Grand Jury day 3 of the People’s Court of Public Opinion, which has expert key witnesses discussing the fraudulent Drosten PCR test, remdesivir, midazolam and morphine in this depopulation eugenics programme. Just updated the rest of the interview with Dr Shankara Chetty.

SPEAKERS

Rui Fonsca E Castro, Dr. Sona Pekova, Mike Yeadon, Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt, Dr Shankara Chetty, Virginie De Araujo Recchia, John O’Looney, N. Ana Garner, Viviane Fischer, Prof. Dr. Dolores Cahill, Dr. Bryan Ardis, Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer, Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich 0:22
Good morning, good day and good evening to everyone, wherever you are watching this third day of the People’s Court of Public Opinions grand jury investigation into the corona problem. Yesterday we heard a group of experts who explained to us the geopolitical and the historical backdrop of what we are dealing with, and what some of us are suffering from today. Today, we will take a closer look at the PCR test which is at the foundation of everything we are seeing. But before we start today’s session, Judge Rui will give a summary of what we learned yesterday.

Rui Fonsca E Castro 1:10
Thank you, Reiner. Summary of the second day of the grand jury investigation of the court of public opinion. Yesterday on February 12th 2022, this court of public opinion with the help of a number of experts took a look at the background against which this current pandemic is playing out. Three experts from the UK, Alex Thompson, and Brian Gerrish, both former employees of British Secret Service, explained it together with Debi Evans, that the real power centre behind everything that is happening is completely independent even independent of England and London, City of London and the criminal financial industry that emergences there is now spanning the globe. everything emanates from it and it’s fifth column, Wall Street in [the] US. These more applied name and financial mafia was, for example, responsible for a straight (inaudible), and First and Second World War and in each case, they financed both sides of the conflicts. Terrorism and drug trafficking were also invented by the City of London’s financial mafia. It makes money from these too.

These financial mafia is run by a small group of families. Through (inaudible) criminal organisation other private parties including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have gained control of healthcare, first in England and then worldwide Healthcare is being used as a crow bar by these left appointed elites. With the help of one of the most important platforms of this group, the WEF and policeman [and] politicians bred through the Global Young Leaders Programme of the WEF, they strive to gain power [and] total control of all of the world’s population. Because in this anti social and anti human view of the world population, (inaudible) not any more relevant for them, and them cattle.

Matthew Ehret from Canada and Whitney Webb from the USA explain it to us that Canada is still completely under the control of British Crown. That’s why Justin Trudeau, [a] product of global young leaders programme took the oath of Office explicitly swearing allegiance to the British Crown, namely to Queen Elizabeth. In the United States or wherever it seems (inaudible) difference, their Anglo American world dominance as envisioned by City of London for London’s financial market has not caught on. There’s two system now exists in the US. One is the system of those who aren’t separate themselves from plunderers and that really the (inaudible), and especially in [the] City of London, and the other is the so called deep states led by Henry P Kissinger, among others, who continues to pursue precisely this old world domination. The role of Chinese leadership will be that of expanding the social credit system. First try it out there in China to the entire world.

James Bush, a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel’s (inaudible) and included overseeing bio levels three and four labs in the US using the exercise Operation Dark Winter in which he himself specified in 2001, Lock Step by Rockefeller Foundation and then finally, Event 201 from October 2019, to explain that financial mafia have been planning for at least 20 years to use this crow bar of (inaudible) to stage the pandemic panic. Precisely what was financially rehearsed in October 2019, like a dress rehearsal has been implemented since the beginning of 2020.

Dr. Silvia Behrandt and Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, who both used to work for WHO explained it to us that this financial mafia is now not only taken the extensive control over WHO but also over the UN and through the WHO’s free floating rules and regulations which have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, and its own constitution with which has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever either. And national legal regulations and constitutions are effectively suspend and will be soon. in fact, only private parties, in particularly the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, determine the course of the WHO. In January 2020, there were practically no cases for the start of the long planned corona pandemic, but cases is what they needed for the collation of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Because that’s the only biases on which it’s possible to use untested new drugs on humans. Therefore, they created these cases artificially with the help of the PCR tests of one of Mr. Christian Drosten, of Charite Berlin. None of the many people infiltrated by these financial mafia into what they seek are strategical important positions in politics, medicine, media, and judiciary, and of course, medicine all around the globe. So this is a summary of what happened in the second session of the Court of Public Opinion.

Reiner Fuellmich 7:41
Thank you Judge Rui E Castro. This leads us right into the discussion of the PCR test as this is at the foundation of all the measures as we will soon find out. We will start by looking at the meaning of the PCR test within the system of the World Health Organisation. Dr. Stuckelberger will explain a few details.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 8:13
Yes, thank you. Reiner. Yes, I want to say first that the WHO has never ever used the PCR from the International Health regulation in 2005 until the swine flu where Drosten started to come into place already and tried his crap?? The PCR is some technology which replaces the doctor and if you can compare and that’s what I do often, I compare what has happened with SARS-CoV-1 compared to SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-1 was not at all managed by a technology. it was the symptomatology that was counting and the doctor and the medical doctors were at the centre of the validation process. And this is what disappeared completely with SARS-CoV-2. The other thing that is very different is that in the international health regulation implementation course that we run between 2009 and 2013, we had guidelines to how to validate and how to identify, it’s a very important process to when you have an outbreak and what is an outbreak? Well, the first thing is that you have to, what WHO it has a shock room. It’s called SHOCK. It’s a Strategic Health Operation Room. And every morning they look at the messages and they look if something is suspicious, not just Coronavirus, which is a common flu and from then on, they have to have a process of validation, not only if it is a biological infection, but a zoonotic, or is it foodborne or chemical or radio nuclear, or irradiation? So we had the guideline, and I can just, so we see how different it is with this PCR, we had, and it was validated by all the experts of WHO because I was running the exercise of case studies for those four typologies, and it’s first the description of circumstances, then you have to identify and characterise chemicals, infections or toxic agents of public health concern internationally. And then you have to describe the ways people come in contact with a chemical, the infectious toxic agent and the timeline of the toxicity, the effects on humans validated many times, and the nature, animal life, water, food, environment. Then the fourth thing to do is characterise the health risk, and that’s called risk assessment. And there are lots of documents on this related to the exposure, how much time, the first strain of the common flu, and I’m coming to that. And as well as the duration, what treatment eventually, what is the risk they spread at the international level, and become a Public Health Emergency of International Concern? This doesn’t happen overnight, you know, from the 22nd of January to the 16th of March when Fauci got an email that he had to lock down everything, [as] it is documented.

So this is the first thing. Now, what we had is a process and I have a kind of decision making tree. And there is annex two of the International Health Regulation, which everybody has to go through. But before that they have to have a case zero. In Ebola, and you can look at many films like Outbreak with Dustin Hoffman, that was an exercise we did with the students, there’s always a case zero. Where is the first case. And we have, it’s called COVID-19, but where is exactly the description of the case zero? People have to think about that, no, it has not taken place, there’s still doubt and now we know it is manmade, but it took a long time. So that is the first thing, then you have to go through a very known procedure in science called the koch postulate. And the koch postulate is something to be validated at the international level, if we want to use something at the international level, like say it is the virus COVID-19. And it has, the Chinese claim they have done it, but there was a lot of criticism from many academic institutions that two parameters have never been really analysed. And it has to be analysed again and again, not just in China, but each country should do that. Well, it is the contagiosity, and it is the causality, and a causality is very important in science. It has to be done again, and again. It’s not just a PCR test that decides the future of humanity, which is completely crazy compared to what the international health reegulation scientific process and procedure is in detecting, identifying, detecting, and validating and verifying every time again and again. So that’s really the first parameter.

The second is that this PCR test in lab, there are directives and guidelines that were posted in early 2020 of how to proceed exactly with a PCR test. And already then there was a possibility to have the ELISA test and the doctor was recommended to validate this PCR. Then as the time went on from January 2020, where also the CDC had already warned and had the document that PCR test does not work, it is not there to monitor an epidemic, neither to validate an infectious disease, clearly. Well, what WHO did is they made an “alert” product PCR test is to be looked at with caution, but it was “hidden” in the website of WHO, and there was one in December 2020 it was, I think the third or fourth alert, and then again in [20]21. And it said that every country who uses PCR test should write down on the result the amplification cycle clearly, but that they were very vague about the validity of that. So that is for the procedure. I just want to say it has nothing to do with what we have in the international health regulation has an obligation. Every state that we were training had sovereignty in how they were managing their epidemic, because it’s an epidemic. And then it’s a pandemic, and it’s not very clear at what moment it is a pandemic. And this has not been, in SARS-CoV-1, just to remind you, it’s a common flu that disappeared after eight months. 24 countries were touched, 787 dead from this Coronavirus 1, and 8000 6000 etc sick from that. So, when you compare SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, there is something totally wrong.

The other thing is that since SARS-CoV-1, experts and international scientific teams have tried to develop a vaccine [which was] absolutely unsuccessful over 20 years. So, how come suddenly there is the development of a vaccination in one of a synthetic experimental vaccination when all the things, all the vaccination development of coronaviruses have failed? Why? Because the coronavirus mutates all the time. And you cannot do a vaccine but when something mutates, so that’s a point I want to underline, [the] WHO was never a seller of vaccines, or a seller of medication. This was almost against the objective of the World Health Organisation and not the World Disease Management Organisation. So it has transformed, you can see this now, in[to] something completely different. And I will maybe finish by saying that I found something very interesting for you. Oh, yeah, first another thing is that, in fact, the PCR test, it’s not just the test, it’s the way it is applied, I think, that should be discussed. Because why put it in the nose so deep, cracking down the most sensitive part of the pre-brain, the layer between the brain and the rest? One clue is that, in fact, test PCRs can vaccinate people, because this is how veterinarians are vaccinating animals, even Egyptians are doing that apparently, but you can talk to, you know, animal doctor veterinarians, they put a swab very deep into the nose of the animal to vaccinate them. So we can ask the question also about the procedure, the quality control of this procedure. Now we know that those swabs are not neutral, and there are nanoparticles, and a lot of, I’m sure the experts are going to talk about it, a lot of very toxic things that have nothing to do there. And actually the test doesn’t need to go in this nose, why did Drosten decide to do that?

So the last little scoop I have now is that actually the conflict of interest of La Charite with the vaccine world is that there has been three payments from GAVI to La Charite between 2018 to 2020, that we have found. One was in December 2019, the Division of Global Health of La Charite University of Berlin, received $86,000 for a grant topic on pneumonia four months. So that’s nothing, but then in October 2018 grand topic, the global health and development public awareness and analysis, a duration of 14 months from October 2018, $550,000 to a global policy and advocacy of Charite, Berlin, and the last one in March 2020, but there might be more, was to support innovative Technology Solutions from March 2020. They got $249,550?? for a duration of 14 months. So there is clearly a conflict of interest, like the Imperial College also got 79 millions, gosh, for malaria programme. So it’s in the same files. So we can see there that there is a big conflict of interest also with Drosten. With GAVI, we have to follow the money. That’s where it goes. And maybe the last thing is that I found out what is Drosten doing at the moment, because it’s always interesting. He’s involved in something that I know since a few years, it’s called the World Health Summit. It happens in general in Germany, and it is three days and there the heads of La Charite and those behind are getting together with WHO, with GAVI, Drosten is there, the University of Geneva is there and the Hospital University because Iiona Kichbusch, who is retired but is still active illegally at the University of Geneva, is the one who’s preparing the WHO treaty that we talked about yesterday, the pandemic treaty that wants to take over with the WHO constitution, implementing a world constitution, because we have such a horrible pandemic, that they are doing a new governance, and they’re preparing this at the WHO extra ordinary health assembly that took place in November December, 75th extra ordinary, the second extra ordinary in the history of WHO, and they also discussed this at the executive board and are planning a further World Health Assembly [in the] third week of May this year to discuss this, and maybe even make it happen. So it’s good that we are here together.

And I also want to say as there are people listening, that this pandemic treaty is something that will take citizens’ rights away, that the Constitutions would no longer operate. And an NGO from Russia and association of citizens have already written to WHO, and probably, I hope, to their minister of health, to say that they don’t agree with this pandemic treaty.

Reiner Fuellmich 21:52
Thank you. The first question seems to be coming from Virginie, you have your hand up, Virginie?

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 21:59
Yes, thank you. Thank you Dr Stuckelberger test for this important (inaudible). I’d like to know if at least one country could have questioned the quality, the validity of these PCR tests that were developed very fast. And it seems that no one has tried to question these products.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 22:25
It’s a very good question. Normally, member states can, of course in their international health regulation, the sovereignty was respected in the way that there were just two countries that is reserved. There are articles in the, the legal articles in this international health regulation, which is, I want to recall binding for every member state., You can do reservations and there is a procedure and timing for that. So it seems that if it happened, we don’t know about it. But what I know is that there is some link to Dr. Fauci because Dr. Fauci received a proposal to replace the PCR test in one of his many emails. And I have people following me and helping me and one, Nadia just sent me this and it’s Anita (inaudible) writing to Anthony Fauci on 26th of February 2020, proposing a much more efficient detector diagnostic tool called Gene-RADAR platform for Mobil??, and it was turned down by Fauci. And apparently, they put all the data behind. So I think there have been attempts, but at the, you know, personal level, but it seems that this is [a] much bigger network than just WHO. Frankly, I don’t think that the Director General Tedros is really, you know, directing it because normally when there is a pandemic there is a pandemic team that speaks to the media. What you hear now is only Tedros and a few media people. So we don’t really know the reality if some countries have resisted, but I know that Madagascar has tried to pull out of WHO a few times. So it’s, they could, of course, I mean, according to international health regulation, of course they can. But what we discussed yesterday is if they have an epidemic law, or if the country has changed its constitution, or if the country is registered as a company, which we have seen with many countries. Well, of course, the people don’t know and the people don’t have any knowledge that they can refuse, and that their government would protect them. And maybe that’s the key issue is that now that people will know they can react, and we will help them, I hope, to make a resistance to this PCR which is still used and promoted by this International Atomic Energy Agency, which I remind you is [an] agency that’s very powerful because in WHO it is managing all the radio nuclear event. Before WHO it has a contract with many UN agencies, I looked at it this morning. Not only WHO but UNESCO, the Food Administration Organisation, FAO, and many others. So we, the people, we have to really react to all this political Ponzi scheme just to take our liberties away.

Reiner Fuellmich 25:50
Thank you Astrid.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 25:51
Thank you doctor.

Reiner Fuellmich 25:53
I’m sorry, Virginie, is there a follow up question? Or is it Ana, who’s next?

N. Ana Garner 26:01
I think I am next, Reiner. Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich 26:07
You muted yourself.

N. Ana Garner 26:12
Dr. Stuckelberger that was very good, thank you. Are you aware that the Prime Minister of Tanzania had asked the World Health Organisation to leave his country after he tested various non human subjects on the PCR test, for example, a fruit, the papaya fruit, a goat, oil, that sort of thing and found that it was a positive test. And he immediately denounced the PCR test, and that he subsequently died under mysterious circumstances. Were you aware of that history?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 26:50
I’m aware that a few presidents have resisted and they died. Yeah, I think he’s not the only one. I didn’t know the story of the PCR behind, I probably there is more than the PCR because anybody resisting this gang of pirates have disappeared or, even Kary Mullis. So yeah, no I don’t know more, but that’s a good answer, yeah. A good example.

N. Ana Garner 27:20
I have a follow up question too, Of course, Kary Mullis was the one who invented the PCR test to begin with, in terms of being able to multiply minute amounts of DNA to be able to detect it by amplifying the DNA, and it was used primarily in forensic settings if I’m not mistaken. Is that correct?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 27:42
Kary Mullis was a researcher. And so am I, basically, so he was saying that it’s a very interesting tool for research in the lab, because you know what you’re studying, so you are looking for what you know, but you’re looking a bit deeper. But he said that in no circumstances can this be amplified? And I think Ulrika?? put it in her first page, in no way can we diagnose anything, it’s like a big soup, and we cannot make – it’s not a diagnostic tool. And he went many times against Dr. Fauci to resist already with HIV AIDS.

N. Ana Garner 28:21
Yes. And the last question I have was, do you have or know of any evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that would show that Drosten knew of the fraudulent nature of the COVID-19 test, PCR test?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 28:42
No, I cannot think of anything now that would incriminate. I can only see that he has ties with GAVI early on. And as GAVI was the big planner of this whole global vaccination campaign that is killing people and making them sick, I would imagine that’s the link that I would really look into, to prove that he knew.

N. Ana Garner 29:13
All right, thank you. I’ll ask other experts to see if they have any as well. Thank you so much.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 29:18
You’re welcome.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 29:19
If I can add something. I think Dr. Drosten knew that it was not a good tool, because from at least 2014, because there was a newspaper article about that, when he worked on the mask off??. He already said that PCR tests were too much sensitive and it was not a way to do to follow a virus. It was released to more sensitive and amplified by (inaudible) already in 2014. So,

Mike Yeadon 30:01
Yes,

Reiner Fuellmich 30:03
In that article, he explained that a positive test result doesn’t mean a thing because this test, it tests positive on perfectly healthy people. And he was talking about a nurse back then. I’m sorry, Mike, I didn’t want to interrupt you.

Mike Yeadon 30:19
Yes, I was really gonna make the point you listed, he used a phrase like this technique can show a positive result, even if a single copy of the virus was fleeting across the respiratory mucosa of a nurse, he used a phrase like that. So you know, that’s important. And did he know? Well, he’s a co-author of the foundational test, which we call the Cormen Drosten test. So he put forward a test, which then the WHO proposed in his famous test test test speech, so that was the test he was talking about. And also, we may or may not cover it, so Drosten is a co-author of the test that variants to which have been used around the world, and when he knew per the state we’ve just referenced, that if used with inadequate constraints on amplification, can give positive results when people are not sick and not infectious. But it’s also worth saying that, and maybe a colleague will say this in the wrap up, but this, you know, the inappropriate use of PCR, and the asymptomatic transmission, the idea that people with no symptoms can infect others, which is not true. It’s epidemiologically rare and irrelevance. Drosten was also in Europe, the absolute centre of promoting this very idea, which seems a remarkable coincidence doesn’t it, as he is the author of a technique now used around the world, which he knew was not appropriate. That’s PCR. And he’s also the, he was the biggest expert on TV telling us all about this asymptomatic transmission, so you can decide for yourself, but for this same expert and advisor to Angela Merkel for years, happens to be point centre of two of the absolutely crucial parts of these mendacious, the lying about this whole pandemic strikes me as more than coincidental.

Reiner Fuellmich 32:23
Absolutely. Dexter, you have your hand up.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 32:28
Yeah, good day, Dr. Stuckelberger, thanks so much for your evidence. What I’m going to pose to you now, in seeing that we are talking about crimes against humanity, the evidence that you have just given and you can actually tell me as to whether it is correct, that is that when one actually compare the regulatory (inaudible) regulations operations or procedures between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, one can clearly actually see there is huge discrepancies. And those specific discrepancies, and you actually mentioned something very important when it came to SARS-CoV-1, and that is (inaudible) itself, and symptomology which was not a prerequisite when it comes to the testing of SARS-CoV-2. But why not? It’s because why the regulatory procedure has changed. So I put it into you Dr. Stuckelberger, one can then clearly say that that actually shows a criminal intent from the World Health Organisation and all the specific parties that’s actually behind the world health organisation. Will you agree with me with that?

Reiner Fuellmich 33:50
You’re muted, Astrid.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 33:56
I did an article actually, you can find it in a scientific article in May 2020. Acta Biomedica on international health regulation and uncertainties. At that moment, I already had doubts. But now I think we have to add this injection. And I would agree, because the end of the game there is for them to inject toxicity that is a chemical and maybe irradiation level and not just mRNA etc. So, yes, the real crime is that people are dying, not because of something we have not identified really clearly. And that a PCR has wrongly identified with “cases” which are asymptomatic, and this is criminal already. But it is really that the the endpoint they’re doing now is changing and editing the genome and they’re very clear about it. WHO too last, before this treaty came out in July, is recommendation for genome editing, but it’s much more than the CRISPR. It is going into changing who we are. And it is against the convention of Yeto, of medicine, or the Declaration of Helsinki, of all the ethical and regulation[s] on keeping our inherited intact. In that way, it is definitely a crime against humanity as we are by their (inaudible).

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 35:34
Thank you so much. Just a follow up question to date and that is that when we actually now compare once again, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 and I would like the jury to really reflect on this because why I believe that it is at the foundation of what we are currently dealing with when it comes to crimes against humanity. We’ve got SARS-CoV-1, which means there is a precedent that one can actually work from, and now we have SARS-CoV-2. Having regard that you have inside knowledge, you’ve actually worked with the World Health Organisation, what will you say when it comes to the regulatory procedures for SARS-CoV-2. Do you actually see the need for the World Health Organisation to have changed dramatically, the health regulatory procedures compared to to SARS-CoV-1, because logically it does not make sense. We’ve got something that we can relate to. Which means that if we have to change something, it’s just going to be something very, very minor. So I would like you to tell the jury that based on your expertise, your experience, your insight and knowledge as well, was there really a need to actually change this regulatory procedure when one compares it to SARS-CoV-1? Thank you?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 36:55
Yeah. Excellent. Yeah, thank you, it gives me the opportunity to explain a bit further. The very important way for a country to identify that they have something to notify the full code IHR and focal point to notify, or the country, or the epidemiologic centre, is they have developed an algorithm in the annex two of the International Health Regulation. Everybody can see it, annex two, you can go and look on the web. PDF, it’s translated in 10 languages or so. This annex two has four main questions. And I was teaching that at the University of the summer school to American schools. So it’s really very important. Everybody can do it. The first they have three boxes and they have one box, if it is a disease, is it a disease and they list the disease polio (inaudible) and they have SARS, you know, a syndrome of respiratory acute syndrome. Yeah, syndrome. So this if it is there, it means that it is known. So that’s the first question. Is it known? Yes, it’s known we had SARS-CoV-1. Then the second, is it unusual or has it a different morbidity and mortality, etc? And this is no because we know now that in 2020, Professor John Ioannidis the most cited has even published on the WHO Bulletin, it was in there, that there is no more mortality in 2020. So no, we know now. The third is, is there a risk of international spread. And you see that SARS-CoV-1 touched only 24 countries in eight months. So if you compare, it was total lockdown in 196 countries in one month, and SARS-CoV-1 was eight months. So no, the International spread was slow. It was not rapid that they have pretended it’s rapid. But this is very concerning for them. And the last one is, does it have an international risk of stopping travel and trade? Because the international health regulation was put in place to precisely prevent the trade and travel restrictions? And here we have exactly the opposite. It’s the only question we could say yes, it happened because they put so much fear in their messaging and the communication, which is against the international health regulation training we had. We had somebody an anchor from CNN during the course. And I was in charge also with that, and it has to be ethical communication, to be nice, to reassure people and say we are looking, we haven’t found, we are looking more.

