite Berlin??, which is linked with Drosten as to (inaudible) these tests, with the financing of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust. I don’t know if you can confirm that.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 1:51:00
Maybe Astrid, I don’t know so much about financing, I know more about regulatory issues? Yeah. Astrid?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:51:10
It’s a good question. What we can confirm and that’s what I was going to explain to you is that there is really a plan since 2000, even maybe before 1999, there is a plan that you can see chronologically with events that is mounting up. GAVI from Vaccine Alliance in UNICEF to start joining the United Nation, not only with UNICEF, but with the World Bank and WHO through a financing of this IFFM the International Financing Facility Immunisation. So they did a trio, a triad in 2006 they started, and at the same time, GAVI started to be a global alliance in France in Switzerland as a foundation. So they registered in 2006 at the same time as they did triad, a three party agreement between World Bank, WHO and GAVI to get financing from the member states. You can find this even on the web. So that was the first step. And, as you know, 2006, the IHR started to be in the implementation phase. And what we can find out is tracking what he’s doing is that he started to well I’ll jump to the most importan.t in 2009, he registered as an international organisation in Switzerland, of a new type. And we have a press release signed by the Swiss government that shows that it was created specifically for Mr. Bill Gates, this international organisation with total immunity, you cannot do anything, you cannot even take into tribunal, they do their own tribunal, if they have any sort of disagreement. And from then on, he started and we have the documents in the WHO “logo”. You know, they have executive boards, we can find, I found that out very lately, but we can find out everything on the webs so we can find this, and he they created a decade 2010, 2020 of vaccine decade. And we did the implementation, HR implementation because you had to teach and train the countries to be prepared, and we finished the first round in 2012, from 2009 to 2012. We received with Georgetown University Pretoria University, and I was with University of Geneva, and at that time when we stopped the round, we got funds again from Japan, and suddenly it stopped, and they said there was no more fund. And we had almost the contract signed. And I found out now that I know why because in 2012 at the World Health Assembly, they did and they put Bill Gates as the leader of the global vaccine action plan 2012-2020.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:54:17
So it’s beautifully carved, from then on he was in the driver’s seat. And it’s mentioned, they know the GAVI is the leader of most of what is concerning vaccine, and it’s not only children like UNICEF anymore, it’s the whole world. So you can see. I mean, if that’s enough of a proof of at least that there is a plan. And it keeps on, I mean he is in the SAGE group, the strategic expert advisory group, and they did even it’s very funny, [though] it’s not funny, but they even did in 2016 an Assessment Report of this 2012=2020 global vaccine Action Plan GAPC?? and in 2016, they are very upset because they did not immunise the whole world. So immunisation is vaccination, and they would take any excuse with vaccination, and they don’t talk about experimental or validated it’s all vaccine, of course, and in 2016 you can really see that they’re not happy. And Mr. GAVI global, is saying that we really have to make an effort. So they have made a programme called the accelerator programme, a vaccine. Okay, so that’s at least some of the steps that you can get very clearly. It’s all on the web without talking about the financing, which I can talk about too.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:55:53
Who received basically diplomatic immunity in 2009. Was it GAVI or was it Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Or was it a Bill Gates personally, or all of them?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:56:06
Now it’s really GAVI, Alliance, Foundation, but they took away the name Foundation, and in the agreement it’s really GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccination. Yeah, I can find the exact term in my paper. But no, it’s really it concerns really him, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or rather, what I find out more and more is that there are more the financial mechanism of funding, or receiving funds for programmes. And I found out again that this was governments Swiss Medic, the FDA of Switzerland, has signed an agreement to, it’s in 2020 to 2023, to provide to the Bill and Melinda Gates $900,000 in three years, so $300,000 every year for his programme “project”, and you cannot see in the paper, you have to go and look at the projects, and I did not go, but it concerns the vaccine.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:57:14
So I’m suspecting that when we take a model like Switzerland, or like Silvia said about mechanics between the national and international health regulation, it’s been applied like a model?? everywhere in the world, that the law on epidemics of a national country is binding to international health regulation. We found that in Switzerland, even the constitution of Switzerland has a little line they have added without asking us, which says that international law supersedes national law in the health matters. And then you can see that in the law of epidemic that was passed in 2016. So probably in all countries we should check. And I’m pretty sure we saw that in Canada, that there is a law of epidemics or law of emergency law that says to the country, they will obey to the International Health regulation. So if a PHEIC is declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, every country has to put and trigger immediately the mechanics of obeying. And that’s what explains why on 16th, 17th of March in this area, the whole world locked down, because this is uncomprehensible, according to the International Health regulation. And according to the SARS-CoV-1, it never happened like this ever, that suddenly the virus was everywhere. What’s happening with Omicron, too, you know, it starts in South Africa and the next day, it’s all over the world.