And I don’t know if you remember, in Germany in 2011, there was the institute Koch came out with a cucumber killer, it was the Shelia Kroll emergency outbreak because there were three deaths. And they were saying every day, we don’t know, we’re looking. They accused a cucumber that had this Shelia Kroll in Spain, and they stopped all the production of cucumbers in Spain and the European Union. And in fact, it was not that it was from a market in fenugreek in Egypt and it came to Denmark. And people had lost all that money because it was an announcement that was wrong by scientists that were very careful. So what happened is that the European Union reimbursed all the peasants who lost the money, because it was a wrong announcement. So this was one of the example I took in my courses, because every situation is different. But here, they they have made a communication of fear, and of lies. And this is how they managed to make people believe that this Coronavirus, which was totally out and was not even existing in autumn, a Professor Howaldt who was looking at this with very careful, I was looking at, you know, really watching how he was sequencing the genome. And that’s another way to look at it, although it’s not enough. And he was part of the human genome effort internationally of COVID-19. And this was very scientific, but definitely we can not say that this has been managed the same way that it should have. Am I answering your question?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 41:35
So people, thank you so much. Dr. Stuckelberger just in conclusion itself, so from an evidentiary point of view, and having regard that it is sane to even have these investigations, the grand jury investigations, it comes down to the Drosten PCR. So based on the evidence that was released yesterday as well, also by Dr. Behrendt, and you’ve also just mentioned in evidence now as well, the only reason as to why the World Health Organisation could have actually declared a pandemic was simply because, right now, we are talking about spreading and dead spreading in itself is called a direct link with this false Drosten PCR. So at the centre, you will agree then or you can basically say as to whether you agree with the following statement, the statement is that Drosten should be held liable because it is as a result of his PCR faulty PCR test that the requirement of a spreading transmission and hence why we actually sitting with a pandemic. Do you agree with that statement. Dr Stuckelberger?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 42:53
Yes, I think he is one piece of the puzzle. It’s him and La Charite University of Berlin, because the whole institution is behind him. And this I know this from other universities, it’s a system and a health system. So yes, I agree. But I would not, I would take the whole institution. Not everybody in the institution, but we cannot keep on having universities who are lying, and are creating science that is fake. So if we omited –

Reiner Fuellmich 43:27
– that is a political question. But Dexter’s question is asking precisely is he as he is one of the putative defendants in this proceeding here, do you think that he should be held liable because he, as we have learned from the statements of you and also of Dr. Mike Yeadon, should he be held liable because he is the one who invented the test, knowing that it was going to test positive on perfectly healthy people?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 44:01
Yeah, definitely. Yeah. If we have the evidence of this, I don’t have the letters he signed etc. But yes, of course, considering this is the evidence.

Reiner Fuellmich 44:10
Thank you very much. Let us now take a closer look at the PCR test itself. What can it do and what can it not do? Thank you, Astrid. Professor Cameron, please tell us what can this test do? Can it really tell us something about infection or can it not?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 44:31
So I tried to share my screen. I’ve prepared some slides, just to give you a short information on the RT qPCR as a basic principles. First the definition, because a lot of persons still do not know what it means. So the test system used here for the detection of the SARS-Cov-2 genome is called a so-called RT qPCR. It’s a reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction. So, and the main arguments is the RT qPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is technically not able to decide if a sample which is found positive is indicative of an infectious contagious person either go into it, even if performed under perfect conditions. That means if everything, I’ll go through this perfect design, so the primers are correct, the temperatures is correct, the lab performance a hands on technique is perfect. This technique cannot be used as a gold standard as it is designed, and as a basis for the non medical action intended to stop the spread of a virus, especially mass testing without clear controlled standard operating procedures, and they still miss in most (inaudible) must recite in inaccurate test results, especially the first WHO protocol. And the name Drosten was mentioned several times today. He is responsible for this first WHO protocol. It is very poor in the technical aspects, it’s faulty and it’s highly prone to the production of false positive results. So the definition of the PCR it’s a laboratory method, it’s a perfect laboratory method if you want to amplify a specific section of RNA from a small sample to an amount that is detectable and further characterizable, for example, to do the sequencing. It’s used worldwide in nearly every life science lab to do expression analysis to do research. So, this technique is very spread around the world and every molecular biologist, you must not have to be an biologist or anything else, everybody working with this technique knows that it is limited and that current use of it for mass testing is definitely not a good idea. So the q and the quantitative version of the RT PCR defines a modified technique, which allows to monitor the amplification steps, so every step is monitored by a light signal which is produced in every amplification round. However, the problem is that it does not allow the further characterization of the PCR product like sequencing and needs very careful development and proper controls in every single step, and this is often missed in the labs which performs the mass testings of the public. The RT-PCR, so the normal RT-PCR is commonly used nearly in every life science lab as I told you, and the PCR so the amplification of DNA is a basic method, which was intended by Kary Mullis, and nowadays is predominantly used in labs for forensic diagnosis. For example, to establish genetic fingerprints in crime scnees to identify the offender.

Before I come to the technical point, I think what is most important in the question, who is responsible to misuse a PCR, is it timeline? Because the main question is why did the WHO wait for the Drosten PCR protocol and promoted, so why the scientists in Wuhan had everything at the end of 2019 and shared information with the WHO before the first protocol version of Drosten. So this is a timeline Drosten (inaudible) in a talk, it’s official together with his zoom picture. And here you see he marked his findings. So and generous assertions the first protocol version from him was sent to the WHO. The modified second protocol version was on the 17th of January, and his so-called full paper in Eurosurveillance was published in January 23. So if we compare this timeline, there’s nowhere mentioned the work of the scientists in Wuhan. If we compare this to the timeline found in a talk from the Chinese CDC on the timeline, in Wuhan, you see here that they identified the first full genome of the new virus already as early as January the 3rd.

And they mentioned a specific RT-PCR was developed in January the 4th. And here in January the 11th, they notice they have a commercial RT-PCR detection kit, which is distributed to the Hubei province that Wuhan is the capital of, so and this star indicates where Drosten provided his first protocols for the WHO. So on January the 1st, the scientists in China had a complete PCR and informed the WHO latest here at January 9th. So why did they wait for Drosten to step into the scene?

So this is a PCR from the scientists in Wuhan. it’s two genes different from the later published Drosten protocol, but it works very well. And it’s the same principle of a quantitative RT-PCR. in the time and another very interesting aspect is this quote from a publication from Slovenia, because they quoted in their publication after extensive evaluation, our laboratory implemented light mix based SARS-CoV-2 testing on the 17th of January. So how did it come that a lab in Slovenia had a commercial test kit, which is based on the so called Drosten Cormen Primus, and had this data sheet. This is the original data sheet, a company name the commercial kits, from the Tibmolbiol company, which is sold exclusively via the Roche company and works on the Roche platforms. And if you go to the meta data, this sheet is produced by Olfert Landt head of Tibmolbiol and produced in the 15th of January 2020. So the whole commercial kit was ready, as it seems latest the 15th of January, even after the first version of the WH[O] protocol. So this is a remarkable timeline, which normally especially then there is a sap number of (inaudible) is highly unusual let it say like this.

So if you change the timeline by Christian Drosten, here at January the 15th, officially Olfert Landt prepared the document I’ve shown you and on January the 17th Lepena Slovenia has implemented the mix a commercial complete mix and they mentioned after extensive evaluation, so an extensive evaluation is not able [to do] this in two days. So they must have the commercial kit somewhere else but there’s no documentation why there was a commercial kit available so early even, before there was any international concern. So and here, this is [the] Drosten paper, he published it after his primers were already in the commercial kit, but this is the scientific misconduct, which is a side effect.

So, this first test, this is for one of the three genes, not tested for diagnostic procedures, but it was used for diagnostic procedures. So this is a sap number, so normally it uses actually large company a lot of testing to get into the system. And one important point is that he has correctly added a positive control and design that it must be a CP which is corresponding to the cycle thresholds a CT of around 30. So at this point they knew 30 must be the cutoff for the PCR. So however, here amplification of a CT (inaudible) the same, up to 39 is the positive rating. So here they had in this protocol a much too high CT already. So independent of every PCR, if it’s Charite protocol, if it’s a CDC protocol, it’s a protocol from any other institutions, the main problem is false positives. And just to give a few points, false positives can be triggered by the bad PCR design which [in this] case in this PCR from Charite, the Cormen Drosten protocol, they contain nonspecific primer pairs and probes. It’s bad conditions for the reaction itself. The temperatures especially in the Cormen Drosten protocol are not appropriate. And in case of the quantitative PCR the CT is too high. So, the design produces in this case false positives, but independent handling issues in the labs performing this technique, and the most problematic, and everybody working with a PCR knows this, is contamination of materials with positive control samples, but positive PCR end products which is most common and the cross contamination from positive patient samples into negative samples due to (inaudible) pipetting techniques or aerosol production is very common as well. So and even the first protocol data sheet knows this because here is a note opening this why this may cause contamination of the workspace. And once you have contaminated your workspace then nearly every sample gets randomly positive when one of those positive samples gets into the reaction chain. And the last point I want to give a short overview is the question, does it proper perform so if everything works well, if the design is okay, if the handling is okay, does it proper perform an positive RT qPCR can indicate infectiousness. So in principle neither PCR, or an RT-PCR, or an RT qPCR is technically able to decide if a sample which is found positive is indicative of an infection of a contagious person. So why? The problem is the technique. The technique of the preparation of the samples, it needs to destroy all biological structures in order to separate the nucleic acid. in case of SARS-CoV-2 its RNA to make it accesessible for the enzymes who perform the amplification.

So if this scheme this is from a publication shows the extraction of the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 to make it available to amplify it in the PCRs. We have here a swab and then you dilute the swab in this solution and this solution here lies this inactivation of the sample is here as a heading. So, this is from this point on all active material is destroyed, it is inactivated. So, if you extract the RNA from swabs, it definitely needs a complete denaturation of any biological material into macromolecules, so this step corresponds to this step. So then you have combination of RNA of the genome of DNA for example, from the cells you have from the swab, and you have proteins and lipids and in this situation you have neither an intact cell of (inaudible) nor of any bacteria or fungi which are still in your nose and in throat together with the viruses, and you can’t have a virus particle. So there is no material left which is integer, viable, or infectious. So the technique of RNA installation is starting step of the RT qPCR which is used for the so-called detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is impossible to judge if the source of RNA a is complete replication competent infectious in case of a virus. So it’s the same RT qPCR result can be obtained as a positive result this destroyed matter containing reminscences of a first infection or an occasional virus, what Michael Yeadon said, which was inhaled from a patient and only stepping (inaudible) mucosa. So, the main problem is the isolation of the nucleic acid for the amplification, and everybody including Christian Drosten, who works with this technique and every company preparing kits and advertising kits and every person advertising this technique, this RT qPCR, or even an RT-PCR for the detection of infectious persons had to know that it’s not able to do this.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:01:17
I’m shocked.

Viviane Fischer 1:01:23
I have a question. Dr. Stuckelberger and Professor Kammerer. So yesterday, I think it was mentioned that the the WHO, they in the first attempt basically to declare it a pandemic, they had only 500 cases, and then it wouldn’t go anywhere. And then they waited for 10 days, and then all of a sudden there were like 14 times as many cases. So could you set that in a timely perspective with the developments and the other things going on with the Drosten test?

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:02:06
Well, I think it’s Silvia who had all the numbers yesterday –

Viviane Fischer 1:02:09
– (inaudible) information yes that’s right.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:02:10
So I don’t know them by heart. Sorry.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:02:14
I think she said something like 500 cases, which is –

Viviane Fischer 1:02:18
– but we don’t know the exact dates again.

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:02:22
There was something on this slide, this timeline given by Drosten. There was exactly the lineup of the extra cases when he performed his PCR. And it was nearly the one in China, one in South Korea, and so it was very few cases. And even the first official cases in Wuhan, they are published by (inaudible) and other Chinese scientists. The first five patients in Wuhan, only one of them died and this one had serious conditions because he had metastatic cancer. So even from the beginning on it was definitely clear that this virus is not the killer virus that it was told to us.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger 1:03:20
Yeah, I remember it was 24, the first number that Sylvia mentioned yesterday in January, which is normally in WHO you just go increasingly into a bigger number, but you don’t go directly to, you know, numbers everywhere.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:03:39
I have four question. One question is for clarification. You showed us in your timeline that the Corman Drosten paper, or the protocol which was then recommended to the entire world through the WHO Tedros, as the gold standard for testing for Corona or COVID-19 infections. Before it was published, even before it was published, the test kits which were produced by Drosten’s business partner Olfert Landt with his company Tib Molbiol which is now under control of Roche because I think they bought it, but before they even published the paper, they sold their test kits to the entire world is that correct?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:04:35
Well not to the entire world, but nearly. There was a lot of test kits sent out. Olfert Landt even mentioned this in several interviews. And we know from other work that in the Roche company in combination with Tib Molbiol started training of laboratory personnel in Africa and in Asia to use this test very early in the beginning of January.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:05:06
Isn’t that a gross violation? Don’t we see a clear conflict of interest there? I mean, first you sell the product that you invented, and then you go out and publish something that actually calls for buy my product. Isn’t that, I mean, it’s not just unscientific, isn’t that a gross conflict of interest that we’re seeing here?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:05:31
For sure, and in addition they performed this test at so-called Labor Berlin, where Christian Drosten is the head of. And this was the largest lab in Germany. And in the beginning, they did all the PCR, nearly all of the PCR testing because they had the advantage of being set up very early, before all the others could start. So there’s at least two conflicts of interest, in my opinion.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:06:04
Another question for clarification, is it correct, that no matter how you perform a PCR test, it can never tell you anything about infections, because one, it cannot distinguish between, this is unscientific speaking of course, dead and live matter, and two, since the actual virus is completely destroyed, before you put this swab into the machine, and the only way you can get an infection is by a complete virus entering the cells and starting to replicate. Is it correct that it is completely impossible no matter how you apply PCR tests, that this PCR test can tell us anything about infections?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:06:54
Well, that’s a matter of definition. I think we should, it is allowed if the PCRs (inaudible) collect and perform and the so-called threshold is very low, then there might be a large number of viruses in this person and if you compare it with a gold standard, which is a (inaudible) culture, then you compare it with an infection, but you never can judge if the person is infectious. So if it can’t again transfer the application competent virus to another person. So the PCR is not able to identify persons, which are the so-called super spreaders or transfer the virus, and this is a point in a pandemic you should identify the persons who infect others and the PCR is definitely not the technique for this aspect. So I now I’ve forgotten the first question.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:08:05
So what this means is, we have to make very clear what we’re talking about. The WHO needed cases in order to declare the Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Now everyone thinks that a case means someone who is infected, meaning contagious for other people. But that is not what this test can do. No matter how you apply it, it can show that maybe there is a certain probability maybe of a person having a huge load of this virus. But, even if this person, I will call this, is contaminated because that’s what the test finds, it still doesn’t mean that this virus has entered the cells and is replicating so that the person becomes infectious meaning contagious for other people. If that is the definition then contagiousness can never be detected by this test.

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:09:13
Exactly, and the test can not determine the disease though the symptoms because especially in respiratory viruses, it’s normally a combination of different viruses and if you search only for influenza virus, for example, the flu is called influenza. And if you search for renal viruses then it’s renal virus disease, and if you search for coronaviruses, then it’s a Coronavirus disease. So normally the MD’s should decide the person has a disease and if he or she wants to know which pathogen and use symptoms then you can do a test like a PCR, but normally the ambience should start with symptoms, and then if you do, for example, a multiplex PCR, you might see that there’s a lot of viruses, so even if the PCR can show you it, you have a high load of this special RNA from this special virus, it doesn’t tell you that the disease could not be from another virusm especially for example, in the Wuhan they have published that the most serious cases it was always a double infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus together with influenza B. But this is already known so you have three to four viruses often in parallel. So in the PCR cannot say your disease is made by this virus and you can transfer this virus to another person.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:10:52
Okay. So, if someone tests positive, this only means that he or she is contaminated, there may be a huge load even of this particular coronavirus because that’s the only thing it test for. It looks for coronaviruses, so that’s the only thing it finds. However, it cannot tell us if this particular person is infectious in the sense of contagious for other people. There is a possibility, but it cannot tell whether this particular positive test means that the person is infectious with COVID-19? The only way to find out what caused the symptoms, and I assume that it doesn’t make any sense to test symptomless people, the only way to find out what caused the symptoms is by doing differential diagnostics. Is that correct?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:11:54
That’s correct. And that’s the work normally of MDs. So this is, I think it’s the first time in history that a molecular lab test does a diagnosis and all the MDs get away from their normal job to do the diagnosis.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:12:15
Here’s the final –

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:12:16
– cos this test can’t do this.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:12:20
Here’s the final question I have. You said that the Corman Drosten protocol is very unscientific, and [as] I’m trying to put this in I’m trying to hold back the anger that I really have, is it such a poor design, because all of the people who worked on this protocol don’t know what they’re doing, or does it, what does this mean?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:12:53
Well, this is a good question. So I thought they really don’t know what they do, but this can’t be because this is so common technique and so simple, so they should know what they do, and especially those high sighted experts and their large lab kings??. It’s not only Corman Drosten, it’s even Olfert Landt’s on his publication, and his job is to produce RT-PCR’s for commercial kits, so they all know exactly what they do, because nobody in this position can not know that there are so many problems with this test design. So it must be intended.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:13:36
So you would agree, since this test is so poorly designed, if you look at the totality of the evidence, we have a very poorly designed test. We have no cases before the test was publicised. Then, after the test was published, we have cases all of a sudden on which the World Health Organisation basis its declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which will then be the basis for using untested drugs on humans. Would you agree that this is very strong evidence for this having been used to create cases, to artificially create cases out of thin air? This is what I believe. Would you agree with that, or does it not make any sense?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:14:32
No, it makes absolutely sense because there’s no other way to think about it.

Viviane Fischer 1:14:39
Um, can I add in something? So Drosten was, he was a testimony or expert witness he was asked in a hearing by the German land of Brandenburger in [the] summer of last year, and he was asked like what kind of threshold he would consider as being reliable with regards to the PCR test, and he said, we have that in stenographic writing, because we had a witness in the hearing. And so he said it’s around like 26. However, in his paper he had suggested that it should be a threshold of like 43. So why did he never like work on like correcting his paper, or like making this really publicly known insisting as an adviser to the government that it would need to be, you know, changed because we can see that a lot of the PCR tests that were done were still in a very high range, so up to 40 and all that causing all these, you know, fake results, the false positives plus like leading to a lot of pain and damages, like with people going into quarantine without any reason. What can you say to that?

Reiner Fuellmich 1:15:59
Would you as a scientist correct yourself once you understand that you’ve made a mistake?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:16:05
Normally yes, and especially in this case, we have written first a letter and then a very long video to the journal Eurosurvillance where this fraudulent publication was in, and we wanted the retraction of this publication, which is normally the scientific procedure. And even here it was denied to retract the protocol. So yeah, the reasons behind this nobody knows. We only can speculate it, but normally we should ask Christian Drosten why he is so unscientific working, not correcting his fraudulent PCR protocol.

Viviane Fischer 1:16:53
Also the paper, I don’t know, I think you have not mentioned this yet, was rushed through the peer reviewing process in a very surprising time. Can you maybe comment on that?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:17:10
Yes, we have analysed this extensively, it could have been not more than 24 hours, which is highly unusual for a scientific review process for a full research paper. So in case of emergency or forr very very excellent publications, it could be that the editor of a journal obtains a manuscript and agrees and there’s, “oh, this is a great manuscript”. But even then it’s this very short time of 24 hours between the submission of the publication to the review process and the publication of the paper. This is, let us say, quite unique in the world.

Viviane Fischer 1:17:57
And I remember that you identified like a large amount, I think it was nine big mistakes basically in that paper. And some of them like, for instance, the threshold issue would have been, I imagine, so in your face that the peer reviewers would have immediately, even within like 24 hours, would have needed to jump on it and say, well, this is maybe not like a really scientific or like a fruitful approach in the essay. Is that correct?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:18:31
Yes, and in addition one of the main points is he, they mentioned that they needed to quickly design a Robulus?? diagnostic tool PCR, because this was such an urgent emergency case, without having the information about the virus, but they had the virus because they had the sequences from Wuhan. And if it was so necessary to have a good PCR that controls and sequencing, they should have asked the Chinese colleagues, because they had everything and so there was definitely no need for this publication and for this protocol.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:19:17
Mike, is there something you would want to add to this? I mean, I can. It’s very disturbing to see someone working in such a, not just unscientific but almost criminal way. Would you too agree that this looks like the test was designed to produce cases meaning false positive cases?

Mike Yeadon 1:19:50
Yes, I think, I mean Dr Kammerer has done a better job than I could possibly do. But I think not applying either in the introduction, certainly in the discussion, you know, a series of caveats. This test was put together very quickly, using the sequence that was supplied to their laboratory from Wuhan, and they must have worked, you know, night and day, which I believe [is] how they did it. So they must have known, or at least ostensibly, the idea was, you know, here’s a potential serious pandemic virus so let’s put together a test to help the world identify, you know, who is infected, and ill as a consequence, who might be infectious and should quarantine themselves. They knew exactly what the context was, this wasn’t some esoteric, you know, academic, you know, idea. They knew that they were facing potentially as to say, a pandemic, and they were putting together as far as they could, as quickly as they could a test that could be applied.

Now, if I was in their shoes, I would know that the people who are going to be using this, you know, all round the world, at best will be able to just handle a pipettes and follow a formula, okay. It won’t be labs like my own if I was Professor Drosten. So I’d be thinking I need to make this bulletproof, so it can’t end up producing lots and lots of false positives. But they didn’t do that. It seems to me that they set the conditions where even if a lab like his own applied this recipe, that they would have a high likelihood of getting positive results from clinical samples that didn’t mean the person was, you know, ill because of this virus and was infectious as a result of the material detected. And furthermore, as a senior adviser to the German government for many years, and a clever scientist, he knew all of those things. So he released into the world a technique which used as it was by you know, only barely trains people could only, as Dr Kammerer said, produce results that really I would say at best uninterpretable, yes.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:22:19
Dexter, you wanted to ask a question?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:22:23
Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for your evidence, Professor Kammerer. Will you in your evidence, you’ve made a very, very important point, and that point is that everybody who uses the PCR, it’s in each and every country, so here specifically we are looking at the Medical Regulatory Authorities who has approved it in each and every country in lockstep. And your evidence is that they were supposed to have known [that] there is no way that it can be used as a diagnostic tool. I want you just to say yes or no, just to confirm that and get it on the report. Professor (inaudible)?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:23:08
It not be used as a diagnostic tool to (inaudible) about contagiousness, yes.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:23:15
Okay. So contagiousness, and it was contagiousness when we actually didn’t have regard to the evidence that was laid yesterday by Dr. Behrendt, and even by Dr. Stuckelberger that the only way for them, that is the World Health Organisationm to have declared a PHEIC was because why they had to fulfil the requirements of transmission and transmission comes down to contagion. Is that correct? Okay, I want to read the following into the record Professor Ulrika ,and I would like you to basically just comment. It is what I’m going to read, it is a statement of [what] that Professor Christian Drosten has actually said, and thhat is in 2014. It’s an article in 2014, and where I am getting it from I’m getting it from your peer review that you have actually co-authored, and it is basically referred to as the Cormen Drosten Peer Review, and I’m going to read the following in the record. This is what he has said in [the] article in 2014. Open quote, “the method is so sensitive that it cannot detect a single genetic molecule of the virus. If, for example, such a pathogen flies over the nasal mucous membrane of a nurse for a day without becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics. And I want us to focus on the word statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia”, article 2014. So do you have any comment when it comes to that, in relation specifically to your evidence that you have actually presented so far?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:25:30
Yes, in 2014 he exactly described what is the problem with the PCR. So and therefore, he exactly knows that’s a misuse of this technique in the SARS-CoV-2 situation and the current situation produces exactly the same problems he described in 2014. So he definitely must have known that he promotes a technique to the world, which is producing a lot of false positives and a lot of problems and a lot of false statistical cases. So he must have known it, and he must have pronounced it against his own knowledge. For what reason I know not?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:26:26
I’ll continue, I just have a follow up question, but you can quickly continue, Professor. Okay. The follow up question is that you’ve mentioned now very clearly there is now in the evidence [in] 2014. And that’s basically based on what you’ve said, from 2014 up until 2020. And that is basically between the periods of the 22nd of January 2020, and ultimately, the second meeting of the World Health Organisation dated the 30th of January 2020. Is it correct to say that nothing has changed when it comes to the bare basics of the PCR test, whereby maybe perhaps he can actually say, you know what, okay well that’s a statement I’ve made [in] 2014, we are talking about 2020, this is what has changed, and therefore I justify that it can be used. Has anything changed scientifically, Professor?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:27:22
No, as I have shown you that technique is a basic technique. There’s only minor combination, so other primers, but the basic technique and everything you can save is exactly the same, since it was invented by a Kary Mullis and then improved by adding this quantitative version. So this is the same problem which was in 2014, which is now in this situation.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:27:54
Okay, so now we’re going to go back from 2014, we’re going to go back to 2007. And there is the New York Times article. And this is once more as to, I’m reading it from your peer review, the Corman Drosten Peer Review. And I’m quickly going to quote what he said out open quote, “I had a feeling at the time, it does give a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic. Yet, epidemiologists say one of the most troubling aspects of this FIDO epidemic is that all the decisions seem to be so sensible at the time”. So now we’ve got 2007, this is a New York article, where [it] basically made the reference of a pseudo epidemic also based on the PCR test. We’ve got 2014, we’ve got 2020, 2021, 2022 where we are at now and you will agree that nothing has changed. So what is then applicable in 2007, 2014, and in 2021, 22, it’s exactly the same. Would you agree with it?

Prof Dr Ulrike Kammerer 1:29:17
Exactly, because it’s a technique which produces these problems.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 1:29:22
Okay, thank you very much, Professor,

Reiner Fuellmich 1:29:26
Professor Dolores Cahill. We have spoken before. Is there something that, do you see this differently, or would you agree with this Dolores?

Prof. Dr. Dolores Cahill 1:29:37
So I would agree entirely. I think I did, well I’ve done hundreds of thousands of PCRs back in the 80s and 90s and the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Genetics in Berlin, and it’s a very similar technique. The only thing maybe I would add is that we should be asking, in all of our countries, we have virology labs and we have regulatory labs and we have the regulatory authorities that should also oversee the companies that are producing these tests as commercial products, and to be asking them for their positive controls and the negative controls. And also that the doctors in a way, like was just to follow up what was said, have to make a differential diagnosis. So they need to, and they should be using a technique called sequencing or sanger sequencing of these positive so called positive tests to confirm that it really is SARS-CoV-2 because if it isn’t the medical doctors have an obligation to then look for other infectious agents or agents that might cause the symptoms, whether it was an infectious agent calling pneumonia, or if it is influenza virus, or rhinovirus.

So I just think, and as you all know I’ve been studying the law for maybe 20 years, because immediately you go into what is the lawful basis of an accurate diagnosis, and then who is responsible. So I would say, the people that are responsible are the people who are giving these approvals for these testing. And they should be looking for positive controls, negative controls, and also checking samples from patients to validate the presence of the infectious agents by other methods, including directly from saliva, or from mucosa. And then also to be sequencing the tests and to look at the positive and negative controls to confirm the diagnosis. And then the doctors should be saying, if this is a negative test, and my patient has symptoms, there should be a series then of follow up investigations to identify what is the causative agent, so that they can give antibiotics or other preventions and treatments for the patient.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:31:50
Thank you, Dolores. This leads us directly to the question of sequencing. And for this purpose, I would like to ask Dr. Sona Pekova, because we had an interview a couple of days ago, and then in this interview you told us that you found something very strange, which seems in my view to confirm that there’s something wrong with the Drosten test more than something. it tends to be a criminal activity that’s been going on. You didn’t do sanger sequencing, Sonia, you did next generation sequencing, correct?

Dr. Sona Pekova 1:32:32
Yeah, that’s correct. And so first, I’ll answer and address your question and then I’d like to go back also to the issues we’ve discussed previously, because I would like to offer a few comments on that. So regarding sequencing, when the wave started in the Czech Republic, so the first one in March 2020 was just a small one, and it would have remained unnoticed if the media and journalists and stuff just didn’t make the hype of all that. And then the summer was completely clear of the virus and it started abruptly again in September 2020, then it was followed by another wave in November 2020. And then it was finally followed by a wave starting in December 2020 and continuing till March 2021. Each of the waves behave differently in the clinical terms. The first one in March was benign. The second one in September 2020 was also benign, and the next one in November and December, it was really, really something and many people were ill and many people unfortunately died, but not maybe all the time because of the virus but also because of the mismanagement of the first line therapy in the contact with the general practitioner because there was almost no contact.

At that time, everyone was scared of the virus and the doctors just closed their departments, outpatient departments and people didn’t have appropriate care. And what we found out was when we started characterising the individual waves, we found out that the original virus which came from Wuhan, and we had the reference sequence, [which was] also uploaded by the Chinese scientists in January or later in January 2020. This was the wave in March 2020. But the second wave in September was something, which was genomically slightly different. It contained many mutations throughout the genome, and this was possible to identify only using Next Generation Sequencing because it has the throughput which is needed and you can sequence the whole genome from the beginning to the end. And we sequenced all our positive samples and needed to say that we analysed almost 30,000 individuals, and all positivities were sequenced by our lab, either by sanger sequencing or next generation sequencing. The next generation sequencing was used for a full characterization of the individual waves and of the individual viruses, which built the individual waves. And we found out that not only each wave, at least in the Czech Republic, not only each wave was created by [a] different strain, but also the strains were not directly interrelated. So the first wave started in September 2020 carried or had some mutation pattern, and we used this mutation pattern to follow up the circulation of the virus in the country. And at some point starting in November 2020, the mutation pattern has changed, and the wave which was present here or circulated here in our country in November and December 2020 was genomically different. And interestingly enough, it lost many of the mutations from the previous wave, which is not possible. So this is not evolutionary possible. So if you have confined area, as our country was at that time, because the country was under lockdown, everyone was wearing a facial mask, and there was social distancing implemented into society. So we didn’t see any respiratory diseases except for SARS-CoV-2, which really created three steep waves throughout the autumn 2020.

So the subsequent wave was not the direct offspring of the previous one, which is not possible in a confined population. So now still, there is a question in the air, so what was the source or where was the source of the individual strains, and without next generation sequencing you would not be able to identify the diversity, the genetic diversity between the individual waves, so it was not. So at the beginning, the narrative should be all the time, it is the Wuhan virus, it starts and disappears, and everyone was startled, it was really mind boggling, because it was fear mongering of the population by some virus, which appears and disappears, and no one knows when. But then we found out that it was not the same virus. So all the time, it was something different. Then even it was different in that way that you have a wave, and it has some mutation pattern, because the virus accumulates mutations in time. That would be perfectly logical and possible, and then you would expect next wave, which would carry the mutations from the previous wave, and might only add some more mutation, because this is the normal evolution. But this was not the case.

So the previous wave carried mutations, and the subsequent immediate wave just erased many of those mutations, and the virus is not able to erase mutations and return to the original blueprint. The virus doesn’t know what the original Wuhan sequence was. So in my eyes, this implies that all the individual waves were totally distinct, not directly interdependent. And as I said, I didn’t know where the source of that might be. And also each wave we have (inaudible) slightly different. So it was, I know it’s kind of orchestrated chaos, which was created. And as I said, using next generation sequencing, we are able to identify this trick and to Omicron , for example, Omicron, which is this virus which is circulating right now. And it’s really benign. So the Omicron and also I found it in the mainstream media, which is really something if you find something in the mainstream media, they said that there is no direct predecessor of Omicron because it’s so different from everything which we have seen here so far that they do not know where is the origin of the Omicron. So they again speculate that it’s lab because in my eyes, it’s just laboratory leak and on purpose. So originally I thought it was maybe deliberately or some haphazard, I do not know what, but now it seems all the clues show that it’s on purpose and the individual waves look like, it’s not like normal evolution on a confined close area, because you would see as I said one way with some mutation pattern then another raising from previous containing the same mutation better plus some more mutations till it will die.

And with the Omicron because it’s so highly mutated, so I expect because those creators of this plandemic already know that we know that we are able to sequence the strands, and we are able to characterise the waves genomically. So they know that after Omicron, if some other strain came it only must have been more mutated than Omicron because this is the normal evolution of the virus until it dies, until it [is] full of mutation, it is so infested with mutation that the mutation will kill the virus at the end. So either Omicron is the last one, orr if something happens, it must be more mutated than Omicron. And if Omicron is benign, the next one, if it comes, will have to be even more benign. Almost unrecognisable. If we do not do PCR testing like mad all the time, because our governments want us to do that. So

Viviane Fischer 1:41:54
May I ask something? So because when you say they’re so distinctive, how come that the PCR test, as I understand do not have evidence that it was like adjusted to the versions that are circulating. So how come that it would, you know, detect this kind of variety of of virus versions as still being basically the old SARS-CoV-2? I mean, was it designed that way from the beginning kind of, or what is your statement?

Dr. Sona Pekova 1:42:31
Viviane that’s a fantastic question, and thank you for that. So as we discussed on Friday when we met for the first time, I pointed to [the] interesting and weird thing with the design of Drosten, which targeted from the very beginning three parts of the genome of SARS-CoV-2. My job from 2006 is to design a PCR assays, real time PCR assays, and quantitative real time PCR assays for whatever pathogen, because our lab is a large diagnostic lab and we focus on both human and veterinary molecular microbiology. And 99% of the tests we have, and the tests meaning a quantitative real time PCR tests, either single or multiplex is my job. I’m the designer of those tests, and I have been doing it from 2006, and it’s my regular regular job. And all the time always when I do a new design for a new pathogen, I use bioinformatics tools and align the genome of the pathogen I am just about to make an essay for, and align the genome align against all genomes and database in the world wide database and National Centre for Biotechnology Information. And I look for the most specific part of the genome of the pathogen, which is so specific and so unique, that not other germ or pathogen in the world or a dog, cat, human or whatever organism harbours this strand of DNA or RNA. And I do not remember one assay in our lab, and we have like hundreds of them, both covering Veterinary and human pathogens, that we would use more than one single unique target within the genome of a given pathogen.

So when I saw the design by Drosten at the very beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, it was quite, I did not understand why he selected three targets because he only could go for one as his normal (inaudible). So, if you, when you investigate, I don’t know, hepatitis C you have only one PCR targeting one specific portion of the genome or hepatitis C virus. if you investigate HIV the same, just one portion, just one specific single portion, because PCR has to be specific and it has to be able to like pull out only that target you are looking for. And Drosten decided to go for three individual targets and it didn’t make any sense for me at that point. But now, I understand why probably he did it, because as we see that each individual wave was created by [a] different strand of the virus, so it seems to me that he might, at the very beginning, have expected this heterogeneity within the SARS-CoV-2 “family” and we know that coronaviruses mutate, but the speed at which SARS-CoV-2 mutates, it’s unprecedented, unseen, unheard, and if you targeted only one portion of N gene or E gene or polymerase gene, you might easily miss some strain which might

occur during the time during some wave in some country. So, making it safe side, so if the task at the beginning for him was create or design a test, which not miss anything, might it mutate whatever, in order please do that that way that we will not miss anything. We need numbers. We need numbers and we need to follow up each individual wave in each individual country. So if the task was this, and if I was ordered to make an essay for it with his task, I would definitely go for three individual targets within the genome, maybe four and I would make it so complicated just not to miss anything. For example, in our country, because we are doing a lot of veteranary microbiology we investigate coronaviruses in cats, dogs, parrots, horses, and each individual species has its own coronavirus, and we had the assays for years. And we never had any idea of changing or redesigning them because they’re perfectly, though the Coronaviruses mutate, RNA viruses mutate, it’s not so peculiar or (inaudible) whatever that would interfere with the diagnostics. So normally, although you investigate parrot coronavirus, you have the same assay for 20 years and you’re perfectly happy with that. But for SARS-CoV-2 you needed many, many different assays to be able to catch all the individual strengths on wires.

And also it happened that I remember someone else’s firm our government telling that when the British (inaudible) started, they said, “oh, don’t use this and that commercial kit because this and that commercial kit is not able to identify the British or alpha variant. So when Drosten designed his test in that complicated way, in my eyes it implies for me because I’m the designer myself and I’m doing it, I have been doing it for almost 20 years in my (inaudible) the task was to make it totally applicable for anything, no matter that you will identify something which is not SARS-CoV-2 that you have a huge (inaudible) many falsely positives and so on. Because the question was or the task was not to make a PCR test, which is specific, it was to make a PCR test which produces numbers. This was the question and the task. And if I might enlarge on this idea, and I think Judge Dexter asked maybe about this, so what was the difference between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 in terms of official regulations. So in Europe and also in the US, because I travelled or I spent a lot of time in the US and and I know what kind of regulations they have in the US. We have something similar here in Europe, and in 2008 or so a process started, which is called accreditation of laboratories. And accreditation means that you have in Europe, it’s called ISO 15 189, and it should show the quality of the processing of the samples in the lab and the quality of the whole management of the lab. But it also means that preferably the lab should use CIBD certified kits and not use so-called laboratory developed kits, like some in house kits.

And when he started with this Plandemic in March 2020, we developed our own PCR test because I was completely dissatisfied with the design by Drosten. And I said it openly also to our government that we are not going to use the Drosten test because it looks dangerous. Probably it will produce a lot of false positives, it probably will have high background, and we developed our own test, we target and still do five prime UTR on a virus, which I think it’s also so unique that it means it comes from the lab. But the majority of faculty hospitals in our country and also in Europe, because they ran the ISO 15 189 accreditation system, they all the time tend to go for a ISO accredited kit. And here, I can show you, it’s a box. So it’s a box, it’s a box, and this comes to your lab. it has a label saying CIBD. CIBD is like a mantra for you that someone has thoroughly validated a test before hundreds of samples because to get [the] CIBD mark you need to follow ISO 13 485, which is an ISO for production of diagnostic kits. And you need to validate the sensitivity, specificity, variability around hundreds of samples for cross reactivity and blah, blah, blah. And once you have a box, which is marked CIBD, so for the lab it means that if they use the chemicals within the box, even if there is some diagnostic mistakes, the blame goes after the producer of the kit and not after the lab. And this mantra is heavily used in faculty hospitals, and big hospitals in our country, and in Europe also.

But if you have this kit its a blank box, you do not know what the box contains, you get something from the manufacturer. And these specifically it comes from (inaudible), which comes from Shanghai, China. So if there is something wrong with a kit, would you blame someone in China? Would you be able to blame someone in that country and negotiate what happens, and you have a box which comes with a novel supermix for SARS-CoV-2 enzyme mix internal control negative control and positive control and then you have a manual how to mix things together and investigate. And because you do not know what the constituents of the diagnostic kit are, you just need to rely on the reliability of the kit. But if the kit contains chemicals, which are fraudulent, like the absolute majority of the kits at least at the beginning was based on the Drosten design. So if you buy the kit because you want cover your premises you are ISO certified, you use only CIPD certified kits so everything perfect for your government. But if you produce falsely positive samples, first the blame is not on you, and second you are not able to tell that you are producing false positive samples because you are not able to check if the positivity you are producing is correct or incorrect. You can’t sequence it because you do not notice sequences of the primers and probes there, so and the majority of others are totally routine and the only box samples and run the tes.t So I think they misuse this, also misuse the situation in the developed countries in Europe and in the USA, because everyone relies on clear or CIBD FDA accredited approved kits, whatever in the case might be. So they didn’t check for the quality of the diagnostics, they only check for the CIBD mark, or FDA approval mark. And if the creators of the plandemics wanted to misguide everyone really hugely, so they will just produce diagnostic kits in China or somewhere and a province (inaudible) one one you would not be able to claim any troubles with your diagnostic kits because there is a language barrier or whatever. And you would produce numbers.

So when we started with our homemade five prime UTR assay in our country, it was under such a pressure so it looked like our lab will be closed. They had so many objections against us so they dishonourated me, discredited me. So I didn’t understand what’s going on because the five prime UTR assay is perfectly specific, doesn’t have any background, does not produce falsely positive patients. I offered the test for free to anyone who who might need it and hundreds of laboratories from around the asked for that, and I sent the assay to (inaudible) for free and it was theatrical from our government that the press also wanted us to use the Drosten design, and I said no way we are not using it because it produces falsely positive samples. So, it’s because Europe and the USA –

Reiner Fuellmich 1:55:58
– hold it for one second Sonia. You were told not to use that test which you had designed, but rather to use the Drosten Corman test?

Yeah at the very beginning the absolute recommendation by our authorities was to use CDC or WHO highly recommended [the] excellent Drosten test. So firstly, we bought the chemicals we bought a kit so we bought it because I didn’t want to be such a heretic in our country. But once I realised that the Drosten test is such a, could I say the word crap

– I guess that’s what describes it best after having listened to all the testimonies from your colleagues –

– the test is so incorrect, let’s put it like mildly. So I totally refused using it and we immediately replaced the test with our in house five prime UTR test, which was then accredited or validated using external quality control, first domestic and then also international. And once it was accredited and validated using this external quality control testing, then our authorities just stopped criticising us, to put it mildly again. And since that time, excuse me, after Omicron so since the time we continued with our five prime UTR assay and I said we investigated almost 30,000 individuals and with absolute (inaudible). So assay which is working and which is excellent (inaudible) fulfils all the requirements of ISO 13 485 because when we designed it I said we’ll also test them according to this European procedure. So I did not understand and I still do not understand why people tend to use a test which is not correct. You just need to accept the scenario that the main goal is not to be correct and precise, but the main goal is to keep creating numbers.

Can we in concluding, would you agree that after we have heard from your colleagues, and after the conclusions that you have reached in your own research? Would you agree that there seems to be absolutely no basis for any of the corona measures in particular for the vaccinations?

Absolutely. So maybe first Corona measures. So in our country and also in the European countries, in America, [and] over the world, they introduce a strict draconian anti epidemic measures like facial masks, social distancing, quarantine, children are not allowed to school and so on. But despite all these draconian measures, when we didn’t see any respiratory diseases ever, we didn’t see influenza A, influenza B or respiratory (inaudible) virus which are normally seen during autumn or early spring. Although all these draconian measures, and everyone was locked at home and blah, blah, still the three waves of the Coronavirus appeared, started disappeared, started disappeared, started disappeared despite any measures, despite any measures.

So in my eyes, if you wanted to battle influenza A so this was the way it really works, respirators or facial masks, but for SARS-CoV-2 nothing worked, whatever you did. The wave?? simply smashed the country and smashed the country in a corrected, in a orchestrated way. So it was also announced a few months in advance that it will happen. So this is also a (inaudible), extremely striking how someone from the government could have known that, although it was like total, the virus was not present during the summer 2020. And they were able, based on some data, some non existent data, they were able to predict that there will be a abrupt quick rapid wave in September, so from my expertise as a microbiologist, because I’m a medical doctor and have been from molecule Biogenics things and biology and attestations from genetics and microbiology. So from the point of view of my background, to have a respiratory disease, a severe respiratory disease, normal standard naturally occurring of natural origin, starting at the end of August, this is impossible we don’t see it. We see first respiratory diseases starting in, I don’t know, October, November, when we had this rain and this ugly weather, but never when we have beautiful, sunny summers. So it was also interesting, and it was announced in advance, it started an unusual time. And the waves came as like as predicted.

So we come to the conclusion, if I understand you correctly, that there is no corona pandemic, but rather, there is a PCR test pandemic?