Reiner Fuellmich 1:58:55
Yeah, but is there any, as far as the International Health Regulations are concerned, Silvia and Astrid, is there any democratic legitimacy to these Health International Health Regulations? Has anyone who invented these international health regulations been voted into some office? Is there any democratic legitimacy to this? Or is this just a private enterprise by people who control the World Health Organisation?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:59:29
I can answer your first and then Silvia you can, you know, fill in? When we were teaching and training about the International Health regulation, it was the question that came very often in how come this is binding to member states. And it was extraordinary answer, which will explain to you how important it is to look at this new pandemic treaty now is that WHO, I have looked and looked, it is for the moment the only United Nation specialised programme or an agency who has a constitution, so WHO constitution not convention, Constitution, Article 21, 19, a 21A and [article] 2 are binding member states directly if they adopt the international health regulation. So they don’t need to go through the whole procedure of a treaty. That’s why it’s very dangerous this WHO constitution is like if it was planned to supersede all constitutions of the world, because why would you use the word constitution? And so the answer is of the lawyers from WHO was always “oh, we have adopted it that the general assembly of 2005 under the WHO Constitution, Article 21A, and article two”?
Reiner Fuellmich 2:00:57
Yeah, but the funny thing is, and it’s not funny at all, that those people who created the international health regulations have not been voted into there, or have no authority? Or is there any connection between the member states people, not their governments, the member states people and these international health regulations? Or is there only the constitution which they themselves invented?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:01:27
So well, let me explain the mechanics of the United Nation. And it’s almost with all its with all the big agencies like the International Labour Office, the ITU telecommunication for the refugee?? every year you have a world assembly with like an NGO, like you know, a World Health Assembly every year takes place in the United Nation in Geneva in May, the third week of May, where all member states have their little seat. And they are all together. And they have an agenda, and they decide about the agenda of the world together. So this explains, but normally if there is a big decision, they are just children of the United Nations General Assembly. So they should go up to the General Assembly and it has to get the blessing of the Secretary General, which is the head of the United Nation, which should give a blessing to WHO. I don’t see this in the case of international health regulation. If that’s a piece, a clue.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:02:39
Well, I’ll just add to this that international health regulations, because we started with 1815 or something, some hours ago. And it’s a very interesting regime, because it’s an international treaty that dates back to the Sanitary Conventions from 1850. So it’s one of the oldest international legal regimes, which were taken over to ‘wHO and which were recognised under the WHO constitution, because they already had in mind, and that’s very true, they had in mind that they wanted to have a regulatory fast track regime. So they had this regulatory process that says, under the regulations for sanitary laws, which is now pandemic laws that you could refer to, you have, the member states need to opt out, and not opt in. So by the resolution that is passed, an international treaty has to enter into force in the member state, otherwise it has to opt out on purpose. So it’s the reverse process of international law. And that’s a very unique thing. And I think no other international organisation, or I found no other international organisation having this capacity. But what they did, it’s democratic because it was an inter governmental negotiation process. And the interesting thing is that only because of the emergence of SARS, they had this new ideology adapted of the global health security idea that not the endemic diseases are devastating to the people, but only new diseases that have no medical treatment. So they inserted this new concept in the old laws that forever existent the WHO (inaudible) exist in the world. So they adopted this totally new, yeah, ideology. And that’s the very, very striking thing we have now and it’s passed as a resolution. And the interesting thing is, it’s an international treaty and WHO is not a party, it’s only bound by the resolution of various other international treaties like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the WHO is a signatory. So that’s an international (inaudible).
Reiner Fuellmich 2:05:01
I still don’t understand. I don’t see any connection between myself, my countrymen and these international health regulations.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:05:12
That’s the problem of international law?