Absolutely, absolutely. And Reiner you were asking about vaccination, not to forget about that. So this is a really important point. So when I started sequencing those waves, and we identified that each wave is something different, I did not hesitate and announced it openly to our authorities to our government, what happens what’s going on here. And for the so-called experts, which give advice to our government, and it’s all ill advised, it’s really ill advice of the experts are something totally different. So those experts have expertise and immunology, vaccinology, and so on, and any immunologist or virologist, or vaccinolgist must know from his studies, because it’s a standard textbook knowledge, that if you have a target, a virus which is changing so much, it is not possible, it’s contraindicated to use one single vaccine, which was designed against the virus which escaped from Wuhan, and does not circulate anymore. So you have a heterologic vaccine against viruses, which are heterologic. And if you make heterologic vaccine and heterology virus, you might end up with antibody dependent enhancement, which is something which might really maim or even kill the individual which was vaccinated with this heterologic vaccine.

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:03:31
So even if I don’t know, so still we do not have long term follow up data on the vaccines because it really objectively started a year ago, so we do not have like five year, eight year, ten year follow up with the vaccine. But we have some predictions in silico predictions what a vaccine might cause and how dangerous it might be. So even if they, this in silico prediction saying it’s just from the lab that we do that, we do not believe in that, but if you see that you have a vaccine, which is not homologous to the individual strains, which are circulating. So, this is a textbook knowledge, which they should definitely have and if they do not have this knowledge, I don’t know what kind of experts they are. So, with having this knowledge that each strand is something different and the vaccine is heterologic heterogeneous. So if they had immediately stopped vaccination, immediately stop it from a safety reasons and not mandated, push it offer money for getting vaccinated or for iPhones, or trainers –

Reiner Fuellmich 2:04:48
– we will get, I hate to interrupt you but we will get into the issue of the so called vaccines with a different group of experts. So in concluding, again, there is no reason for vaccinations because there is no basis for any of the corona measures because the PCR tests cannot tell us anything about infections. Is that correct?

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:05:14
A PCR test if done in a quantitative way, can you give some hint if the patient might be really ill with SARS-CoV-2 related disease, because if you measure like ten up to seven copies, or ten up eight copies, ten million copies –

Reiner Fuellmich 2:05:32
– but you’re saying it can give you an indication, but it cannot tell you if the patient is really contagious because the virus has entered his cells, because as Ulrika explained to us, the whole virus doesn’t exist anymore when the swab goes into the machine, correct?

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. So all the time leveraging laboratory data are only indicated data, helping data, and it is the clinical status of the patient, which is the tip of the iceberg, so

in other words, in and of itself the PCR test is not enough to tell us whether or not someone is infectious contagious with COVID-19.

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:06:27
Absolutely.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:06:28
Okay, you need additional help. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Sona, we’re under a little bit of pressure. But I don’t want to cut everyone off. So if any of you and Dexter, Virginie, Dipali, if you have any questions, please go ahead.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:06:46
Yeah, Dr. Sona, thank you so much for your evidence. I think what is very, very important and that is for the jury to understand what has basically happened from the onset of this pandemic, we say plandemic, was the continuous alertness to the statistics. Today, we’ve actually tested so many positive cases and so forth. And then as a consequence, it then basically sets the people’s mindset to say, “you know what, yes, it seems like our government is definitely out there for our best interests, which means we need to lock down, we need to adhere, we need to actually put on masks, and we need to ultimately then actually adhere to the social distancing. But my question that I want to pose to you, which is quite crucial, is the statistical numbers that came from this PCR that Drosten PCR test. So in short, Dr. Sona, will you then say that all that statistical numbers that has been provided in the audience, the jury has been bombarded on a daily basis, positive, positive, positive, those statistical numbers is incorrect and there is no way that any public health regulator in any country could have actually used it to justify the lockdown. So that is a statistics. Thank you.

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:08:15
So we just collected numbers. So every day in the newspapers, you could read that laboratories have identified this number of positive cases, it’s more than it was yesterday and blah, blah, it was like a continuous fear mongering over the population. Plus, because PCR positivity was a special bonus for the hospitals, because if they had a patient who was suspicious of being SARS-CoV-2 positive, even suspicious, they got much better reimbursement from the insurance company. So there was no pressure even from the hospitals and from the doctors, everything is so corrupted, it’s terrible. So there was no pressure even from the hospitals and doctors for precise results, because if they had a PCR positive individual, not let’s call it patient, individual, they got three times as much money for him as if he or she was SARS-CoV-2 negative. So they’re quite happy because they got more money, the patients were more lucrative for them, and they were better reimbursed by the insurance companies. So there was no pressure even from the medical audience for the correctness of the data because they lived on that. They’d have like an influx of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases, be it falsely positive or accurately positive. But once the patient had a result like SARS-CoV-2 positive at whatever CT number, it was much better reimbursed by the insurance companies. And this was not only [the] situation in our country, but it was a situation over in many, many countries around the world. So, but I do not know if I did not divert from your question.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:10:20
The most important is that when it comes to the statistics that we actually get on a daily basis, that the jury has been bombarded each and every day, they are statistics that we cannot actually take interest in, we can not or will rather say the public health regulators or the public health policy makers in the country, there is no way that they could have actually used it to actually justify all these lockdowns. So, in short, number one, those statistics cannot be trusted. Number two, the public health policymakers could not have actually used it all to justify whatever they have implemented. Yes or no, Dr. Sona?

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:11:01
So, the status with PCR test can not be trusted at all because even if a patient was flattened by a truck, and was SARS-CoV-2 positive, it was like he went into the statistics like SARS-CoV-2 positive, then there was a big (inaudible) here in this country, and big discussion if it was a patient dying with COVID or of COVID, so anyone who has COVID, SARS-CoV-2 positive was counted like in the statistics like a case. So, it’s absolutely impossible to trust any statistics and the statistics were used only for the government to have a powerful tool to regulate a society and implement draconian measures and implement lock downs and implement draconian laws and just restrict the populations because using this tool, these numbers and these false statistics, which are really, they are doctored, they’re totally Doctor fraudulent. So they used these statistics to regulate a society, for example, [they] closed, small and medium sized businesses, they closed schools. So they damaged many, many people in the society. So in my eyes, and no one will talk me out of that opinion, they used the SARS-CoV-2 virus only as a tool to manage the society in a way they wanted, or they planned to. And the first goal was to just mandate vaccines and to jab anyone whatever vaccines or solutions are, and they want to implement much more draconian measures and all these energy.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:12:52
Hold it, he just asked a simple question. We cannot trust the numbers that were produced from PCR tests?

No, we can not. No we can not with the Drosten numbers. The majority of the statistics was made up on purpose.

Okay, thank you very much.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:13:08
One question quickly is that you can just say yes or no, and it should be more than sufficient because you have given quite elaborative evidence. The final follow up question is that we are talking about a PCR case pandemic, which does not follow the science. Yes or no, doctor?

Dr. Sona Pekova 2:13:27
Yes, PCR pandemic.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:13:29
Thank you so much. No further questions.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:13:33
Thank you very much, Sona. Let us now take a closer look at how in reality, the world is dealing with this pandemic, which is, without any basis. I would like to first focus on those who claim that well, but many people are dying, people are dying in Bergamo, people are dying in New York. So let us start with taking first a look at why that happened. And then we will take a closer look at how else can it be treated? I mean, we all know there’s a virus out there, but how can it be treated? Let’s first take a look at the question, why is this happening? And Bryan Ardis is with us. Dr. Bryan Ardis from Texas. How do you explain the fact that so many people seem to have died in New York, for example, of the corona or from the corona virus?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 2:14:36
Yeah, it’s a great question. From the beginning of May 2020, I had that same question because in March and April of 2020, there was nonstop reports in the media from doctors, hospital administrators in New York City, who were complaining and relating the same scenario. Every time they were asked by the media, what are you seeing in patients you’re treating with COVID-19 and hospitals here in New York? They all said the same thing, all of them. We have never seen a respiratory virus ever do this before. From the time we start treating this respiratory virus by day three, four and five of treatment, the virus goes from the lungs, and then it starts attacking the kidneys and causing severe acute kidney failure that we’ve never seen before. And they kept saying we’re not only short on ventilators here in New York, we’re also short on dialysis machines. So this is very intriguing to me. I actually had a similar scenario just three months earlier, from May of 2020 when I was watching all these reports in the media. My own father in law had died in a hospital from ill advised protocols in early February of 2020. And I and my wife received a phone call on day three of his treatment for the flu, that he was going into acute kidney failure only to find out it was a drug he was put on, ill advised for the flu that actually was known to cause acute kidney failure.

Unrelated to COVID, three months later, I’m reading this May memo from Anthony Fauci of the NIH, because I’m curious why is it that all these doctors, nurses, hospital administrators in New York keep reporting the same thing I experienced day three, four and five of treatment for a supposed virus in New York called COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 they were seeing high amounts of acute kidney failure. So I went to the cdc.gov’s website, they did not have a protocol for treating COVID-19 hospitalised patients, but they referred back to the NIH’s protocol for COVID-19. And on that actual memo I hyperlinked it to the nih.gov, this is where Anthony Fauci had a memo for the entire world. This was in the middle of May 2020. And he said there is only one drug and one drug only that we’re authorising to be used in all hospitals across America for COVID-19 hospitalised Americans. That one experimental antiviral drug is called Remdesivir. There’s two studies supporting its use, it was found safe and effective against the Ebola virus a year prior in Africa. Then he said it was found safe and effective in a trial in March of 2020, just two months earlier, which was conducted by the maker of Remdesivir called Gilead Sciences. He then went on in the same memo to declare that there is two drugs that were not allowed to be used because they found it had heart toxic effects leading to death in COVID-19 treated patients. And those two drugs were Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine. Now I was not of interest of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine at the time, I was most interested in this Remdesivir drug because I had never heard of it. I also learned here that it was just an experimental drug at this point was never FDA approved.

So my curiosity was I wanted to know what Dr. Anthony Fauci was proclaiming on nih.gov was his reasonings for choosing this one and only drug. So I clicked the first hyperlink study to the New England Journal of Medicine on Ebola. And then actually read the second study also. And Dr. _______ you understand this because we’ve done this interview before, I couldn’t believe what I found out. So what I then learned was that Remdesivir was not proven safe and effective against the Ebola virus. In fact, it was found to be the least effective and the deadliest drug in the trial. And the safety board for that trial suspended its used for the rest of the trial, and no one was allowed to get it, because it had the only drug published in the trial of for drugs to have a percentage of death rates called mortality rate of over 50 percent. The other three drugs didn’t have over a 50 percent mortality rate, only Remdesivir did. That’s why the Safety Board pulled it. So this is the kind of information that I knew then Anthony Fauci was lying about this drug. The second study conducted by Gilead Sciences, they gave the drug Remdesivir for 10 days to COVID-19 patients, 53 of them in March of 2020. Their reported conclusions were 31 percent of everyone they gave that drug to between days five and 10 of the treatment, and it was only for 10 days. They found 31 percent of everybody that got that drug, who had COVID-19 positive, they actually experienced multiple organ failure, reported acute kidney failure, which is what all the media was reporting. And I knew right away, that the doctors are being very honest in the reporting that they have never seen a respiratory virus in New York City, when they start treating these COVID-19 patients, they had never seen such amounts of acute kidney failure. And that’s because they had never used the drug Remdesivir before. They had no idea the drug they were pumping into them was causing acute kidney failure, liver failure and heart failure, which are all now published side effects of Remdesivir. The disappointing part of this for the entire world, I want you to know, Anthony Fauci said in May of 2020, he asked our federal government here in the United States to buy up all of the stock of this experimental drug, this failed drug, deadly drug. And he asked the federal government of the United States to export the drug to any other country until the end of 2020.

This is significant, because at the end of 2020, and now in February of 2022, America still has the highest death totals of all countries in the entire world for COVID-19 treatment. So all COVID-19 citizens in America, no other country has more deaths than we do. And I attribute it to the hospital protocols initiated early on by Dr. Anthony Fauci. And if you would let me present it I’ll show you all the evidence that supports my concern around this drug, because right now, not only does the United States of America is the only country with over 900,000 dead COVID-19 citizens. Brazil’s number two, and Brazil has over 630,000, and Brazil since the beginning of March of 2021 is only using Remdesivir in all of its hospitals. The correlation and publicised death side effects and deadly side effects of Remdesivir, in my opinion, based on the data I can show you all is that the hospital protocols, which includes Remdesivir, and now two years later, it’s published combined side effects is the number one cause of death of all COVID-19 hospitalised individuals worldwide.

Now it’s come to light also, and everyone needs to know this. From the beginning, I’ve heard the term, even from the judge that this is a plandemic. From the beginning, not only in March and April of 2020, was the city of New York allowed to experiment on all New York patients with a drug called Remdesivir to kill a whole bunch of them causing acute kidney failure, secondary death by pulmonary oedema, which is what happens when you cause acute kidney failure, across the Atlantic Ocean in the UK, there’s an organisation called NICE N I C E along with the UK Parliament, the MHRA, they all were supportive of what was called end of life care. And they put in this protocol to take in morphine and midazolam into the nursing homes of individuals all around the UK. And in March of 2020 they administered this drug in nursing homes and killed 18,000 people in March of 2020, 25,000 in April of 2020, but they caledl them all COVID-19 deaths. I believe Remdesivir here in the United States, along with Midazolam and morphine protocols called end of life care inside the UK, which everyone here should refer to Clare Wills Harrison, she’s an attorney out of the UK has done a great job putting this together. John O’Looney is on this testifying group here, he can testify as a funeral director the amount of deaths that were starting in March and April 2020, only designated as COVID-19, even when none of these people had COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in the UK.

I believe there was a huge setup to mass murder a whole bunch of people using drugs and drug protocols that were governed, selected by federal health agencies and our governments to initiate a huge amount of death, and then project on the world that there’s a virus killing all these people. And I said, from the beginning of May of 2020, they’re going to use these death totals in hospitals and in nursing centres. They’re going to call it death by a virus called COVID-19. They’re going to take those numbers, and they’re going to sell the media and all of the societies of America in the UK that there’s a deadly virus going around the world and you need to sign up for our future vaccine programme coming up, which we’ll get into later in this trial. The vaccines by far was the end agenda. They had to mass murder a lot of people and convince them it was a deadly virus. Would you like me to present the evidence?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:23:50
Please?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 2:24:12
So Anthony Fauci declared that in May of 2020, that there was an Ebola trial in which Remdesivir was found to be safe and effective against the Ebola virus. Did it? This is the actual trial still lives on the New England Journal of Medicine. You can see on the right hand side of the page, it was published December 12th 2019. This study started in November of 2018. And this is what they did. They took four groups, oh sorry they took four experimental drugs all patients were given, you’ll see the three names ZMapp, which was a triple monoclonal antibody, you see an antiviral agent called Remdesivir, a single monoclonal antibody called MAb114, and then a triple monoclonal antibody that the world knows about right now called Regeneron abbreviated REGM-EB3. This was the actual study, we’re gonna go into four regions of Africa and we’re going to give four different drugs to Ebola patients.

The conclusions, right off the bat, when you look at any study they’ll give you a summary, and then they’ll show you the conclusions. This is very nefarious, and everyone needs to see this. Right off the bat, if you go in there right now, the conclusions were that both MAb114, and Regeneron were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. Period. Now, I want to bring your attention to this. This is published on New England Journal of Medicine. Notice in the conclusion, they only list three drugs. But in the study, there were four drugs, it says both MAb and Regeneron were superior to ZMapp in reducing mortality from EVD. But they said there was four drugs in the study. Interesting, right? They didn’t actually mentioned Remdesivir. Let’s find out why they didn’t want to show this on the conclusions at the top of the study. Alright, so just to bring everyone’s attention here. If you look down in the parentheses here, underneath the conclusions, you’ll see it’s funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. That’s who funded this entire study on Ebola in Africa for the year 2018 to 19. Now, who’s the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease, I just want to make sure for the world that it’s on record. You can see the director of the NIH NIAID department that funded the Ebola trial is Dr. Anthony Fauc.i First statement is Dr. Anthony Fauci was appointed director since 1984. So he would have been the same director during this 2018 to 19 study. How did they screen these people for Ebola? You just listen to Dr. Sona. Now all the patients in the Ebola trial, they used the PCR test to determine if they had Ebola. Disgustingly they actually allowed pregnant women, using the PCR test, to designate positive results for COVID. I mean for Ebola, they allowed pregnant women, look at the last (inaudible) it’s highlighted, even Neonates seven days of age or younger were included in this experimental drug trial in Africa, if the mother had documented positive Ebola. I find that pretty disgusting that [in] an experimental drug trial you’re going to put in seven day old and younger kids without symptoms, just as if the mother tested positive.

All right now in the mortality section of this study on Ebola in Africa, on August 9th 2019, when 681 patients had been enrolled, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board conducted an interim analysis on data from 499 patients, and on the basis of two observations, in August 2019 they recommended terminating random assignment ZMapp and Remdesivir. So the Safety Board saw two problems with ZMapp and Remdesivir and terminated it’s used to be continued in this trial. Well, what was so disturbing? This is table two from that actual study, to get the group’s eyes here and the audience’s eyes here, and the jury table to read the title Comparison of Death at Days 28 According to Treatment Group, you have the population column on the left, then you’ll have four drugs listed ZMapp, Remdesivir, MAb114, Regeneron REGM-EB3. The first statistic listed under each one of those is for mortality rate, what is the percentage of people given that drug in this trial that died? ZMapp had a 49.7 percent death rate, you’ll see it in parentheses just below ZMapp there in the highlighted area titled overall, so ZMapp everyone that got the drug, 49.7 percent of them died. Remdesivir had a death percentage of 53.1 percent. MAb114 35.1 percent of everyone died. Regeneron 33.5 percent. Based on this information, the Safety Board saw that Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate and was the least effective in the trial, and then decided to pull Remdesivir and ZMapp from the trial.

Now for the jury, I would just like to present this to the jury. If you were Anthony Fauci and you had this one study that you funded, and you were going to be selecting one drug and one drug only to be the only drug pumped into all innocent American citizens with COVID-19. Would any of you, any of you, knowing what the Safety Board knew when they pulled Remdesivir seeing it was the only drug that had a death rate of 53.1 percent or higher? Which of these four drugs would you have chosen? And then I’d like you to ask yourself, why would Anthony Fauci have selected Remdesivir when the Safety Board had its own concerns? Which one would you have picked it if these were the only four drugs you had in the entire world to pick from? I would like to hope and think that you as a healthcare administrator, or overseeing a department for the entire country would make a decision to pick one with the least mortality rate, like Regeneron, in this case,

Just to bring your attention here, this is at the end of the study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and then it lists the author’s by abbreviation who actually contributed to the study. The SEC, so after I saw this Ebola trial study, I knew Anthony Fauci was flat out lying, it was not proven safe and effective against the Ebola virus. That’s what he said it did. Then I wanted to know well, what did they find in the Gilead study? The Gilead study was done in March of 2020. You’ll see it was published in June 11. This was their own studies. This was done from January, just so you know, the Ebola trial published December of 2019. In that trial, Remdesivir was pulled and found to be the least effective and the most deadly. Just a month later January of 2020, Gilead is given the opportunity to do this study with Remdesivir on COVID-19 patients. Now, the Ebola trial was 28 days of drugging for those drugs per patient. And they found more people died from Remdesivir than any other drug. In this trial in January of 2020, Gilead did something smart, they said we’re only going to give 10 days of this drug to COVID-19 patients. Why because 28 days worth killed the most people in the trial that just finished a month earlier. This is the published findings of Gilead from their 10 days of Remdesivir poisoning in COVID-19 patients. 23 percent had serious adverse events between days five and 10. The most common serious adverse events, multiple organ failure, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension. Another 8 percent below there discontinued Remdesivir treatment prematurely. They couldn’t even make it the whole days. One, because of worsening pre existing renal failure, one because of multiple organ failure, and two needed to have kidney transplants as a result of the drug killing their kidneys.

Now what was that being reported in the actual news? All I kept hearing was we’ve never seen a virus cause acute kidney injury, when in fact, 31 percent of the people who’ve gotten Remdesivir for 10 days are actually experiencing and reporting acute kidney failure from the Gilead trial just two months earlier. So at the same time, that 10 days from Remdesivir getting pumped into the Gilead patients, 53 COVID-19 patients, there was a study at the exact same time in France, except France took Remdesivir in January to March of 2020. They only gave it to five people, five COVID-19 positive patients, including one from Wuhan. And they gave the drug for 14 days. This is in the beginning of 2020. What did they find? This is what they did. So I’m just gonna show the dates January 24th till March 1st, they’re diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Remdesivir from Gilead. This is who was enrolled there in Paris, France. What did they find? They actually had set up a 14 day duration of treatment with Remdesivir, highlighted part of the screen from the study Remdesivir was interrupted before the initial planned duration and four out of the five patients, two because of alanine amino transferase elevations which is increased liver toxicity enzymes in the bloodwork abbreviated ALT on most blood panels. They said this number liver toxicity was three to five times the normal range within those 14 days. So they pulled those two patients off the drug early and then continue, and two because of renal failure requiring renal replacement. Now for the jury, renal means kidneys. So two of the four who came off had to be taken off because their kidneys died requiring renal replacement. Before they were administered Remdesivir liver function and kidney function was tested and they evaluated them every day as they received these drugs. Four out of the five patients had to come off early. Two of the five had to have kidney transplants as a result, only one lived through the whole 14 days. Two out of the five died as a result of the treatment of Remdesivir. There’s a reason why France doesn’t have the death totals that we do. Now that was conducted in and finalised in March of 2020.

Fast forward to November of 2020, Remdesivir proclaimed by the World Health Organisation they determine and proclaim read the highlighted part, the antiviral Remdesivir should not be used as treatment for hospitalised COVID-19 patients. The World Health Organisation said Thursday, only a month after the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug to treat patients over age 12 who were hospitalised. October 22nd 2020 was the date in which the FDA in America approved Remdesivir as an FDA approved drug to treat COVID-19 patients, and the World Health Organisation just the next month you’ll see the date on there, November 19th, said we do not recommend this based on all the data we’ve seen. Gilead reported in this information and data collection by the World Health Organisation, Gilead even stated Remdesivir has potential side effects on the kidneys that they reported to European Medicines Agency. This is November of 2020.

For the jury and for the judge, I would like to present some information that’s become probably the most disturbing out of this entire two years of studying these hospital protocols. This is published in Nature Medicine July 10th 2020. I want you to read the beginning part of this abstract. This is two months after Anthony Fauci gets Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir to be the only pharmaceutical company awarded the only contract for the only drug to treat all COVID-19 hospitalised patients in the entire country of America. This summary here is titled, the title of this study is Extrapulmonary Manifestations of COVID-19. This means other than the lungs what the virus does to the body and causing disease of other organs. Let’s read the actual first sentence here. COVID-19 is most well known for causing substantial respiratory pathology or disease. It can also result in several extra pulmonary manifestations or disease processes outside the lungs. These conditions include thrombotic complications, that’s blood clotting disorders, myocardial dysfunction, heart disease, and a arrhythmia, acute coronary syndrome, which is strokes, heart attacks, acute kidney injury, GI symptoms and hepatocellular injury. Hepatocellular means liver toxicity. Now when I got this actual article, remember this is two months after Gilead Sciences is allowed to be the only drug manufacturer to provide a solution to all hospitalised patients for COVID-19. When I read this, I already knew that the virus itself was not the primary cause of acute kidney injury. It was actually Remdesivir and the liver toxicity as mentioned here, but in Nature Medicine, July of 2020, there’s this publication made for the whole world to be able to see this new novel virus is causing these issues in the body as doctors are treating it so you know it’s actually the virus and nothing else. Alright, so here’s what was reported in this study. In China. The reported incidents of acute kidney injury in hospital patients with COVID range from 0.5 percent to 29 percent. And it occurred with an average period of time within seven to 14 days after being admitted into hospital. So between weeks one and two of treatment is when acute kidney injury occurred, but studies from the USA have reported much higher rates of acute kidney injury in a study of nearly 5500 patients admitted with COVID-19 in a New York City Hospital System. Acute kidney injury occurred in 37 percent, with 14 percent of the patients requiring dialysis. Remember, they all said we don’t have enough dialysis machines here and then read this, about 1/3 were diagnosed with acute kidney injury within 24 hours of admission in the study. The only drug being used in that study in New York City hospital systems in March and April of 2020, was Remdesivir. That’s the only thing different between what what China was doing and what we were doing. I could not believe it.

In the ethics declaration of this Nature Medicine publication about what the virus does for the entire world as doctors are treating them around the world, we want you to recognise the virus of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 causes all these problems in other organs in the body. Inside the ethics declarations where you actually have to list those who are contributing to the data in the study, you have to disclose do you maybe have a conflict of interest in being allowed to participate in contributing data? I put on the screen for the jury. A woman named Joan J.M.B reports an honorarium for participation in a grants review panel for Gilead Biosciences. Why would someone on the payroll of Gilead be allowed to contribute when they’re the only pharmaceutical company supplying the only drug to help COVID-19 hospitalised patients? Why would anyone on their payroll be allowed to contribute to designate and define what’s the side effects of the virus you’re treating, when in fact I’ll show you. This is actually all the side effects, all of these here. These side effects that are listed here are actually side effects of Remdesivir poisoning and we can prove it.

Alright, so Remdesivir, this is April 22, I mean sorry April 2021. There’s actually World Health Safety database review. What they want to compare is around the world which includes this audience, around the world there are four major drugs being used to treat all COVID-19 patients. This is April 2021. They want to see if it’s true that the virus causing COVID-19 is causing acute kidney injury in the majority of all people and this is a side effect of the virus, we’re going to look at the World Health Organization’s database, and we’re going to see. We’re going to look at and compare four drugs treating COVID-19 patients worldwide – Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir, and a drug that’s a monoclonal antibody called Tocilizumab. And this is what they found. So this is the setup. Read the highlighted part, reporting odds ratio compared the number of acute renal failure cases reported with Remdesivir, with those reported with other drugs prescribed in comparable situations of COVID-19. This is important, the most important part of this entire thing is that they were prescribed these four drugs in comparable situations of COVID-19 per the Nature Medicine publication. They said the virus causes acute kidney injury. They’re going to compare and see, is it true that all these COVID-19 positive patients around the world are all developing acute kidney failure on an even scale, and we’re gonna look at all these patients being treated with four different drugs Hydroxychloroquine in parentheses, Tocilizumab and Lopinavir. Well, what did they find? First, and it’s only reporting odds ratio of acute renal failure with Remdesivir was 20 fold that of comparative drugs. 20 fold. Not even close. Remdesivir is known to cause acute kidney failure. Absolutely.

Now come full circle now to October 2021, just five months later after April, and there’s a journal called the Cardiovascular Toxicology journal titled Potential Cardiotoxic Effects on cardiovascular system. Read at the bottom Remdesivir can also induce significant cytotoxic or cell toxic effects in cardiomyocytes, heart cells that is considerably worse than Chloroquine cardiotoxic effects. Remdesivir induced toxicity is due to its binding of mitochondria and the RNA polymerase. I need to reread this, in May of 2020, Anthony Fauci said, you cannot use Chloroquine. You cannot use Hydroxychloroquine with these COVID-19 patients, because Chloroquine was found to cause heart disease and death in COVID-19 treated patients. So we’re only going to use Remdesivir. In October 2021, you can see the date at the top, the journal is to the left Cardiovascular Toxicology, first and its Remdesivir in the highlighted part, Remdesivir can also induce significant cytotoxic effects and cardiomyocytes that is considerably worse than Chloroquine cardiotoxic effects. This is a study from 2020 early on that Anthony Fauci would quote saying, Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients. They said in this study, all four regimens were also independently associated with an increased risk of new onset ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. So this study, they found there’s toxic heart effects due to Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine that’s increasing, read the title, the risk of death of COVID-19.

However, the Cardiovascular Toxicology journal just a few months ago, Remdesivir far worse causes cardiotoxic effects as compared to Chloroquine as these studies proclaimed. Alright, what are some of the other published cardiotoxic effects, if you start here there in the highlighted part, there are some reports of sinus bradycardia, hypotension, T wave abnormalities, atrial fibrillation, which is arrhythmia issues. Remember Nature Medicine said arrhythmia’s are the side effect of the virus. It’s actually an unpublished side effect of the one and only drug getting pumped into your veins. And a prolonged QT interval which is creating this lethargy and fatigue thereby is experiencing and few cases of cardiac arrest and complete heart block following Remdesivir infusion. Why is this significant? In 2005, Anthony Fauci knew that Chloroquine was found to be a potent inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1 back in 2005. Why weren’t we publishing the conclusion of this study in 2005, Chloroquine, a relatively safe and effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiasis, and human immunodeficiency virus HIV is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS-CoV-1 in cell culture. We’ve known that for 15 years at this point.

This is important. The NIH has just updated these charts. This is actually titled Table 2e on nih.gov. Last updated July 8th 2021. You’ll notice Remdesivir is listed here, You’ll see adverse events as a second column. I want everyone’s eyes to go to the fifth bullet point under adverse events for Remdesivir. It actually states that the drug vehicle is abbreviated SPECD, which has been associated with renal and liver toxicity. So we know it’s even published as a known side effect of the drug. On this chart dated July 2021, it was a broad title, Characteristics read the title, Characteristics of Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19. On this chart, there was three drugs listed as either approved or under evaluation by the NIH. The second drug on that list was ivermectin, it gives you your doses of what to use in hospitalised patients, very first bullet point in the second column under adverse events or side effects, generally well tolerated. Now, I want to bring everyone’s attention to this because they updated this chart in December. And they call it now Table 2f, look at the date last updated December 16th 2021. Right underneath the title, they list Remdesivir. They also list Remdesivir as the only FDA approved drug now on this list. But I want to bring your attention to ivermectin you’ll see ivermectin right underneath, it says it’s not approved by the FDA and not recommended by the panel. And I want you to notice what they deleted underneath side effects of ivermectin. I’ve been pointing this out to legislators around the country and around the world. They deleted the first one that said generally well tolerated. It’s the only one they removed for reference, check this out ivermectin first bullet point, generally well tolerated. Now here, they removed it, they don’t want you to see it, they don’t want you to know it’s generally well tolerated.

Alright, so I do want you to know there’s like six or seven drugs on this chart now on the NIH, the actual drug Remdesivir is the only one now titled in December of 2021, and still now is the only FDA approved drug to treat Remdesivir. After it’s been published that it causes liver failure, acute kidney failure, and now heart failure that we know and heart defects. Disgustingly the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services here in the United States. Medicare covers all the elderly, Medicai’s, the impoverished and the disabled, but Medicare right now is actually offering, you’ll see the title of the new COVID-19 treatments add on payments per the Cares Act. This should disgust everybody in the jury, if it’s true that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure, liver failure and heart failure, it should disgust everyone to find out that CMS for Medicare is bribing all hospitals with a 20 percent bonus payout, if they’ll just use Remdesivir. And that bonus payout goes for the entire bill for a COVID-19 treated patients. You’ll read here in the highlighted part in NCTAP claims are those that are eligible for the 20 percent add on bonus payment under the section 3710 if The Cares Act. There’s two things they’re giving 20 percent bonuses for to all hospitals in America.

For only Medicare aged patients, thats 65 years and older, two bullet points, ICD-10 CM diagnosis code of U07.1. That’s COVID-19 positive, that’s the diagnosis code, they get a 20 percent bonus payout for it. The second bullet point, our ICD-10 PCS codes for Remdesivir. And then below there, you’ll see the chart and they actually tell the hospitals if you’ll just put down these two codes, those first two codes on the chart will give you a 20 percent add on bonus if you just pick Remdesivir, a drug known to be toxic and deadly [and] proven to be so. Now I want to bring your attention to this. Why is Medicare continuing to bribe hospitals? Why, when in fact look at this chart, look at the date top right. This is on C19early.com. This is today, February 13th 2022. I want you to notice this is the all mortality results. They take research studies from around the world being used to treat hospitalised COVID-19 patients. And they want to know what of those drugs is producing the greatest rates of improvement and survivability. I want you to look at this chart, this is just as of this morning. Look at the bottom of the chart. That’s where Remdesivir sits. The second column is the improvement section. The percentages of all people in the research studies that are seeing improvements and not dying. Remdesivir is that 19 percent improvement and look at the amount of studies and the amount of patients in those studies and then look at the cost of that failing drug. It’s over $3,100 per treatment, which is a five day treatment period. Almost everything above there has better results than Remdesivir and this is worldwide studies. My question is why are we still supporting a drug two years later, that is obviously failing worse than 30 plus other products you can see here listed which includes nutrients. You’ll see ivermectin on here at 54 percent success rate by itself. That’s easily double Remdesivir’s effectiveness at mortality and improving mortality outcomes. Quercetin, you’ll see povidone iodine’s at 72 percent and that’s a nasal wash and throat gargle that cost a dollar. Why are we promoting Remdesivir It’s the most expensive drug on this entire list, and it’s one of the most failed.

The FDA has just updated, as of January 24th just a few weeks ago, they updated that because of Omicron variant we are now discontinuing to allow Regeneron to be used in all clinics around the country, all states, all territories, all jurisdictions, and they actually claim that Omicron has not found to react to the treatments from those monoclonal antibodies that have been being used. And because of this data, they’re now suspending its use. I’m just showing you these things. There’s only, they list here in the highlighted part, importantly, there are several other therapies Paxlovid, Sotrovimab, Remdesivir, which is called Veklury, and Molnupiravir, which is a Merck drug that are expected to work against the Omicron variant. And these are the only ones that are authorised or approved to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in and outside of hospitals actually with Omicron variant. And I want to bring your attention back to this. I listed four drugs here, Paxlovid, Sotrovimab, Remdesivir and Molnupiravir. Of everything on this chart I just showed you, Paxlovid’s at the top. This is a drug created by Pfizer. it’s only had one study, 2000 patients, the average cost is $700. If you look at Sotrovimab is down right above vitamin D, you’ll see 41 percent and 46 percent, so Sotrovimab is what’s the second drug that they suggest. Look at that two studies with 1400 cases, $2,100. Molnupiravir is four above Sotrovimab at 50 percent success rate. Three studies, 1900 people, $700 a pop. I want you to just recognise these are the most expensive drugs on here, including Remdesivir was the fourth drug.

There are so many other things that are cheaper and more effective, and people should be referencing this. Three days before the FDA says now you have to use Remdesivir, Sotrovimab, Paxlovid and the other expensive drug Molnupiravir, three days before that the world needs to know this, the jury needs to know it, this drug that causes acute kidney failure, liver failure and heart failure, it was just increased by the FDA January 21st. I’ll read this to you. Fact Sheet for healthcare providers, EUA Emergency Use Authorization of Veklury Remdesivir for the treatment of Coronavirus 2019 In paediatric patients weighing 3.5 kilogrammes.

They are now authorising Remdesivir to be pumped into the veins of all newborns weighing seven pounds or more, and anyone in between. And they are PCR testing babies in hospitals as soon as they’re born looking to see if they test positive with a PCR test and they will take them and inject them intravenously with Remdesivir, a proven drug that kills heart cells, called cardiomyocytes, liver failure and kidney failure. I need to bring some things to the attention of the jury and the judge in the world in relationship to this document, it states testing who are positive in hospitals or non hospitals. So this is in and out of hospitals. What every person needs to know is on this emergency use authorization by the FDA for paediatrics only. First bullet point here, the parent giver and caregiver has the option to accept or refuse Veklury. Please pay attention to that all parents, you have the right to refuse as per the EUA. Third bullet point, information on available alternative treatments and the risk of the benefits of those alternatives have to be told by the healthcare professional. They have to tell you the alternative treatments that are available for your kid or your baby. I need to show you what’s in the document though. Look at this. It actually states. Hold on, let me show you approved available alternatives. Look in the middle of the page approved and available alternatives. This is on page 10 of the same document, notice it reads there is no approved available alternative products for the treatment of COVID-19 in paediatric patients. Now wait a minute, they just said it, third bullet point here. The doctors and healthcare providers have to provide information on available alternative treatments. But later in the document, they tell you there is no other ones that are approved, only Remdesivir. It actually states here what they have to do if they ever give me Remdesivir and there’s a side effect, look at statement seven. It actually says within seven calendar days the healthcare provider has to actually publish on a US FDA form title 350 all serious adverse events reported in babies receiving Remdesivir. The world needs to know this. What’s the serious adverse events that could happen from Remdesivir that they want you to report and are holding you liable for? Look here, under number eight. Look at the aspheric serious adverse events are defined as death, a life threatening adverse event, inpatient hospitalisation or prolonging of existing hospitalisation, a congenital anomaly or birth defect, a persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions. A medical last one bullet point, a medical or surgical intervention to prevent death, a life threatening event.

Alright, what else do you need to know? At the bottom of the screen, I want you guys to know why the EUA was given by the FDA for the use of Remdesivir in babies. It says here at the bottom FDA has issued this EUA requested by Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir. And based on their data submitted, okay, now I just want to bring something up here, why aren’t we having the other companies that make ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide. They need to approach the FDA and just ask for an EUA to be able to be allowed because it looks like Gilead could do it, and based on their submitted data, I want to show you what the data is it’s in this document. So let’s look at the data that Gilead gave to the FDA to say, you know, we can use this in paediatric patients now. This is at 11.3. So all the data for paediatric use. Look at this. The safety and effectiveness of Veklury Remdesivir have not been established in paediatric patients weighing 3.5 kilogrammes to less than 40 kilogrammes for those who are either bullet points, hospitalised, or not hospitalised. So I’d like to know what data the FDA had if it hasn’t been proven safe and effective with the paediatric patients, what data did Gilead give you? When in fact, Remdesivir is still proven to be the least effective and most dangerous of almost every one of these drugs that you see on this list. I confer to the jury to find out why are they actually using this drug and continue to use this drug when in fact it is proven to cause more mortality, death and side effects than many more drugs?

Viviane Fischer 2:56:52
Could we look at that slide again because I think in the footprint it said it’s being extrapolated to something from the information that we received from studies from the adults, but I mean these were negative. So

Dr. Bryan Ardis 2:57:07
Yeah, that’s right here I’ll share it with you and your guests. Hold on. And what’s amazing to me is all the documentation about Remdesivir and its failed publications and studies. You can see it there on the screen. Use in this age group is based on extrapolation of paediatric efficacy from adequate and well controlled studies in adults and I am going to share something with you so the world can see this because they need to see it.

This is the NIH Table 2f that I keep showing you. This was just updated December. So I’m gonna pull up here first. This is table 2f. I just need to show you and scroll through this. And it lists here Remdesivir approved for the FDA treatment of COVID-19 hospitalised patients. Approved by the FDA. I’m going to scroll through here so you can see the list. interferon Alpha now is added to it not approved. interferon beta, not approved. Interferon Lambda not approved. We come down to ivermectin, not approved. The tat or however you pronounce this one [Nitazoxanide], not approved and then you come to the end. There is no other drugs the NIH and Anthony Fauci are saying are allowed or approved for treatment. Yet it discloses here that it causes acute renal failure. I don’t know if you noticed this here, but this monitoring parameters Remdesivir it says see Remdesivir section for information on using Remdesivir in people with renal insufficiency. The monitoring parameters here lists that it’s okay that if we give someone Remdesivir in America, you can actually watch the liver enzyme activities right here, ALT and AST elevations, they say if you see ALT going up like they found in the France study, and the French study they pulled Remdesivir when their liver ALT numbers went up three to five times normal, they considered that toxic and deadly.

Do you know what America and the NIH says is acceptable levels of ALT elevations? It’s in the Remdesivir’s EUA. They allow your liver toxicity enzymes to go up ALT to 10 times the normal range that’s acceptable. And for those of you who want to see it, I’ll show it to you because it’s in there and it’s disgusting to me. Let’s show you. I have so much documentation here but I want to show just so you can see. Here we go, it’s right here, I already found it. Okay, [the] world needs to see why did it bother France and they pulled it off of their increased risk on page seven of the EUA for Remdesivir increased risk of transaminase elevations and I want you to go below to the bottom. Look at the first bullet point at the bottom. It says right above there perform liver laboratory testing in all patients before starting Remdesivir and during treatment. First bullet point, consider discontinuing Remdesivir if ALT levels increase to greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal. I would like to know why our NIH is okay with intoxicating a liver, that the French scientists doctors pulled the drug knowing that it was deadly and toxic to inflame a liver to have three to five times the normal levels of ALT and they consider that life threatening. Why does our NIH Anthony Fauci and these protocols why are they okay giving this drug to them? Now, I need to show you the next one. Can I show you the next one? Right underneath this 10 times accepted level for ALT elevations, liver toxicity, it actually states here. Oh, I need to show you hold on. I want to know what I was going to show you, sorry about that. Alright, so here you’ll see that right below it says risk of reduced antiviral activity with coadministered Chloroquine phosphate or Hydroxychloroquine sulphate, I need you to know, oh I know what I wanted to show you, hold on let me show you. I have show you. Oh, please give me just a second jury, you got to see this. Right here, this is what I was trying to get to. All right. This says these things are required. Okay. Number four, like I mentioned that showed you a second ago that you have to perform hepatic laboratory testing in all patients before starting Veklury. Number five, you have to determine prothrombin time in all patients before starting Veklury and monitor during treatment as clinically appropriate. I’m not sure if you guys know what prothrombin time is. But prothrombin time, by definition, this is a clotting factor for blood. If prothrombin time is going up, it means it’s taking longer for your blood to clot and you will have internal bleeding. If prothrombin time is being shortened that means you’re actually getting blood clot issues. So this drug they know there’s two things you have to check liver functions before and during treatment supposedly, as per the EUA, [and] you have to determine blood clotting time before and during treatment. And I would like to know if everyone around the world is doing this at all. And I would demand that all healthcare professionals do this because this drug is proven to cause cardiovascular toxic effects, including as we showed you in the Nature Medicine, they said thrombotic events, blood clotting events occured due to the virus, when in fact remember Gilead was allowed to participate in contributing their published side effects of the drug. This drug needs to be taken out of circulation.

There’s a lot more information on this drug a lot more things that we have here, but this drug by far, I believe, has been used just like the sedative drugs, and this is not the only one. Remdesivir is targeting and killing the elderly. It’s complicating issues of liver failure, kidney failure and heart failure. But there are sedation drugs being used around the world, like midazolam, morphine. Currently in America and in Canada they’re using drugs like this to intubate these people who are being forced into having multiple organ failure requiring them to go onto a vent because they can’t breathe, and these drugs are midazolam, morphine, lorazepam, precedex, and these drugs suppress the nervous systems ability to control your ability to breathe. They are respiratory suppressive. They’re also known to paralyse the central nervous system and stop the heart from beating. It is my opinion they’re using these as euthanizing agents and protocols to speed up the actual death processes in hospitals. And they’re targeting the elderly around the world and did from the beginning. And we actually absolutely see that they are now targeting the young, and now all people and if of interest, if you don’t mind, can I show you one more thing, they are targeting the hearts of all these people with these drugs for sedation, and with Remdesivir as proven in those studies.

There’s one other thing I would love to show the world before it even comes up. I may not even be a part of it. But in the Circulation journal, there we go. You just have their, now I believe there’s an asserted attack on heart muscle using Remdesivir, using spike proteins and using the vaccines. You have to just see this because it goes right in long lines of what Remdesivir has proven to do. The American Heart Association publishes a journal called Circulation. In November 8th, you’ll see the date right there, originally published November 8th 2021. It’s titled MRNA COVID Vaccines dramatically increase endothelial inflammation markers and acute coronary syndrome risk as measured by the pulse cardiac test. This is a warning. And this is what they found. At the bottom, at the time of this report, the changes to the heart persist for at least two and a half months after the second dose of the mRNA. Vaccines. We conclude that the mRNA vaccines dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and the T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, blood clot disorders, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following the vaccine, this is a warning.