Reiner Fuellmich 2:05:15
Well, not really. I think this is quite unique, because –
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:05:21
– member states have adopted, member states give their consent in 2005. They all say they wanted to have this new kind of rules for international law and now they are obliged to implement it nationally, or since 2007 it entered into force and they are obliged to implement it. And for example, Austria, and from iving in Austria, we have no emergency clause in our Constitution. And we did not adopt our sanitary laws, our epidemiologic laws, there is no clause of emergency and we still have the same regime. So that’s what I always say, whatever legal regime and whatever constitution that countries have, obviously the system can impact any country and any constitutional system and any legal regime, it’s possible with or without emergency clauses, they apply emergency rules. That’s what I can see. At least that’s my opinion.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:06:23
It’s the same with the Millennium Development Goal and Sustainable Development Goals, which seemed to match, you know, 2000 to 2015, 2015 to 2030, the sustainable development goal they did, they’re doing a whole mechanics around this, and it becomes more and more obscure, and it is more and more obscure how much us as citizens really decide, and we don’t decide anything anymore because it becomes so complex and obscure,
Reiner Fuellmich 2:06:54
We definitely have to take our sovereignty back. That is the conclusion that I draw from this. Because even if the EU wants to come up with a new law, for example, they can decide that they want to introduce these laws, but unless the member states ratify it in their own countries, it doesn’t become law in their countries. So this is quite surprising to me, and I think to many lawyers who should know about these things as well. This is very disturbing, I think,
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:07:25
And the US has created this HERA agency, which is the same, but probably much more coercive. And that’s a huge, huge problem. And they have no authority in health matters, but they still pretend to have it and still create the agencies and instruct on us without democratic processes.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:07:50
And I think that
Reiner Fuellmich 2:07:51
HERA stands for Health Emergency Response Agency, right?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:07:56
Yeah.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:07:56
And isn’t there a rumour that if our national member state governments in the EU collapse, then they’re going to take over and under the EU Commission, there will be a kind of a mini world government. Does that sound like, does it sound plausible?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:08:16
I have no idea, but I’m sure they would love to.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:08:18
Yeah, that’s the idea of this pandemic treaty. Because this pandemic treaty has articles at the end who say that with the constitution of WHO we don’t need any other Constitution as Member States, and not only do they diminish the power of member states, which is why what is a United Nation, but they have invited a whole lot of non state actors, they call it NGOs, GAVI, intergovernmental, HERA is an NGO international organisation because you can use many, you know, things the Bill and Melinda Gates might be an NGO, and then they make different things the Rockefeller Foundation. I’ve met them in WHO, they come and sit in meetings, and you know they are NGO, we don’t know what they are. So the non state actors are also invited in this new treaty, which would take over literally through WHO constitution, a world Constitution because of [a] pandemic.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:09:19
So ultimately what we’re looking at is private associations, private individuals even, taking over our national governments through the World Health Organisation using health as a crowbar to do whatever they want?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:09:40
Yeah, we could say that because the prep public private partnership has been, you can see it through the financing, because I mean GAVI and private partners have started to invade and interfere the whole United Nation. I actually looked into this because I was called to organise for the, you know, Switzerland joining the United Nations, the whole United Nation open days for two days in (inaudible). So I learned a lot of organisations that nobody hears about, and one is really a private entity called the UN Global Compact. And this United Nations Global Compact is only private sector. And they can, for example, finance, I mean it’s open to partnerships. Yeah.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:10:32
And just to add on this, also the implementation of the International Health Regulations, it’s very strange because it’s done by external evaluations undertaken by the Global Health Security Agenda. And if you look up the page of the website of the Global Health Security Agenda, it says it has a private consortium and you don’t know you have no information which private consortium this is, but you know that this external evaluators go to Germany, go to every country, it’s even on the website of the (inaudible) and praising?? how great it is. But they don’t say it’s implemented by private entities, you don’t know. So I don’t want to have laws implemented of private entities. That’s absolutely undemocratic. And they are very proud of it. They are very proud of it.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:11:27
That’s bizarre.