I only bring this up not because this is the part of the jury trial where you’re being taught about the side effects of the vaccines, you have to understand they are finding now that the targeted ingredients in the vaccines are targeting heart muscles, the blood clotting issues within the heart that are causing strokes, heart attacks, and the American Heart Association is publishing this in November. This is a month after the cardiovascular toxicology journal published that Remdesivir causes thrombotic issues, cardiomyopathy and death of heart cells. I believe there’s an onslaught of tech to create targeted drug therapies or poisons that are directly targeting the heart of individuals, innocent people around the world. And they are calling it COVID-19 deaths using falsified testing, like PCR, that we’ve already learned about here. And that is my argument, when in fact, we know there’s currently 150 studies promoting that natural immunity, and showing that natural immunity post infection, from COVID or anything else, are actually showing robust and longer lasting immunity than any of the current vaccines that are actually being pushed on the public at large.

Viviane Fischer 3:06:45
Can I ask if there’s evidence of any conflict of interest like financial interests involved of maybe Fauci in what’s going on?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 3:06:56
Yeah, so there was actually a meeting I won’t pull it up here, I can’t pull it up here but there’s a meeting where Anthony Fauci met with 11 different people in discussing which drugs they were going to use as the solution for the pandemic, and this was in March. Peter Breggin did a great job in his book of noting this, and his book subtitled We Are The Prey, Dr. Peter Breggin. There was a meeting Anthony Fauci and 17 other representatives, nine of them were in this meeting, and they all worked at Gilead Sciences. Isn’t that amazing? That’s how he chose as his group of individuals to select Remdesivir. So that’s a great resource 2000 citations in his book about that. I also will tell you, there is connections to Anthony Fauci, Gilead Sciences, I’ve already heard references in this trial today. People need to look into Gilead Sciences connections to Genentech and Roche and Pact Bio who has created these PCR tests. There’s a lot of collusion behind a lot of what they’ve done from the beginning, and it’s been orchestrated since 2014 [20]15 that’s a part of this entire plandemic. But yes there’s, and I will tell you with Anthony Fauci and with the corporations that own Gilead, it’s primarily owned by corporations such as Vanguard and BlackRock. There’s tonnes of connections to Gilead, Anthony Fauci and others. So the selection, still, the support, still, of using Remdesivir, in my mind, is, still, to target the hearts, livers, kidneys of individuals. They know it’s toxic. The reason why I believe they are right now putting Remdesivir as of January 21st, with the EUA as the only drug authorised to be pumped into the veins of all children, and there’s no other alternatives, is they need babies to start dying. Because February 15th was the FDA meeting that was supposed to be happening to vote to give these vaccines to newborns to five year olds the Pfizer shots. So I believe they are actually setting this up one step after another in lockstep to create more carnage, more death, more trauma, blaming it on a virus that like this Omicron variant that is almost the common cold, and I would argue it actually is the common cold personally. But they want to actually project that this is deadly even in paediatric demographic so they can sell parents grandparents that they need to get the vaccines as well. And that’s the only reason why they would do it. I can’t find any other reason why you would do it.

Even when I showed you the mortality results document from C19early.com updated daily, you see Remdesivir’s effectiveness in actually preserving the lives of people with COVID-19. It’s 19 percent from research studies worldwide. Two years later 19 percent. I would like to ask the jury, why are we still promoting this one and only drug. it’s now actually authorised to be used in all nursing homes in America, by the way, outside of hospitals as of the January 24th FDA update. So just like midazolam morphine being used in the UK to kill innocent elderly people there and call it COVID-19, they are now setting the stage to do it here with a drug called Remdesivir. And with the published documentation I gave you, there’s no reason on the planet I would consider it safe to be given to the elderly. When in fact, right now, February 13th 2022, there’s less than 1 percent of the entire world that’s gotten this virus and been infected with it, who has died. Less than 1 percent.

In the state of New York, we pulled CMS data with Attorney Thomas Renz and his CMS whistleblowers, the entire state of New York alone, every Medicare patient who’s received five days of Remdesivir treatment for COVID-19, in the state of New York, the entire mortality rate is 26.9 percent of all of them died. When I say they’re targeting the elderly, they know these drugs are going to be toxic to them. And so anyway, these these numbers are disturbing. Why would you use a drug that’s failed at this extent, continued on two years later, unless there’s a attempt in a plan of genocide, to then sell [to] the massive amounts of public around the world that you need our vaccines which are obviously failing, and you’ll go to that further into the trial?

Viviane Fischer 3:11:02
Is this a prescription only drug? Or can you self administer this drug as well, and do people do that?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 3:11:11
Remdesivir is only approved to be given intravenously, and it has to be done either by a hospital or somebody in a nursing home. Right, they administer it through an IV needle, it is not through a tablet now. It’s also been approved to be used now at infusion centres that are outside of hospitals for outpatient where they were using monoclonal antibodies like Regeneron, that were very successful, they’re now allowing Remdesivir to be used in those facilities. Those were intravenous also.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:11:38
Now, at the risk of making a fool of myself, is it a fair conclusion after looking at everything, all the evidence that we’ve heard tonight, including your own evidence, is it a fair conclusion to say that one, we only have an illusion of a pandemic that was created by a faulty PCR test? Two, they’re using this illusion in order to use drugs that kill people, which is then, three, the reason for making people believe that this is caused by the virus the illusion. And then, four, use vaccines that are just as deadly as Remdesivir and the other drugs?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 3:12:25
The illusions? This is absolutely the illusions. However, the corruption cannot be understated. Dr. Pierre Cory, he continues to say, this is a non stop obvious corrupt attempt to create death and harm. The PCR tests do not determine if you have SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, or any respiratory virus, for that matter. It’s a faulty test, faulty cycle setup for it to create and exaggerate cases of COVID-19. In March of 2020, our CDC published documents to hospitals around the country. Thomas Renz filed a lawsuit. They actually said in March of 2020, all hospitals if a patient comes in and you test them positive for influenza A or B, but they test negative for pneumonia, and negative for the PCR test of COVID-19. This is in their own documents, if you look at the intake form, and look at their home address, if it’s in a city, where in the media you have heard there are positive cases of COVID-19, you can call this case a positive COVID-19 case documented as such, and we’ll give you a 20 percent additional bonus for that diagnosis instead of the actually tested confirmed flu diagnosis. And then they did the same thing for pneumonia. So beginning March of 2020, they started incentivizing hospitals and clinicians to give diagnoseses of COVID-19 that were false, even if they didn’t test positive for PCR. And they incentivized them all to do it.

So yes, it is an illusion orchestrated by our federal health agencies to exaggerate the cases of COVID, to exaggerate the causes of death from COVID, and they’re calling them complications of COVID, and I would definitely call on as many plaintiffs as possible of loved ones who have died in hospitals around the world who were treated with Remdesivir. I have actually encouraged, asked for, and have had and received 1000s of these from around the world. And I asked them to look at their certificates, their death certificates, you will see they died of complications of COVID-19. They diagnosed secondly from acute kidney failure, and they died from complications of secondary COVID pneumonia. It is not secondary COVID pneumonia when you shut down the kidneys and you put a IV bag, flooding water into the veins of someone and they can’t excrete the water from their kidneys you’ve shut down, you flood their abdomen with water, it then floods inside the heart and then it infiltrates your lungs and you drown them today. It’s called pulmonary oedema. So I call on everybody to drive as many of these people in to actually give this information. We know this is what the drugs do. Yes, there’s an illusion that they’re dying from a virus. They’re being poisoned to death with ill advised protocol. Absolutely. They’re also being asked and incentivized to artificially exaggerate positive cases and give diagnoseses for it. I just showed you that Medicare in America is incentivizing hospitals with a 20 percent bonus and the code if you’ll just give us a positive COVID-19 diagnosis for all Medicare aged patients, really. And I would like to ask you, jury judge, if like I showed you on the NIH chart that there’s only one drug as of December 16th that’s FDA approved for treating COVID-19 hospitalised patients, why is Medicare bribing all the hospitals to use that one and only drug if there’s only one approved to be used anyway? Why would Medicare have to bribe them with a 20 percent bonus payout to use the one and only one. There can only be a nefarious reason behind why they’re bribing all hospitals to use that one drug proven to cause acute kidney failure, liver failure and heart failure. From the beginning, we knew that wasn’t the case. You have all been lied to.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:16:17
That’s what it looks like.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:16:19
Dr Ardis, thank you so much for your evidence, I must say that you have put the jury in picture exactly as to what we are dealing with. And what we are dealing with is a textbook scenario when it comes to medical malpractice. And we see it not just only in the United States, but we see it in each and every country of the world. And having regard to this Grand Jury as well, you can quickly just tell us, or you can basically just say as to whether you confirm that each and every hospital, each and every medical doctor that prescribed Remdesivir, that prescribed all the other medicine[s] that you have mentioned, midozolam, as well, also yeah, if I have actually pronounced that correctly, that they are practising deaths malpractice, medical malpractice, without a shadow of a doubt. Will you agree with that, and that is basically in line with your statement and your evidence that you have just given that you actually motivate each and every citizen, the jury, in a matter of faith throughout the world, that once they can get, or they realise that those drugs that has been prescribed that they actually need to take the necessary action. So are we now really and for me, based on the evidence that you have given this is a textbook scenario of medical malpractice. And at the heart of this medical malpractice without a shadow of a doubt, it is financial gain. And the parties that you’ve mentioned when it comes to financial gain is BlackRock and I believe that all of the other investors as well also. So will you agree that yes, we are now talking about a textbook scenario when it comes to this medicine that’s being prescribed. And it is also being used at the same time to increase the statistics, and it is used at the same time as well also to inculcate or basically instil fear in the populace of the world. Will you agree with that?

Dr. Bryan Ardis 3:18:29
Absolutely. 100 percent I confirm that. Also, I’d just like to say this is actually textbook eugenics.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:18:37
I think you are absolutely right, because the thing is, like, when we look at intention, and you have made the intention quite clear, the way as to how you’ve actually taken the jury through each and every part of the documentation. For me, it also comes down to eugenics, it comes down to clear criminal intent. And I do not see as to how any of these culprits will be able to actually get off of itself. So thank you for making that clear. Thank you so much for your evidence. And thank you for taking the time, step by step, showing the jury, showing each and every citizen in the world as to what we are currently dealing with. Thank you, Dr. Ardis.

Dr. Bryan Ardis 3:19:21
You’re very welcome. And I cannot say thank you enough to Dr. Fuellmich and your team. And thank you for all of you that are here for standing for humanity when so many obviously don’t care and do not want to do the right thing. So thank you, every single one of you. It was my intent from the beginning to try to educate, warn, and inspire as many people as possible to what was going on. And you guys have done a great job of putting together a great group of people that I continue to call my colleagues and my friends. Thank you on behalf of humanity.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:19:48
Thank you, Brian.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:19:50
Thank you very much doctor.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:19:51
We do care, all of us care. Before we now turn to Dr. Shankara Chetty, please, John O’ Looney, I think this is, even though it’s extremely troubling, but I think this is the right time for you to explain what happened in the UK because it sort of mirrors what Dr. Brian Ardis just told us. What happened in the UK and how did you find out about it?

Viviane Fischer 3:20:28
You’re mute. You’re mute.

John O’Looney 3:20:34
There you go. There you go. Can you hear me all right.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:20:36
Yes.

John O’Looney 3:20:37
Cool. So as a funeral director initially, obviously when COVID first appeared, I was convinced, I had no reason not to be and certainly wouldn’t have suspected that it was going to be such a nefarious, you know, plandemic is the word that’s been used to describe it. There were a number of things that kind of raised the alarm for me. One was the death rate across 2020 despite the best efforts made during a period of March and April in care homes. There was no increase in death rate, there was, you know, we were seeing one thing on the news, and we were being told about this deadly pandemic, and people falling over left, right and centre. And it just wasn’t there. The death rate wasn’t there. I was washing and dressing people that were alleged COVID victims throughout 2020. And it’s very interesting to hear the doctor talk about the oedema on the lungs because when we embalmed someone, the process is quite invasive. And there’s an instrument called a trocar that’s inserted into people into their abdomen and into their lungs. And we were pulling loads of oedema from patients who’d come into our care. And it was, you know, so obvious, like a yellow clear fluid as we emptied the lungs kind of thing, though consistently full.

I also had a pandemic guy, he introduced himself as John, his name was John, he called me earlier in 2020. He told me, he was a government sponsored pandemic guy. He said that he would be calling all of the funeral directors in the local area. And his task was to collate COVID deaths and numbers. He asked me what my capacity as a funeral director was, you know, how many deceased could I hold in my facility? He asked me how many deceased I’d collected that week, and how many were COVID, and where from. So it wasn’t too long, virtually straight away, he started steering me and by that, I mean, he would say I would tell him, for example, I collected a gentleman from a care home, he had onset dementia, I’ve spoken to the family, he had been in there four years. There were no doctor present at the time of his death, there was no COVID test present at the time of his death, and yet this guy would insist that they were all COVID deaths. And when I kind of questioned that he would say, you know, well we’ve been told there was COVID in that facility in that care home. So we’ve been instructed, we have to label them all as COVID deaths. You know, these people didn’t have COVID. This was the same scenario was happening with cancer patients. Basically, anyone they could label as a COVID death, and they thought they could get away with it, that’s what they were doing. Even one guy that was run over, you know, he had tyre marks from his hip to his chest, he was a COVID death, you know, and this happened throughout 2020. And great effort was made to do that.

And then shortly before the end of 2020, when it was announced that the injections would come in, and everybody wanted one then, you know, because there were so many COVID deaths, he rang and told me he wouldn’t be calling anymore. So clearly the need isn’t there anymore for this pandemic guy to call me. So it was obvious, you know, what he was doing? And I kind of, towards the end of 2020, I realised what was going on. And, obviously, it’s very troubling. You know, I’ve got these people come into, and it’s hard being a funeral director anyway, when you’re dealing with a number of tragic deaths anyway. But when you’re dealing with people, you know, that are unlawfully killed it’s even more heartbreaking. You know, some of the families are blissfully unaware, some of the families are very aware, and no one’s listening to them. You know, since going public, I’ve had a number of a large number of people reach out to me. People from within the the NHS environment, who have whistleblown to me, victims who have recounted their story. And I’ve also been in the unique position of being in the hospital as a COVID patient to see things firsthand. And you know, as Ill as I was I looked at that as an opportunity to get as much information and, you know, gather as much evidence as I could while I was in there, and it was very productive I can tell you.

So 2020 came and went, and I kind of locally where I am, they announced they were going to begin vaccinating on the 6th of January 2021. And I kind of had an idea then, in fact, I mentioned to a number of people, I suspected the death rate would finally soar, because it hadn’t, in the moment they put needles in arms, and it did, it went through the roof. I would say around 300 percent, the normal death rate from the point they put needles in arms. It was horrific. It was horrific. That was the only time during the period, this whole two year period, that I would call that a pandemic death rate as an undertaker. And that lasted more or less 12 weeks before, it’s almost like somebody stopped, they’ve run out of that batch, you know, and it kind of stopped altogether and it went very, very quiet. And then what we see now is we’re seeing a number of people coming through who are dying from thrombosis, that being aneurysm, stroke, or heart attack. And more troubling, these are people of all ages. So the youngest that I’ve looked after is 23, 28, 32, 33 people that just don’t usually die from thrombosis, you know, and great numbers of them large numbers. In fact, one of the calls, there’s a few key calls that I’ve taken from people who have reached out to me, one of them was a mortuary manager called Nick, who works in a large hospital. He’s been there nearly 30 years, he was due to lose his job in April because they were blackmailing people, you know, if they don’t say the jab, no job. Hopefully he’s had that rescinded now, because they’ve backtracked. They don’t want 80,000 key witnesses, do they. And he said to me, he collates the numbers. Now I have to be careful because of GDPR these laws they passed recently, there’s only so much info I can give, but as a mortuary manager he collates this information. And he told me he’s seen a 600 percent increase this year in thrombosis deaths exclusively in jab recipients. Now, that would very much collate with what I’ve seen. I’ve seen more thrombosis deaths this year. And I mean, when I worked for a big player, I worked for Co-operative funeralcare, which has a 60 percent market share in the UK of the funeral industry, very big player, I rarely ever saw people in their 20s you know, coming into our care, even with those I’ve seen more this year than I’ve ever seen. And they’ve all been sudden deaths. And you know, you kind of cast your mind to look at the number of footballers, superfit sportsman that have suddenly dropped down dead on national TV from heart problems, you know, it’s unprecedented and nobody seems to want to acknowledge that.

So I was so concerned, I actually wrote to the Chief Coroner of England, because my job as a funeral director is to raise concerns if I have concerns about a death, or deaths. as such. I cc’d in many of the people, some of them in this room, Dolores included, and kind of said, look, I know you’re aware of these deaths, this large increase in thrombosis deaths, what’s happening. I never got any reply. I left it three or four weeks, and then emailed again and finally got a reply from the secretary that said, we follow government policy. So they are correctly diagnosing these deaths as thrombosis deaths, and quite often these people come in and they’re cut from the ankle to the hip, where they’ve been looking for the thrombosis down the femoral artery, and places like that, I assume.

But they’re not going any further than that to actually link it to a jab they had perhaps two weeks before, or even in one case I had a 28 year old who died 90 minutes after being vaccinated in the same hospital bed she was in. And her parents are obviously furious. And nobody wants to know, you know, they’ve said, well it’s a thrombosis death? You know, is it unheard of? No, but is it as common as it is happening, and is it just after a gene therapy injection? No, it is. So the story with this girl is and I can tell you her family won’t mind me telling you. She was admitted into hospital for a minor procedure. They coerced her in there by telling her she was at great risk because there were COVID patients in there. And she reluctantly took a vaccine and died 90 minutes later in the hospital bed from thrombosis. You know, so it’s quite obvious what’s killed that young girl and indeed she came in cut from ankle to hip where they’ve been searching for these thrombosis. So just before Christmas of 2022 just before this Christmas, I was taken ill. I had a cold it kind of developed. My missus had it as well. We both went to bed, you know, because we felt that unwell, and I started getting a bit breathless. So I had an ambulance turn up, it consisted of three staff members, two big guys who were really nice, and a woman who began berating me almost instantly saying how selfish I was. And this is a story that I’ve heard from multiple people where they do this, they start berating you for your choices, medically. Anyway, they took me to a hospital, I went to triage initially, and they did three lateral flow tests there and then. They were all negative. I was then transferred onto one of the wards where that they in the morning, this was early hours of the morning, in the morning I had a consultant come round and he sat on the bed and he said, right we’re going to start you’re on Remdesivir. And I kind of said,tThank you,but no thank you. And he woah woah, why, you know, and I kind of said, well because let’s have a look at the clinical reasoning behind that then, and he stomped off. He didn’t even want to engage with me on any level. He knew what I was talking about.

I had a couple of staff members in there come over to me and quietly thanked me for what I was doing. You know, thatt’s not exchanging pleasantries, these people know what’s going on. That afternoon, I had a young lady approach my bedside, she sat on the edge of the bed, she offered me, she said, I’m whatever her name was from Oxford University. Okay, so this is unusual, you know, this is not normal practice in a hospital. So she said, I’m here to offer you a couple of trial drugs, we’re trying to save lives, I feel you might die without them. She told me that, and one of them was Baricitinib, and the other one was Tocilizumab. So again, I took the names of these drugs. And I said, well, let’s just have have a think about this. Can you give me the spellings and, you know, a basic Google search for side effects tells you what you need to know. And I kind of said, why would you consider giving this to someone with respiratory problems? You know, and she again, couldn’t look me in the eye was looking everywhere but at me, and was like a girl and child who’d been caught with her hand in a biscuit tin, you know. She left the bedside [and] said, well, I’ll come back tomorrow then, you know. And the two guys that were opposite me were COVID patients had both accepted these treatments. And I lay awake all night listening to these guys on CPAP, high pressure ventilation, coughing and spluttering and every now and again, the nurse would come out and feed one of them morphine, you know, which again I felt was really, really wrong. You know, I’m an undertaker. I’m not a doctor. But I’m sensible enough and educated enough to know that this is not treatment conducive to recovery. And I heard these guys coughing and spluttering and dying, you know, and it became apparent, then, you know that, I knew I had to get out because they knew who I was, you know, and for them to offer me three of the most toxic drugs ever, when my stats are reading 78 percent, you know. I’d been on a couple of days of antibiotics and steroids and I’d recovered enough where I kind of tried to discharge myself. And there ensued a three hour battle, where they wouldn’t let me out, you know. They kind of, they even called security on me and said that they would have me arrested as a threat to public health. And, you know, it was ridiculous three hours of arguing. And in the end, they kind of knew they never had a leg to stand on, and I was gonna be persistent. They rang my wife, a guy called, I’ve got his name and a recording of the conversation. And he was a respiratory consultant, and he told my wife, John will die if he leaves the ward, in minutes, you know in an attempt to keep me in there and finish me off. I know that’s what it was. I’m not stupid. So it was really chilling, it was really chilling.

And when I left the hospital, actually I was very fortunate and I’ve made some really good friends. I was gonna say contacts, but they’re more than that now, friends, you know, and they came to the hospital, Mark Sexton came, and a guy called Dr. Chan. And they saved me, you know, they helped facilitate me being released from custody, you know, which is really the reality of what it was. And you know, I didn’t need oxygen, they were giving me oxygen I didn’t need, they were desperately trying to get me to go on CPAP even in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, they were trying to ventilate me to persuade me ventilation was the way forward when I got to hospital and I kind of said no, no, and, you know, I actually felt traumatised, because I knew what was going on. And there’s nothing worse than going into hospital, and you’re unwell and I was unwell, and there are people in there that you’re supposed to be able to trust who are trying to kill you. You know, and that’s the reality of what it was, and I’ve got a really good friend whose mum I looked after, who went through exactly the same experience almost word for word where, you know, they were abusive in the ambulance, she had a negative test there, they were then trying to coerce her into taking the same drugs, and she eventually released herself, and they’re pretty quick to discharge you when they realise you’re not going to take these drugs, you know. But with me, they tried to hold on to me. They were actually quite intimidating and aggressive and it’s only for the fact that I’m actually quite a strong character, and I’m well well up on what these drugs do, and you know what the aim is, that I survived to be honest with you, because like I say I watched these two guys opposite me dying, who trusted them [the NHS]. And yeah, it was chilling, the whole thing was awful to be honest with you, and I’ve certainly no desire to ever go back in there again, I can tell you I’d rather die at home I think. And that’s kind of where we are.