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 2:11:28
I am to understand, well there’s private advisors that are also working also with the (inaudible) Mckinsey and (inaudible). They are the arm of the Bill Gates Foundation also.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:11:48
Yeah, it’s a good question. I’ve actually looked for the link, McKinsey and WHO because we know that they are creating the communication. And I think they have been putting it under something they’re setting up now, an intergovernmental panel, what is the exact title, intergovernmental panel for this treaty for negotiating, intergovernmental negotiating network, something like that. So this is just happening, it just happened at the executive board. So it is a bit worrying because to think that, I think that all those communication agencies are buried?? into that. They’re not only one.
Viviane Fischer 2:12:33
So what is this treaty adding to the situation that we have right now?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:12:38
Well, the treaty is very mythical. I just heard the legal counsel that the former legal counsel of WHO speaking about it. It’s available on the internet. And it’s very political. It’s probably the most fierce proponent is Charles Michel, he suggested this treaty, the European Union wants this treaty, the US is kind of a poster, they made a proposal that the IHR should be strengthened. So the problem will be a two?? track world, because if they are rushing into a treaty, only a small number of signatories will sign and the IHR is a universally acknowledged tool. And we did not mention that it would actually have good aspects in it, which are neglected and infringed. It has a human rights implementation clause, which is not respected, absolutely violated. So there were compromised deals at the end when they passed through the resolution. But it’s just they’re not mentioned, and nobody there’s no court, which, you know, find in violation of this. So the problem is, what they would like to do is to have an upstream and a downstream of pharmaceutical industry probably, because it’s not even clear the scope of the treaty, not even this is clear. The only thing is that there’s a lot of communication about it. The director general is a very huge proponent of this treaty, because he’s very political, in a way. And it’s very, very strange what kind of intentions are behind that? And it’s called for preparedness and response. So what we know is that they invented a new procedure, which is also problematic. It’s called WHO emergency use authorization. That’s very huge company, Big Pharma can go to who say I’m inventing a new pharmaceutical for or a new diagnostic set for this kind of disease for this public health emergency and we would like that you put it on our list and then WHO puts it on the list and has a disclaimer, disclaiming that there’s no warranty and no endorsement of WHO and if somebody dies, it’s not WHO’s fault, it’s only a list. And then GAVI takes this list and says, “oh, we can export it to the entire world, even if we don’t have stringent and very competent medical authorities, we have this listing of WHO and now we can contribute it to the world”. That’s what they do in the treaties of GAVI and this vaccine alliance, this Covax facility it’s called, the third pilot?? of this ACTA accelerator. So and they probably would like to find better regulatory ways that it becomes a normal process, that big pharma goes to an international organisation, but then actually it’s the Treaty of private international law, none of public international law. Because the problem of customary international law is now recognised. Its (inaudible) that means it’s a norm, which you cannot derogate from that there are no medical treatments whatsoever, without probably without your consent. So, yeah, it’s a huge problem.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:16:12
So we’ve learned tonight from all of the other experts, including of course the three experts who testified at the beginning of this session, that, for example, in the UK, healthcare has been largely privatised. It’s being controlled by private groups, private charities, even. We’ve learned that through this privatised, even their psychiatric system has been privatised. There’s private people behind all of this. And this is how they control everything. They even create their own future leaders next to what the World Economic Forum is doing, meaning they have their own people who they then seem to be telling what to do in positions of, well of power in the government’s. Now if I look at the WHO there’s a man by the name of Tedros. He’s the Director General, who is he? I have read in the papers that in his own country, people are and a criminal complaint has been filed against him for genocide. Is that the typical, let’s say puppet that the private entities who are running the health care show are using in order to further their aims?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:17:46
No, I have, I must say, I’ve never seen a director general like that. I’ve known many, but this. I know also from inside that the staff was very unhappy with him, and they asked for his resignation. And of course, it never happened. So yeah. And another scoop, if I did not say this already, is that on the board of GAVI foundation, you can see the names of people who have been part of GAVI. Well, Tedros has been part of GAVI before he was elected Director Genera. Conflict of interest. And so he was on the board between, I wrote it here 22 January 2009 and September 2011. And that’s one of them. And the other person conflict of interest, the president of Ireland, who was the head of the Human Rights Commission. And I know her, but I’m very surprised that she was there with President with signature even of GAVI from November 2008 to September 2011. I can give you the papers, no problem. You know, it is very precise 25 November 2008 to 14th of September 2011. So, you see that, there are many names that I don’t know, and I’m sure you will find there many names that you can maybe find in your countries too, because there are country representatives that are in GAVI before they were even in position. So it’s clear that he was already entangled with Bill Gates.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:19:22
So wherever you look, you see conflicts of interest. Debi and Ana have their hands up.
N. Ana Garner 2:19:31
Yes, I checked to see which countries are members of the WHO. Are you, I see many, many, many. In fact, I don’t see any I don’t recognise Are there any countries? 194. Are there any countries that are not members of WHO?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:19:50
Um, at the moment, I think the US. Oh no, they came back. Okay. No, the Vatican is an observer in the United Nation as you might know or not. And that’s also a topic I wanted to talk about when you talk about values, religion, psy-op. Yeah, so they are observers and they are everywhere. The other religions are in general at the World Council of Churches, right in front of the big building that Bill Gates has been building with our Swiss money. In three years. I mean, it’s been, you have to know this. Oh, no, that was a question. So I answered. Right.
N. Ana Garner 2:20:36
So there, there are no countries that are not members? The Vatican might be an observer, but it’s not a member?
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:20:43
No, I don’t know if any Silvia would you say? I even though there was 196? It’s, you’re muted Silvia.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:20:53
It says 196 to the International Health Regulations, because the Vatican in Liechtenstein, they are not WHO members. But they are a member to them, a signatory to the International Health Regulations.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:21:09
Debi has her hand up,
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:21:11
I would just want to add something that might be interesting legally. There are in the annex in the notes at the end of this international health regulation of 2005, two countries who made reservations, that they don’t agree with that completely, because they want to apply their global security nationally, and you would guess who it is. It’s the US and Iran?
Reiner Fuellmich 2:21:11
Uh huh.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:21:12
So it’s interesting to see that two countries have managed to put a reservation to this. How come the others haven’t?
Reiner Fuellmich 2:21:47
It’s because their people haven’t spoken, but they will, Debi.
Debi Evans 2:21:51
Well, thank you. I just wanted to mention very quickly when you mentioned about the UK, we’ve also got a serious issue going on here with the unvaccinated in that anybody that seems to be admitted to hospital with a COVID-19 positive seemed, or would appear, to be put on an accelerated end of life care plan, and patients seem to be given midazolam and morphine. And this is without their consent. This is without their family’s consent. These decisions are made by the clinicians alone, and the families and the patient doesn’t have any say in it at all. So I just wanted to be sure to include the victims of this absolute disaster that are unvaccinated. And also just to bring your attention to CEPI. CEPI was founded in 2017 and CEPI and GAVI worked very closely together, in fact financially very closely together. And when CEPI was launched in 2017, Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum launch, said that basically they would be cutting out the safety with regards to clinical trials, it would just be and he said it straight out, and it was actually featured on UK Column News.
Debi Evans 2:23:15
But Bill Gates said that the safety data and manufacturing would be cut out, which would enable the 100 day mission to go ahead to have vaccines rolled out within 100 days of the World Health Organisation declaring a pandemic. So I just wanted to mention that. And also, with regards to Whitney earlier talking about DARPA, we have our very own kind of diluted DARPA, if you like, we have ARPA, but we also have Wellcome Leap, which Whitney has got a lot of information about when it comes to bioweapons and making biochemicals. And also I just want to go back to the patent as well, because the Rothschild’s patent of 2015, if you look at the full paper, everything that we’re seeing today was put into that and it was approved in 2020, but it was given priority in 2015. So it was written in 2015, and what we’re seeing now is everything within that patent so that together with SPARS pandemic, and SPARS pandemic 2025 to 2028 was a coronavirus. And some of the names are the same as in the John Hopkins futuristic scenario like Corovax. So there’s an awful lot of similarities there. And I know that we’ve been talking, you’ve been talking about Lock Step, but I just want to just re- remind people that SPARS pandemic 2025 to 2028 gives a month by month breakdown. And if you look at when we first started in the March when we had the first case in our country anyway, or in December in Wuhan, it literally goes month by month. So the prediction going forward would appear to be antimicrobial resistance, which is already what is written in SPARS. And we’re finding many people in this country not being able to access antibiotics, and GPs and physicians here not wanting to give antibiotics. So I just wanted to throw that in. Thank you.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:25:34
So we do have lots of reason to worry about our sovereignty. One of the not the least of one is the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations. That seems to be the overarching theme. This is how, through their constitution and through the revision through the revised International Health Regulations, they seem to be trying to gain control over the rest of the world, including, of course, all the 196 member states. Is this a correct assessment?