So I’ve been back at work about four weeks now. And I’ve pretty much recovered quite well you know, the advocates that I had, or that I have have kind of guided me with Ivvermectin and the various tablets. To be honest with you, one of the hardest things to cope with was the brain fog. And so even this Dr. Chan did a spreadsheet for me with what I should take when, and my missus put it all in little pots for morning, noon and night. And I’ve been looked after I’m very fortunate. And I kind of, when I left the hospital, I had survivor’s guilt because it’s very much like leaving a burning house, you know there are people still in there who are going to die and I couldn’t do anything for them. And it’s gonna haunt me forever, that I couldn’t save them, you know? And that’s kind of where I am.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:36:46
It sounds like a horror movie what you’re describing, but it’s reality.

John O’Looney 3:36:51
It was a horror movie. It was awful. I definitely. I mean, I’m quite strong willed. But I do feel that it did affect me mentally, the stress of it and I stayed awake 72 hours, I was too frightened to go to sleep just in case one of them put something in me, you know. You’ll never understand unless you’re in that position and you’re isolated. And they won’t let any family in, or advocates to support you. And then I had to fight for three hours gasping for breath to get out knowing that if I didn’t I would probably die. Yeah, it was awful. It was bloody awful.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:37:30
My God. From what you’ve seen, the conclusion that you can draw after hearing all his testimony, is it that you too believe that this is intentional mass murder that’s being committed?

John O’Looney 3:37:52
100 percent definitely. Not at staff level, some of the staff and I looked at it as an opportunity while I was in there to gather evidence. So some of the staff have detached themselves. Other staff are aware of what’s going on and they bought into it thinking it’s right because they’re doing what they’re told to do. Other staff are broken. I mean, I’ve spoke to nurses, who tell me they go into work to try and minimise the damage being done by the clinical decision’s being made. They’ve cried down a phone. Do you know I’ve spoken to one girl in particular a girl called Michelle. She’d done 30 years as a nurse, really, really eloquent. It was [a] chilling testimony. I listened to her for about 40 minutes in a phone call she made to me just before I was taken ill and she said what they were doing, they were taking people into hospital, giving them a chest X ray in the bed with a mobile machine they take around, and I actually got x rayed myself by this machine. So I kind of know what she means. And on the basis of that x ray, they were putting them on palliative care. They weren’t even doing any tests at all. And you know, and in some cases, locking them in a side room. You kno wwhen you talk about someone who’s geriatric, you know, quite elderly, they’ve got no hope of surviving that, you know, she said she’s gonna be forever haunted by an old man banging on the door of his side room, which was locked, begging for a cup of tea that she was unable to give him because the doctors wouldn’t let, you know, it was nil by mouth and this guy just basically starved to death. And this, I’ve had countless people, it’s not just one nurse, dozens of people have reached out to me because I’m obviously quite well known [and] they’ve seen me as a focal point to reach out to and it’s heartbreaking. Some of the stories you hear, some of the stories I’ve been told will live with me forever.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:39:49
Mr O’Looney, thank you for your evidence, sir. You’ve mentioned something quite interesting where you’ve made in a sense, a separation and distinguished between there is staff that knows exactly as to what’s going on?

John O’Looney 3:40:08
Yes

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:40:08
They are merely basically just following orders.

John O’Looney 3:40:11
Yes.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:40:11
And then you’ve mentioned there is staff that knows what is going on. And it is those individuals in a sense that basically push us this narrative. So in the first group, it is oh, well, this is what I need to do. I know it is wrong, but I just have to do it. I don’t have a choice.

John O’Looney 3:40:30
Yes.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:40:30
So the question I want to pose to you, sir, seeing that we are talking about natural law, and in terms of a reference substantive law for this Grand Jury, it all comes down to that each and every one of us, each and every human being can differentiate between right and wrong. Will you then not say that the only reason why we as humanity are actually so caught up in this eugenic trend, it’s because we have staff members who know it is wrong, but they basically just go along. Will you actually agree with that statement? Is it then not now time for those staff members to actually say, you know what, I know it is wrong, I am not going to continue to do what I know it is wrong because like if they can get to that point, we will be able as humanity to come up against these forces that actually want to kill humanity. Don’t you think it is now time and I want to put you in reference as well also when it came to the Nuremberg trials, and one of the excuses used was that I was just following orders. So is it now not time for those specific staff members in whatever hospital in the world to say that it is time where we have to actually say, No, this is where we draw the line?

John O’Looney 3:41:55
100 percent, and I think it’s interesting you mentioned that because I think many of them, many 80 to 100,000 UK staff have told us that inadvertently, because they’re on the very forefront of this deadly pandemic, and yet they’d rather throw away their careers than take the protection. Doesn’t that just really coincide with what you’ve just said? They’ve told us without saying it. You know, they’d rather lose their jobs than take the protection because they see firsthand what it’s doing to the people that are dying in front of them. You know, why would you not want to take that protection? 80,000 NHS staff would have rather thrown away their career to the point where the government backtracked, because they knew they’d have 80,000 witnesses, we haven’t got a zoom room big enough.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:42:43
So what do you think then needs to happen, and I completely understand that you are now talking about 80 to 100,000 that says, no, we are prepared to basically , and they are actually the ones that is on the right side of history. And then we have the ones that you’ve actually mentioned, they know it is wrong, but they continue to do what they are doing. What needs to be, what needs to happen to those ones?

John O’Looney 3:43:07
I think accountability, once you start making people accountable and they’re put into the courts, some of them will break and start pointing fingers. Because that’s human nature, and that’s what people do, isn’t it? And perhaps very much in the same [when] a history repeats itself, very much like the Nuremberg trials, their only defence will be I did what I was told to do. That’s the reality, you know. Times change, people don’t.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:43:37
Thank you very much. Thank you.

John O’Looney 3:43:38
You’re most welcome, and thank you all as well. I feel privileged to be amongst you.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:43:43
Thank you, John. This was [a] very powerful testimony. Thank you. It will move a lot of people. It will turn them in the right direction, I’m sure.

John O’Looney 3:43:55
Well to be honest with you, my testimony is probably the most powerful evidence I have to offer.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:44:02
You can’t do any better than that.

John O’Looney 3:44:04
Amen.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:44:05
Thank you.

John O’Looney 3:44:07
God bless you all. I’m gonna have to go cos I’ve got commitments. Thank you, everyone. And God bless you all. I’m sure we will win. Let’s see if we can get justice. God bless.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:44:18
We will.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 3:44:18
Thank you very much, sir.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:44:19
Thank you very much. Now for the good news. There is good news in this. Dr. Shankara Chetty will tell us about this because as we have learned, this is an illusion. We’re not dealing with a corona pandemic, but we’re dealing with a PCR test pandemic. And there are ways of treating this virus, which as the numbers tell us is no more dangerous than the common flu. Dr. Chetty, what good news can you tell us?

Dr Shankara Chetty 3:44:52
Thank you, Reiner, and thank you to all my colleagues on this platform. This has been a two year heartwrenching journey, and I think that we’re doing very important work.

I think that an understanding of what I’ve been through in this two years will bring understanding to what the people before me had presented, and understanding to what actually has transpired. And so I think just a narration of my journey and my understanding of this pandemic, can lend a lot to what we are trying to achieve. So for a start, I’d like to start with what transpired before COVID came to South Africa in the first place. I have a background in genetics, in advanced biology, in microbiology, and in biochemistry, besides my general practitioner medical work, and so I’m a very suspicious doctor, I investigate everything. And I make sure that I fall back on the knowledge I’ve gained in those years of tertiary education, and don’t really believe things too easily. So before this pandemic came to South Africa, we were told that there was a virus in Wuhan, and it had spread from person to person. It was a respiratory virus seemed to be highly infectious. And of course, with the new virus, we had no understanding of how it killed, how it caused severe illness and death. But we were told it’s highly contagious, and it could be the start of a new pandemic. The first thing that I found very strange was that the Chinese cordoned off Wuhan and the virus never spread to any other city in their country. Yet their international borders were left open and it’s spread around the globe.

So that was the first thing I found very suspicious, we are dealing with a highly contagious virus, why wasn’t it completely contained? And of course, we weren’t getting very much information from China, which is well what I expected. Now, as a doctor I needed to plan when this virus got to my country, I needed to be ready for it. The first thing I noticed that was problematic was this PCR test. Now they had developed a PCR test to test for the virus itself. Now with my scientific background, I’m well aware that a PCR test is never used as a diagnostic tool. And so I wondered why this became a norm. As well, we started getting reports of asymptomatic spread, never before heard in medical science. So there were these unusual things coming out. And of course, a PCR test has absolutely no bearing on infectiousness, as the previous people that submitted have alluded to, a PCR test just tests fragments of a virus, it does not test for an infectious complete agent, and it does not tell whether someone is actually infected, or infectious. The only thing that tells you that a virus exists is a culture, a cell culture of the virus that proves that the virus can grow, replicate and spread. So I looked at this PCR test with a little bit of suspicion. And then this PCR test was being used to gauge or to determine public health measures. And the public health measures were sanitation. And of course, we were getting reports that this virus was living on surfaces for five days and 10 days and 15 days on different kinds of materials and that made no sense at all. Viruses do not live that period of time, they require a host to replicate and spread. And there is no there is absolutely no scientific evidence of viruses living on any surfaces for that length of time. So I started to view this kind of information with a lot of suspicion. Of course masking came in too and was controversial as well. As a doctor, I know that the masking has a limitation, and the science of it tells you that the mask will never prevent you from getting a respiratory virus. It’s like putting a fence around your house and thinking you protected from mosquitoes. The science doesn’t add up. So I started looking at all this evidence. And then of course, they looked at isolation measures. And they wanted people to be isolated for 14 days. So I looked at that and I thought well, you want people to be isolated for 14 days, but you haven’t really established how long the viral illness actually persists for. It’s an arbitrary measure 14 days. So well, I needed to understand why that came to be 14 days of all that we could choose. So I had these concerns.

As well with my history in genetics, I was aware of the gain of function research being done at the time. I was aware of virology and of course, genetic warfare, manipulation of viruses. I was aware of the research being done in the Wuhan lab with coronaviruses and around spike protein well before COVID actually came to be. So I had this background knowledge that we’re dealing with the Coronavirus, and it seems very strange and suspicious that now we have a pandemic, following research, ongoing research into coronaviruses. So I had a healthy suspicion that this was a lab leak. And of course, taking that a little further, it might have been an engineered virus. So this was something that I had at the back of my mind from the start of this pandemic. And, of course, the unusual things, the PCR test, the asymptomatic spread, the sanitation measures, lockdowns, isolation, all that kind of thing have made no scientific sense to me. Now, I was faced with a population that were terrified, because they were told not to seek medical attention. They were told to stay away from the doctor. And we, as doctors were told not to treat, there’s no treatment for this, and we should just do telemedicine. And if a patient deteriorated, refer them to [a] hospital. I’m not the kind of person to capitulate that easily. So with the knowledge that I had I decided that I’m going to take this on. We needed information about this illness, and without that information about the pathology of this illness we will never solve the problem. Now I knew once the virus got to Italy, that I would get some information about its symptoms. And the things that came out that were unusual, that would allow me to diagnose this without having to use a PCR test, because as doctors we should diagnose illnesses symptomatically. And so the symptoms that are unique to any illness will give you an indication that you’re dealing with that kind of illness. And the symptoms that I found unusual were the loss of smell and taste, which doesn’t routinely occur with respiratory viruses. And of course, the breathlessness that people were presenting with. And this breathlessness was a very sudden onset [and] required ventilation very quickly, so the dyspnea and the loss of smell and taste became my diagnostic tool to confirm whether a patient actually had a coronavirus infection, or not. And I watched. I needed to get myself a toolbox in preparation for this.

So when I looked at this, we are dealing with a respiratory virus, the first drug that came to mind was Hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine or Plasmoquine is well known. It’s been used for decades, and it has broad antiviral effect. So if I had to look at something that will curtail the spread of a virus, I would look at that as my mainstay treatment. Now, Hydroxychloroquine has been used for many other illnesses like the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the wrist, so I knew that I’m dealing with a very safe drug that I could ethically give to my patients and assess its efficacy. So I decided on getting stock of Hydroxychloroquine. But very quickly, I noticed that I think it was the Lancet that published an article about the toxicity of Hydroxychloroquine and it’s heart failure cardiac manifestations, and I thought this is nonsense. I’ve been treating patients with Hydroxychloroquine for many years, and in higher doses in some, and I’ve never had a side effect with it. So I’m a doctor that tends to use medication from Noah’s Ark, because I trust the long term efficacy and safety of those medications. So I bought up as much stock of Hydroxychloroquine as I could, and subsequently two days after I did that, the government chair in South Africa pulled it from the shelves. So luckily, I had stock of it and I had prepared for my patients.

Patients came to see me very, very distraught that [I] might close and I might not be available to them, but I reassured all of them that I would brave this out. And I would make sure that I examined every one of them. And I needed to understand what we [are] actually dealing with. So when the first case of coronavirus was reported in South Africa, I decided that I will fall back on my education. I moved out of my home into isolation to protect my family, my home and my practice are on the same premises. I pitched a tent, a proper clinic tent outside my practice in the parking lot because I trust ventilation and sunlight as the best ways to protect myself from this virus. I knew that if I sanitise my hands and kept my hands away from my face, I’d be reasonably well protected, and then I could see every patient. And that was my initial plan for the pandemic.

But with the controversy around Hydroxychloroquine with the PCR test being used as a diagnosis tool with the word that this is symptomatic spread, I had a very healthy suspicion for what I was being told. And the so called experts didn’t seem to question this. There was no proof of all this, yet we have the government experts punting this narrative. So I started to see patients. From the first patient that walked into my practice, I made sure I examined the two things that I wanted to understand, was one, the symptomatology, and of course every patient that came in with a sudden loss of smell and taste, which is unusual, I suspected had a coronavirus infection. So I didn’t want to do this PCR test. I didn’t want to rely on this PCR test. I knew it was going to skew the numbers from the start, and I could see the worldwide pandemonium and fear that was being created. So when patients came to see me, I started to examine symptoms and those that had loss of smell and taste I assumed were coronavirus positive. I took the opportunity to test a few and only those that had loss of smell and taste, and I found them to be positive. So I had confirmed that a loss of smell and taste was a symptom of coronavirus infection. And so I didn’t feel the need to test every patient. If a family member had loss of smell and taste, and I tested him and he was positive and the rest of the family started any illness at around the same time and presented with the same kind of symptoms, I could safely assume that they had picked up the same infection and would treat them in very much the same way.

Now as a doctor, we are expected to come to a diagnosis with examining our patient. I was never taught to use testing as a diagnostic tool. Testing is only used if I have some confusion in my clinical diagnosis. And it is used to clarify, it is never used as a diagnostic tool. So I do not test patients to tell me what’s wrong with them. That’s bad medical practice. We don’t go through years of training in clinical practice to use a swab to tell me what’s wrong with the patient. So I started to see all these patients with COVID infections. The second thing that I was very interested in was the breathlessness. This was the thing that was causing people to die. But the first few patients that came in to see me had a common flu, a respiratory infection that looks like every other respiratory infection I’d seen. They had the body aches and pains and the fever and a bit of a sore throat and of course the loss of smell and taste as the unusual symptoms that drew my attention to it being a coronavirus infection. And so I advised every patient that came in to see me that if they had developed breathlessness in any way or form, I would like them to report back to me immediately, because I needed to understand exactly where this breathlessness came from, and exactly why patients were ending up in hospital. Yes, we knew in hospital that patients were breathless, the oxygen saturations were decreasing, they were being put onto ventilators. And from the information from Italy, we knew that the progression of this breathlessness could be very variable. Some patients had mild breathlessness that didn’t progress and seemed to resolve. Some patients had breathlessness that was a little more severe and lasted a very long time. And then of course there were those that developed breathlessness very suddenly, progressed very quickly, and within a day or two ended up on a ventilator.

And so I noticed that there’s a strange change or difference in the speed of the progression of this breathlessness which I needed to understand, and of course understand how we got to that point in the first place. So within the first I’d say 20 patients that I’d seen, I got the first breathless patient come in, and of course by educating my patients, explaining to them the gravity of what we were seeing, and of course there was enough fear mongering in the world to make sure they presented back to me timelessly, every patient that became breathless came back to me exactly on the day they noticed something’s wrong. And I found a few things very strange in this small subset of patients that came back to me breathless. Remember, majority of patients recovered uneventfully like a normal respiratory infection. They had very few chest symptoms. Most was just a sore throat that resolved in two or three days then they had absolutely no the (inaudible). So when this happened, and patients came back to me breathless, I needed to examine them and understand

PART 2

Dr Shankara Chetty
exactly what was happening. Now I noticed a few very strange things. Quite a few of these patients that presented back to me, were perfectly fine the day before the breathlessness started. They have thought that they had completely recovered from the illness. There were patients that had a sore throat for a day, recovered from that sore throat, spent the rest of the week perfectly fine, engaged in sporting activities, and then developed breathlessness suddenly. So this breathlessness was a very sudden onset, and it seemed to always occur exactly one week after the first symptom. So when a patient came to me on a Monday, I questioned them, and if the sore throat started on that Monday, I documented that as the onset of symptoms. Now, we know that with viral infections, there are some viruses that run a very distinct course. They replicate for a certain number of days, your immunity kicks in, and then you eliminate that virus. So like chickenpox, and measles and those kinds of viruses, they run a specific course, they last for a specific period of time. So when patients came back, and I noticed it was always on the 8th day, exactly one week after the onset of symptoms, I thought, well I’m dealing with a virus that has this timeframe to it. It exactly eight days later starts to do something else. There’s a new symptom presenting here, and it’s not in every patient. It’s in a very small subset of patients.

Dr Shankara Chetty
And of course, I was seeing what I was told was happening in Italy. Some patients presented to me with a mild onset breathlessness on the eighth day, and some more moderate and some very severe. Now part of my toolbox was Hydroxychloroquine, and I reserved it for those patients in that first days that had what I thought was the higher viral load. So those that had severe body aches and pains and high fevers I would give Hydroxychloroquine to, and I saw within a day or two that I’ve managed to break their fever and get them on the way to recovery. Now, every single patient that I have seen in that first phase showed signs of recovery by about the fifth or sixth day. Some within a day or two. But a majority, by the fifth or sixth day had signs of improvement, had their appetite back, were feeling a lot better. But that did not in any way influence what might transpire on that eighth day. So when I noticed this nuance that people were coming back on this vital eighth day with new symptoms, I started to educate my community about this strange nuance I was seeing. So every patient that came to see me got interrogated. I interrogated very carefully the day they noticed that they were feeling unwell. I used that day to predict when their eighth day would be and I would warn them of any new symptoms developing on that eighth day, so that they would come back to me timely.

Dr Shankara Chetty
The second thing I did was, I knew from Italy that we’re dealing with a steroid response appearance. And as a doctor, we know that we shouldn’t be using steroids in an infection, it must be used very cautiously, it will suppress your immunity and prevent you developing a robust immune response to an infection. And if you suppress immunity, you run the risk of allowing that infection to run rampant unchecked. So I needed to choose a specific point in this illness where steroids would become pertinent to apply. And of course, with the eighth day, that was very obvious that a deterioration occurred on that eighth day, and that would be the point where a steroid would become appropriate. And of course, with patient showing signs of recovery before, I was pretty confident that our immunity had somehow managed to get ahold of this illness and get it into check. So I started patients promptly on steroids. Those that returned on the eighth day with breathlessness were started on a course of steroid, and by the third or fourth day of steroids, they all showed good signs of recovery. Now as a doctor, what tells me that something works is speed to recovery. Now I don’t give you a paracetamol tablet for a headache and when it takes five days to go away assume that the paracetamol worked. Speed to recovery gives me an indication of the efficacy of my treatment, and the efficacy of my treatment and the speed to recovery gives me an indication of the underlying mechanism of this disease. So if I’m treating the wrong thing, I won’t have the speed to recovery.

Dr Shankara Chetty
So looking at the patients that I treated from the first four or five that presented with this breathlessness and were put onto steroids. And I noticed this difference in the presentation. That means the speed at which the second phase started. I looked at my understanding of pathology, and tried to understand why we were getting this variability. The first part of the illness had no relation to the second. Whether you were critically ill in the first five days made no difference as to whether you would deteriorate again on the eighth, because I’ve had patients critically ill in the first five days, recovered, and had no sequela. And I’ve had patients with a very mild illness got over it, and on the eighth day presented with very severe illness. So I knew I’m dealing with a nonlinear illness, that was by phasic, and the two phases had no correlation between them. So I was dealing with two pathologies. So to understand the second pathology, I had patients that were diabetic, hypertensive, a lot of comorbidities, and never had the second phase of this illness. And I had patients that were absolutely fit with no comorbidities and had the second phase of this illness. So it didn’t seem to be related to any health predisposition. So when you look at pathology, you got to try and understand what you’re dealing, with the facts that are in front of you, and what makes sense. And the only thing that made sense to me was that these people on the eighth day, were having some sort of allergic reaction to something. And we know with allergic reactions that a majority of people are not allergic to certain things and will have no reaction, like a bee sting, and some will be mildly allergic, and some moderately allergic, and some severely allergic. And so the difference in speed of presentation, and the difference in severity. Of course, if you might be allergic to a bee sting, you will get a bit of an itch on the sting, and within a few days it would be self limiting and seem to sort itself out. However, if you were more moderately allergic, that bee sting might cause a rash throughout your body, and if I do not treat it it will take a long time for that rash to subside, though it may never end up life threatening. And then of course, if you’re very allergic to a bee sting and I don’t treat you, within a day or two you’re gonna end up with severe organ damage and end up in ICU and probably die from that.