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:26:08
Yeah, at least I think, because in the first part of my expertise, I stressed that the military aspects were included in this agenda, but were not named. So that’s the reason why we have now kind of pandemic response which is not medical, which is unproportional and political, and we do not realise it. Because they included this bioterrorist scenario and they adapted the language to global health security, that’s also a centre for civilian biodefense also at the time of dark winter, it was called Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Centre was called Centre for Civilian Biodefense, I think was the correct name. And they had also a journal called Bio terrorism or bio defence. And now it’s called global health security. So we should not forget about that a biowar could go on at least. So it’s much more political, as the politicians would themselves agree.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:27:18
I will add two points, one we should worry about the whole United Nation because the Sustainable Development Goals are 17 goals, and 169 targets is the agenda 2030. And it is all entangled, especially with the climate change, for example. But there are many other mechanisms under that have to be looked at. The second, I mean such as the UN alliance for SDG financing, I mean, what is this, I’m finding, you know, when you dig, you find a lot of things very mysterious that we have to find out. But the other one that might interest you is, remember that pandemic, or epidemic or public health emergency of international concern has four typologie. That’s what, I was taking care of the case studies, and it was very important to distinguish. And that’s what we should do with what’s going on now because we’re all focused on the biological factor that, in fact, the first one is infectious biology. The second is foodborne biology. And there’s a whole organisation behind called infostan. The third is chemical and chemical is mercury [or it] can be metal, etc. And there was one expert (inaudible), a German that I was inviting, and he was always making very great reports, but very difficult to find the experts there.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:28:47
And the force, which is very important, and you will see why is radio nuclear, radiation. And that’s even more difficult to find experts. And I realise this because in our courses, we were inviting people who are taking care of this. It is the International Atomic Energy Agency based in Vienna, and they are experts on radio nuclear, Chernobyl, Fukushima, they are the first in line there. And what I was shocked about is when we were doing the case studies of Fukushima. We also, what the WHO do and they said no, WHO was not allowed to access Fukushima, they were refused the visa because the first one to be there is the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. And what is very strange is that they have an, I don’t know [if it’s] an agreement or, any way a written statement, which gives them power over WHO. So I went to look at what they’re doing now with COVID just today, so I’m very happy to tell you, or very scared to tell you, that they are in charge of the RT PCR kit.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:30:09
And I can’t, it’s a question and actually to know just before I say how they have presented this is they are independent from the United Nation. They have their own international treaty, and they report that the UN General Assembly and to the Social Security Council every year. So this is for nuke, it’s for radio nuclear threats which could kill the whole planet. So they say that the IAEA has developed a nuclear derived diagnostic technology that can help detect and identify COVID, or anything else in ours, in humans and in animals. Because animals is treated by veterinary and by FRO, the Food Administration Opposition, and they have developed this test. And this test is very efficient, the RT PCR because it’s polymerase chain reaction and rapid test, they think they’re the experts, and especially for Ebola Zika, and the African swine fever virus. So this is just today I read this, and for me it rings a bell, because they are offering now the test kit of PCR test kit, and their lab. So they’re linked to labs, and we were talking, that’s where the power lies and where things have to be, I think, looked at closer. I don’t know what you think Silvia of it. That’s a bit worrying.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:30:26
You mean, other private organisations or half private or, most of these organisations, which we spoke about tonight, pretty much all of the international organisations are more or less controlled by private citizen,s by private groups, charities, etc. So this harkens back to the theme which we heard about first today about how the City of London basically, big finance, is controlling everything through their emissaries, their private people trying to gain control over the rest of the world. Again, we have to take back our sovereignty, that is what all of this tells me right now. And also, we have to take a much closer look at PCR testing, which we will do tomorrow in tomorrow’s session.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:32:44
And maybe also look at all the NGOs, because in WHO there’s the world alliance of hospitals, the world alliance of the alliances of alliances, and a lot of British people are in charge, and you have to also know that a lot of military are there, because the CD, in the US was formerly military. And I think it still is, by the way. So we have to, I think disentangle those onego, it’s the world NGOs, or the bingo, the Business Interested NGOs, because there are the mechanics where it’s very difficult to find them. And they have a lot of power, more than we think.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:33:27
And people have to learn that they have to disconnect and look, start grassroots democracy, look into their regions and their communities. They know best what’s good for them. It is very late already. I know that Dipaliis a few hours ahead of us three or four hours, right? Dipali?
Dipali Ojha 2:33:51
Yes, four and a half.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:33:52
Oh, my God. It’s been a very long day. And unless there are any further questions, I think we should close this session for tonight. Yes, go ahead, Dexter, please.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:34:06
Yeah, I just want to talk about Dr. Silvia, you were mentioning global health security. And I would like you to perhaps maybe just put it in perspective when it comes to the definition changes from the World Health Organisation in 2009.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:34:25
Well, you mean you refer to this spirit?? for the pandemic criteria?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:34:30
That’s correct. Yeah.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:34:32
Well, my personal view is that they just realised, WHO realised they don’t need a pandemic definition anymore, because everything that is needed is a PHEIC Public Health Emergency of International Concern because they want to manufacture vaccines and it doesn’t matter how the pandemic is defined in non legal documents. So they actually alleviated this very high threshold, because they realise they can, at any time, make a public health emergency as long as international spread. And as long as they have diagnostics. So they focused no attention to this theme, I think, and that’s our problem and also the lawyers always looking for this pandemic definition. But it’s, there are no legal consequences linked to the definition of a pandemic, but there’s a huge legal consequence if you proclaim, if the director general takes this authority and proclaims a public health emergency of international concern.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:35:43
Thank you very much.
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 2:35:46
Does it explain perhaps why they use the models of Sir Ferguson to increase the fear and explain that there is a pandemic because with a (inaudible) mathematics that they used on that is not useful, it’s wrongly used to (inaudible) the spread of the virus. They use this (inaudible) information from these models, perhaps because it seems very strange that they use the models of Sir Ferguson that doesn’t work at all. And that was, these models were duplicated in other countries, like in France, for example. And we took this for granted, it’s not based on experience of medicine at all, it is only mathematics. It’s, we can’t use that at all. But I would like to know if it’s for this reason that more use these models to increase the fear of the pandemic, and to mass manipulate.
Dr Silvia Behrendt 2:37:12
I don’t know any specifics about it, because actually they had everything they needed to proclaim a public health emergency and the national governments needed the population that they would go along, I guess. So they needed that for the population, because there was also the first PHEIC declared in 2009, where the vaccines were manufactured, but nobody was threatened. At least I was not threatened by this PHEIC, because there was no media releases that threatened us. But now they needed the population to stay at home during the lockdowns and to get the vaccine in the end. That’s my personal explanation, Astrid I don’t know.
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 2:37:52
Yes because from the model of Sir Ferguson, the only solution was vaccines, and no treatment at all, only vaccines.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:38:07
I could just add, there are many definitions of scientific definitions they have changed, not only pandemic. They have changed the definition of health professionals, it’s everybody, they have changed data privacy, there is no data privacy anymore. They have not made ethics, for example, in communication in the international health regulation implementation course. And it is, you have to do it. It’s to reassure people, reassure people that we don’t know, we are looking for something. you will know what is going on, and step by step you keep people informed. And there it was fear right away. And not only this was a psychological operation for that fear, that constant fear with cases, with images, with deaths that were not deaths, because we know today there is not more mortality in 2020, but also with contradictions that we said before and this is in Melanie Klein psychology, you make psychotic people and children when you say I love you, but I hate you and you push, or you say I love you and I hate you, at the same time with behaviour. So they made a very crazy nonsense of coherence, no control, no sense of control. It’s also another concept in psychology. And they make people totally insecure, which diminishes their immunity, by the way.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:39:32
What they also did, psychologically, they took away all the religions and all the belief system. And this is something that keeps people up and they censored religion. They censored death. They forbid the ritual of death, which is one of the most important ritual if you want to have a good grief development. I mean, coherence and healing. So there are many things they have done. Not just, you know, this manipulation? I don’t know Sir Ferguson, but I think I could just add one more. They reversed completely the values. And this is a bit of this Melanie Klein psychotic, you know, I call it the Hansel and Gretel syndrome. Because I love you, I’m going to give you this, I’m going to, you know, be ethical. We’re going to treat you well with the vaccine, and they’re killing them. And this is, they have absolutely abrogated ethics research guidelines that we developed in 2006 to 2009, and I was involved in that. So all the values is also a psy-op. They have changed the values and the definitions.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:40:36
(Inaudible) certain this is not about health.
Debi Evans 2:40:55
Professor Ferguson, if I could just clarify Professor Ferguson. in 2002 he modelled 50,000 deaths would happen in the UK from Mad Cow disease. And he modelled it completely incorrectly, where we saw the burning of all of our cattle for 150 deaths. So he was very incorrect. And we were very surprised in the UK when we’d found out that Neil Ferguson was responsible for the modelling of this pandemic, because he was so incorrect in the last one. He also hit the headlines a number of times and had to resign from his post in SAGE because he was caught breaking lockdown rules. Just wanted to add that about Professor Ferguson.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:41:38
Question is how come he’s still in office?
Debi Evans 2:41:41
That’s a really good question, and I can’t answer that one, I’m afraid, but he shouldn’t be he shouldn’t be.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:41:47
Conflict of interest.
Debi Evans 2:41:49
Absolutely.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:41:50
Or a net partison.
Debi Evans 2:41:52
He works very closely with Saudi as well. I forgot I’ll find out the name, I can’t actually read it to pronounce it. But he works Imperial College have the largest alumni of Chinese. When President Xi came on his state visits, the only university that he visited was Imperial. Imperial have huge Chinese ties, and they’ve also taken over a number of our hospitals, so that we have now an imperial NHS Trust. So Imperial, I mean I could go on for hours about Imperial and Professor Alice Gast, who’s the president of Imperial, who gave a lecture based on 1984 George Orwell 1984. So there’s an awful lot going on at Imperial and I could do a lot more about imperia,l but Professor Ferguson was discredited back in 2002 for Mad Cow disease. I just wanted to throw that in. Thank you.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:42:54
It is astonishing indeed, how many people who are completely incompetent at what they’re doing. One of them being the person who runs the EU Commission, she failed at every single job she’s ever held. It’s incredible how many completely incompetent people are kept in office, obviously by the people who put them there, those super rich people who somehow seem to be fueled and kept alive through the city of London and its fifth columns that seem to be everywhere in the world. We will have to take closer looks into all of these occurrences.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:43:40
Okay, I would just add one thing is we were talking with McKinsey and Von der Leyen’s son is working for McKinsey. And the son of FaBOS in France is working for McKinsey. And you know that nepotismo, it’s a term used in (inaudible) cos they –
Reiner Fuellmich 2:43:57
– nepotismo it’s –
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 2:44:01
Ursula Von Der Leyen also has a problem when she was Minister of Defence in Germany, I think,
Reiner Fuellmich 2:44:07
and also when she was the secretary of I think families or something like that. She always had problems, but she was always kept in office.
Virginie De Araujo Recchia 2:44:17
And it was already a problem with emergency contracts.
Reiner Fuellmich 2:44:21
That is a major. I think McKinsey is a major institution in all of this because we have learned from another expert, that Bill Gates is using McKinsey, in order to make sure that his advisors become the advisors, for example, Ursula Von Der Leyen, all the other major political figures through McKinsey through the network of McKinsey.
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 2:44:55
Yeah, it’s amazing that we have exactly the same messages two years ago in the shops and in the airports, than now. You know, wash your hands, put the mask, I mean in Europe at least for those who don’t have those measures, and it’s the same voice and it’s like a marketing agency. So this also should be analysed if it’s the same voice everywhere and something weird??
Reiner Fuellmich 2:45:21
We’re looking into that as well. But tonight, it’s been a very long day. And I know that Dipali needs some sleep. We all do. So unless there’s any more questions that urgently need to be answered, I think we should close our session for today. And I really want to thank everyone, this has been extremely valuable. Thank you, Astrid. Thank you. Virginie. Thank you, Silvia. Thank you, Dexter and Ana and Dipali. And of course, thank you, Debi. Thank you very, very much. One big step forward. Thank you. Bye bye. See you all tomorrow.