Dr Shankara Chetty
So I thought, well if I’m dealing with this kind of pathology, a type one mediated hypersensitivity reaction, then a therapeutic trial is in order. Now a therapeutic trial is something every doctor does with almost every patient. When a patient comes to see me, I have an inclination of a diagnosis. And then I give them some medication, which dependent on that diagnosis which is a therapeutic trial, and if that medication that I give them shows benefit and they improve, then it confirms my diagnosis, and I don’t need to do anything further. I don’t need to go test them to prove I was correct. They recover completely. So my understanding that I’m dealing with a type one hypersensitivity reaction drove me to improve and fine tune the toolbox that I was using. At that point in time, it was just Hydroxychloroquine symptomatic treatment, and of course a steroid from day eight. So the sixth patient that came in to see me was a 40 year old female who had developed breathlessness on that very day, who was like a lot of the others perfectly fine the day before. It was actually her eighth day of illness, and her saturations had dropped to 80 percent in that one day. Yesterday, she was fine. Now she had been diabetic, hypertensive, and obese, I was a bit concerned. But I knew I had to start the steroid, but I’m dealing with a critically ill patient. So I thought, well if this is an allergic reaction, then a few other drugs become pertinent and I need to add them and test them and watch the speed to recovery. So the first thing I added to to her treatment was Promethazine. Now Promethazine is a drug an anti histamine, and old generation anti histamine that is used to treat severe allergic reactions. It is an essential drug World Health Organisation approved that every doctor should have in his emergency kit. So when a patient comes in with a bee sting, a steroid and Promethazine are the drugs of choice, so I added a dose of Promethazine to her treatment. To be cautious I gave her a kiddies dose of 10 milligramme. Usually we use 25 milligrammes three times a day in adults to four times a day, I gave her a 10 milligramme tablet and said take it three times a day. It was just for one day, that particular day that she came in, and I told my staff to please contact her tomorrow and look at speed to recovery. Has it made a difference to her improvement. And the very next day when we contacted her, she was busy washing the dishes and she was perfectly fine. The breathlessness had gone completely, but I had given her a single dose and I expected a rebound. So I advised her to please be cautious because I would expect the breathlessness to resurface if this was an allergy, and we would have to suppress this for a little while. And of course the very next day she was breathless again. And I reinstituted the anti histamine, and she recovered promptly. So it was at that point that I realised that I’m dealing with a severe allergic trigger. And I added now with an allergic reaction, you get the release of certain chemical mediators, histamine, leukotrienes prostaglandins and prostor cyclins and platelet activating factor.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Now the modality when you treat an allergic reaction is to use a high enough dose of steroid to turn off this inappropriate immune tap that has been turned on. The second thing you do is mop up all the mediators that have spilled already. And this is where timeliness is important. The longer you leave it, the more the mediators the more damage, and to mop up those mediators histamine is addressed by antihistamines leukotrienes by Montelukast, platelet activating by either an anticoagulant or aspirin, prostaglandins and prostor cyclamens are dual kind of mediators that are beneficial, and so don’t actually need to be addressed. So I added Montelukast and aspirin to my protocol very early on. And that has been the modality of my treatment, I knew about the inflammation, the cytokine storm, the thrombotic events that were seen in patients. However, I was of the opinion that this was a hypersensitivity trigger by some sort of viral debris on the eighth day, and that hypersensitivity trigger, left unchecked, would lead to hyper inflammation, like we saw in hospital settings. And if that hyper inflammation leading to a cytokine storm was not addressed appropriately, it would lead to thrombosis and so all the clots. And that has been my modality of treatment through the pandemic.

Dr Shankara Chetty
The first thing with this kind of treatment that I found very strange was that the World Health Organisation had put out this recommendation that we should isolate patients for 14 days, that I found to be the most disastrous advice you could give anyone, especially if they were going to have a severe allergic reaction on the eighth day that couldn’t be predicted. They needed to be told about this. And like a bee sting if you had a bee sting and came to me on the eighth day, and I said, Well, there’s nothing I can do about this. You wait at home and see what happens, by the time you realise that you’re critically ill, you will have multi system organ damage. And then you would present yourself to hospital. And when you presented yourself to hospital, the doctor in hospital is unaware you were stung with the bee. And he would have absolutely no idea where to start treating you, he would just be trying to keep you alive. And so I had remarkable recoveries from the start, I’ve had patients present to me with saturations of 70 percent, and on the first dose of treatment had that 70 percent improved to 85 percent within an hour, and an hour and a half. There is no other medication, besides the anti histamine that has shown that speed to recovery. And because I’ve managed to reverse the hypoxia so timelessly in these patients, I didn’t have the need for oxygen in my practice. Now, I’m well aware of the so called experts and peers that are out there dictating what we should do. And it’s the reason I’ve been a controversial doctor all my life. I don’t tend to follow the rules, I tend to follow the science, and that makes me controversial. My staff noticed these remarkable improvements. They were well well aware of the rural population dying at home, and the mortality and morbidity of not getting treatment. We were also well aware of the patients dying in hospital. I was also well aware that Remdesivir was being punted, I knew that Remdesivir was toxic. I knew that it caused kidney failure, it caused cardiac issues. And I saw those things like the presenters before me alluded to. None of my patients got into any kidney problems. None of my patients got into any cardiac problems. And of course on clinical examination of these patients, it was not to Covid pneumonia I was dealing with. It was not progressive. Patients were perfectly fine the day before. When they came to me breathless, they were not acutely ill. They were tired they were breathless, but from afar they were perfectly fine. And when I examined them clinically, they had no repetitions. They had none of the symptoms that you would associate with the pneumonia, but they did have breathlessness. So I was under the impression that I am dealing with a hypersensitivity trigger on the eighth day in a subset of patients that are allergic to something in this virus. And that hypersensitivity was causing a hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which would develop at different speeds, depending on your allergic propensity to the allergen. And so I treated it as such.

Dr Shankara Chetty
And so my staff spoke to me about writing an article and giving this out to other doctors. Now, understanding that I had the suspicion from the start that we’re dealing with a lab made virus, and of course we were told that there’s a bad Coronavirus, that jumps species to human beings. Now, the one thing that would change on a virus that would make a jump species to a different host is its receptor. And spike protein being the receptor on this virus, spike protein was on my radar from the start as the possible allergen because it’s new. We’ve been exposed to Coronavirus previously, and we’ve never seen this kind of pathology allergy. And so when you expose to a new environment, there might be something that you are never exposed to in that new environment that you might be allergic to. So I was suspicious that spike protein free spike protein was the trigger on eighth day causing these problems. So I published this article, hoping to educate doctors. Well I wrote the article hoping to educate doctors and patients and use this knowledge that I have found to save lives. And that is where the trouble started. I shared the article with all the hospitals in my area before it was published. I made sure that every person that could have some impact on this pandemic was aware of what I had discovered. The hospitals were using antivirals. I found that absolutely illogical. Now, I was of the opinion that the virus was gone by the fifth or sixth day. And so I started looking at studies around the world. And there are no studies around the world that have managed to culture this virus past the 7th day. Yes, the PCR test remained positive for a month in some patients. But that’s no indication of a live virus. So I chose carefully what to believe. So I looked at the data and I looked at culture results. And there were a lot of results showing culture positivity in the first seven days. And that tied into what I saw people had a viral infection. But post seven days, there were very few, if any, culture positive results in hospitalised patients. So I knew that the virus had left. And that confirmed clearly to me that we were dealing with a separate pathology post eighth day.

Dr Shankara Chetty
So I wrote this article and I shared it freely with our Minister of healthcare in South Africa, with the president of my country, with all the stakeholders that I could think of, with every doctor I knew, but I was very cautious cos I was well aware with the controversy around Hydroxychloroquine with the misinformation that was given to me about sanitation, isolation, PCR testing, masking, asymptomatic spread that there was a bigger plan at play. So I was very cautious about getting involved in the governmental regulatory structures. I didn’t want what I had found to be suppressed. So I thought, well I’ll share it freely, but I’ll share it amongst doctors and patients. And if I could teach doctors to treat COVID and make patients understand when to present, then I don’t need anyone’s permission to save lives. And so that was what I did. I passed it on to every journal I could think of to see who would be willing to publish it. The response from every journal Nature, it was almost every journal in the world. My wife helped me with that submitted to every journal. The response I got from journals was either we need copyrights to your work, or we only publish from our subscribers. And I’m not a subscriber to all the medical journals. So I thought very strange as the custodians of knowledge as journals claimed to be you cherry pick where you take that knowledge from. So immediately, I knew that I’m dealing with some sort of collusion, medical collusion. After all, I had found something that could save us from this pandemic. And no one seemed to want to listen.

Dr Shankara Chetty
I also shared it with my professor and principal at the University I studied at in India, and my colleagues on that group, and I had an immediate response from them. My principal wrote back to me immediately thanking me for my work and so did my colleagues. And so India knew about my discovery very early on in the pandemic. They understood my work with Hydroxychloroquine. They understood the hypersensitivity trigger. I had also tried ivermectin, the reason I used ivermectin was because I was dealing with pulmonary hypersensitivity and ivermectin is used to clear eosinophils from the lungs. And that was the rationale behind me trying it. And it worked. I mentioned that to my colleagues in India and ivermectin became a thing there in the first wave. And so India was the only country that held my hand through the first wave of this pandemic. I was completely ignored by the rest. Then in August that year, Modern Medicine, an academic journal here in South Africa contacted me to publish my article, I had insisted that it gets published unabridged and unedited, because it had some things in there that would be of great impact and influence on the pandemic, seeing that we were dealing with a hypersensitivity reaction that had some grave consequences and some implications for how we manage the pandemic. One, in the first wave, we saw people over 55 dying. Now remember all the death in this pandemic comes from the second part of this illnless, not the first, and the second part is an allergic reaction. So I was of the opinion that people over 55 were actually exposed to some sort of Coronavirus that was very similar to this before, and they had developed the necessary antibodies. Now remember, if you are allergic to something, your first exposure does not cause illness. You need to be sensitised first. So your second exposure onwards creates the problem. So I was of the opinion that people over 55 were sensitised, and so they had a severe allergic reaction of those that were allergic, and that’s the reason we saw deaths above 55 years of age. However, those below 55 would be sensitised in the first wave. And from the second wave on, I expected that people below 55 would die. They would have the allergic reaction, because they are now sensitised, and we would see younger people die. And that was one of the grievous predictions of the article that I wrote.

Dr Shankara Chetty
The second was to understand risk, who is actually at risk in this pandemic, because we had shut off the entire planet indiscriminately. Everyone had to stay home. But if we knew who was at risk, then we could risk stratify more effectively. And to risk stratify, we would now need to find this specific IGE subtype for the allergen and see who is allergic. And those are the people at highest risk of having the second phase, and of course at highest risk of mortality and morbidity. And so my article covered all these different parts to this pandemic. The one thing that made my article very controversial was that I expressed an opinion, saying that if early treatment, like I had seen personally myself, if early treatment could curb all the mortality and morbidity of COVID illness, it would make a vaccine to a mutagenic RNA virus rushed to market, wholly unnecessary. And I think that was all the controversy that my article then cost.

Dr Shankara Chetty
When we got into the second wave, I needed proof of my eighth day, and I needed proof of what was happening. None of the local labs were willing to test patients with COVID. You would only get tertiary service if you were hospitalised. So I had to rely on clinical improvement of my patients to make adjustments to their medication to get them to recover. And I managed to do this. So I contacted the local lab to say, look, I need assistance with this work once it was published in Modern Medicine, an academic journal. And the local lab then offered me their services, willing to give me a research grant to look further into this. But being a commercial lab, they did not have the capacity to develop testing for a specific IGE subtype to see who is most at risk. I mean, we can tell if you’re allergic to milk by the very same test, we can tell if you’re allergic to wheat by the very same test. This is not rocket science. All we need to do is understand what the allergen is, and then see who’s allergic to that particular allergen. So I started to check IGE levels and started to do some blood testing as the second wave came by. But in the first wave, one other thing I need to mention is all the patients that I’ve treated some 800 of them, I never had a single long COVID case, so I was of the opinion that the mild cases resolved spontaneously talking about people allergic and presenting on the eighth day. The moderate cases were not treated, and those were the long COVID cases that were sitting with an untreated moderate long term allergy, and of course, these very severe cases needed quick aggressive treatment, and if not were the ones that were ending up on the ventilator. And of course, the diagnosis of pulmonary hypersensitivity rather than COVID pneumonia may put ventilation into a very poor light. Ventilation is absolutely the wrong way to treat a hypersensitivity pneumonitis. So I was of the opinion that the world had misdiagnosed a pandemic, calling it a COVID pneumonia rather than hypersensitivity pneumonitis. And all the mortality and morbidity resided in the second part caused by an allergen, not the virus itself.

Dr Shankara Chetty
In the second wave, we had the South African variant. Now, just so I’ll reiterate later on, in the first wave, we had mostly black patients present to me, I had not a single Indian patient, not a single coloured patient, and not a single white patient in the first week, it was all black patients. Now, I assumed that that would be because of their inability to isolate. They live in communities in close proximity. And I thought that was the reason I was seeing it spreading in that community. However, in the second wave we had what we’d call the notorious South African variant. And looking at the genetics around that variant, the only thing that had really changed was the spike protein. The mutation caused the change in spike protein, and so when we got the cases coming in, I needed again to look at the symptoms and the presentation to understand what’s going on. And of course, it was very strange that only the spike protein mutated, nothing else in the virus changed and that’s not how natural mutations occur. So it reinforced my understanding that I’m dealing with a lab made virus here. And when you look at genetic manipulation, besides engineering a virus, you can also engineer the mutations that occur every so many cycles, so you can engineer the mutagenicity of a virus.

Dr Shankara Chetty
So in the second wave, we had the South African variant with the new spike protein. Symptomatically, we had a more contagious virus. It spread very quickly in families, in communities, and of course that ties in with the change in spike protein, having a greater affinity for its host. Of course, the symptomatology changed, I was seeing a lot more gastrointestinal symptoms, I wasn’t seeing the respiratory symptoms. Patients were presenting with a very mild sore throat that went away in a day, but they had runny tummies, heartburn, reflux, a lot of gastrointestinal symptoms, and that told me that the change in spike protein had given an affinity for ace receptors in the gut. Again, a change in spike protein, a change in affinity for receptor. And then the eighth day remained the same. Patients, there were a subset of patients who deteriorated on the eighth day, but that deterioration had changed. Now, those patients that deteriorated on the eighth day presented with gastrointestinal symptoms, a reemergence of gastrointestinal symptoms. So I knew that the eighth day was now an allergic reaction again, but not an allergic reaction triggered in your lungs, like the first wave I’ve done, this allergic reaction was triggered in your gut, but with progress would lead to hyper inflammation, would lead to coagulation, and would eventually lead to breathlessness. So I was again seeing breathlessness, but no more on the eighth day, there was a worsening of symptoms gastrointestinal symptoms on the eighth day, but the breathlessness took two or three days to develop. And that is a progression of allergy. I treated those patients in very much the same way, catching them on the eighth day being quick and aggressive to treating them and all of them resolved.

Dr Shankara Chetty
But what the second wave drew to my attention, or confirmed, was my suspicion that spike protein was the culprit. Because on the eighth day, in the second wave, I was seeing far more severe allergic reactions that required far more aggressive intervention to curb it. Now speed to recovery again was the measure of what I needed to do. The dose of steroid that worked in the first wave was taking far longer to curb this in the second wave and needed to be increased. The longer that tap stayed open, the bigger the problem was going to be. And so in the second wave, I used a far higher dose of steroid, but the rest of my treatment remained almost the same. And of course, that implicated spike protein. Now this was at the end of 2020 during the second wave, and it was at the point where vaccines were going to be rolled out to the world. Now, at this point, I had clarified that the primary pathogen of COVID illness was not Coronavirus at all. Coronavirus was a vector. It caused a transient respiratory illness, and our immunity was strong enough to deal with it. But once our immunity dealt with the virus, the debris left behind from this eighth day caused an allergic reaction in those that were sensitive to spike protein. And so people that were allergic to spike protein would have this reaction. So spike protein became the primary pathogen of COVID illness, and spike protein was the reason for all the mortality and all the morbidity. I had not a single patient demise in the first seven days of this illness. So spike protein now clearly was the pathogen I was dealing with. And of course, being a pathogen, it was causing allergy. Now, the vaccines that were being developed at the time, messenger RNA vaccines, were all designed to get your body to make spike protein. Now spike protein being the primary pathogen of COVID illness, that was a dangerous game to be played. We have many other parts of this virus that we could have chosen that were more stable that could have been used to make a vaccine. For some reason spike protein was chosen. So I hopde that my work would draw attention to the danger of using spike protein to make a vaccine. And so I brought this to people’s attention, but again I was ignored. So I knew that there is some ulterior motive at play. And so knowing that the vaccines will not be stopped my research, understanding and push became about looking at spike protein, not being distracted by the virus, and trying to understand what spike protein would do in the human body.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Now remember, when you have a Coronavirus infection and you expose to free spike protein on the eighth day, it is a stat dose of spike protein and it will only harm you if you’re allergic to it, but if you’re not your body will clear it away. But if you are given a vaccine that gets your body to make spike protein, now you will be exposed to spike protein for a prolonged period. And so spike protein does not only now have an allergenic potential, it will now have a biologic effect on your body. To put that into perspective, a drug like penicillin, its biologic effect on your body is that it’s an antibiotic. But for it to have that biologic effect, you need to take the full course. Now if I had to give every person on this planet a single dose of penicillin, it will not have that biologic effect of an antibody, an antibiotic. But if I gave every single person on this planet a single dose of penicillin, and then I denied them medical care for 14 days, every person that was severely allergic to penicillin would die of an allergic reaction. And that’s what happened with COVID infection. People were denied treatment to a simple allergic reaction. But with the vaccine, and being exposed to spike protein for a prolonged period, like being exposed to penicillin for a prolonged period, it starts to act as an antibiotic. So I needed to understand what a prolonged exposure to spike protein would do to the human body. And that has been the focus of my research and understanding ever since spike protein got implicated.

Dr Shankara Chetty
In the third wave, we had very much the same happen again. We found that patients presented with symptoms, again gastroenteritis was gone. We’ve had sore patients coming in with sore throats again, the symptoms had changed and of course the spike protein had changed. On the eighth day patients were not breathless. Patients were not having gastroenteritis, but they presented with an overwhelming sudden onset of fatigue. And so I started to advise patients about that symptom on the eighth day. And if it occurred to present timeously. We saw that the allergic reaction in the third wave seemed to affect the vessels more than anything else, and patients were developing clots emboli and that seemed to be the trigger here. So it seemed like we were again having an allergic reaction on the eighth day, but the allergic reaction was focused on the circulatory system. And so again, the same treatment was instituted with the same results. Every patient that came in on the eighth day with an overwhelming sense of fatigue was started on the treatment protocol for a severe allergic reaction. And they all timelessly improved.

Dr Shankara Chetty
And all this got confirmed now that I had access to laboratory findings by measuring interleukin six values, CRPs, and (inaudible). And I could clearly show the exponential rise in these values from the eighth day in those patients who had symptoms. And I could clearly show the turnaround back to normal once I had treated them. And the turnaround was timeliest again. I had every patient of mine almost completely recovered, irrespective of how severely they presented to me post eighth day within a week. I’ve had patients present to me with saturations of 40 percent on oxygen brought to me with an ambulance on a drip. And in a week, I had them on home treatment at 98 percent saturation on room air. And the timeliest reversal of the hypoxia negated the need for any supplementary oxygen. So in the third wave, I realised the change in spike protein changed the system that was being affected by the allergy. And of course, I noticed something else unusual. In the second wave. It was mostly patients of Indian descent that came and saw me. There were no black patients anymore. In the second wave, it was all patients of Indian descent. And then in the third wave, it was very few patients that were black or of Indian descent. And it was mostly the white population and the Muslim population that was affected in that wave. And I thought that to be very strange, because I had assumed that it was the black population in the first wave because of their social circumstance. Then I looked at the world around me, and I found exactly the same happened in America. The first wave affected the African American population more than anyone else. The second wave ravaged India, and I had no Indian patient see me here in South Africa. And then in the third wave, it affected the Caucasian population globally and the Muslim population globally.

Dr Shankara Chetty
So that drew my attention to something far more sinister. I knew that I was dealing with an engineered virus, I assumed that it was a lab leak. But I also had at the back of my mind the understanding that this might have been pre planned. And if you had a virus, the different variants that seemed to affect different systems, a propensity for different systems – respiratory in the first variant, gastrointestinal in the second, and circulatory in the third, and had a propensity for certain ethnicity, that’s a very bad omen because if this was pre planned then it’s a preamble to ethnic cleansing. It’s an understanding of how to affect different systems and how to affect different population groups with the mutations that you engineer into a virus. And so I knew at that point that I’m probably dealing with a bio weapon. And so my research has all been in that direction. I’ve pushed researchers to stop looking at the virus and to start looking at spike protein. And we needed to understand what the spike protein was doing cos I knew that Pfizer and the likes were going to expose the entire planet to this biologic agent called spike protein.

Dr Shankara Chetty
And so we started looking at long COVID. We started looking at vaccine injuries. Now with long COVID, when I started seeing patients with long COVID, I started testing IGE levels to try and prove that I’m dealing with the hypersensitivity, and every single one of them had elevated levels, and that confirmed for me that we’re dealing with hypersensitivity. Subsequently, Kenneth (inaudible) and Marcus Sanchez?? published an article about the lethality of COVID illness, speculating that the fatality was caused by a hypersensitivity pneumonitis, not a COVID pneumonia, and I proved that clinically. Recently, an article was published from China that looked at the use of steroids, but also looked at the specific IGE subtype for spike protein, means what I wanted to do look for those that are allergic to spike protein, and they found a direct correlation between severity of illness and IGE specific to spike protein levels, which proved conclusively that on that eighth day, we were dealing with a hypersensitivity trigger. There was an allergic reaction which was being left unchecked, and it was causing all the death we see, and all the damage we see.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Now from long COVID, and from the understanding of vaccine side effects, researchers have looked into the structure of spike protein and what its long term effect on the human body would be. We know that it causes endothelial injury, and will damage your blood vessels, and if it damages those blood vessels, it would cause clotting in various areas of the body. And those people that are predisposed to vessel damage, like your diabetics, your hypertensives, are most at risk of having this damage become clinically significant. The second thing we noticed is that it causes an immune mediated damage to the myocardium in the heart. And so we’ve seen the myocarditis’ in young children. We’ve seen the clots, we’ve noticed these things with the vaccine. The other thing that was discovered was that the vaccine the spike protein has similarities to other pathogenic proteins that we know of, one of them being the proteins made during HIV illness that actually causes immunosuppression. Now, if the spike protein caused immunosuppression, then we would expect to see a re-emergence of latent infections like epstein barr, like herpes zoster, we’d expect to see a re-emergence of cancers that were in remission, and we would expect to see a waning of immunity over time, and people exposed to spike protein becoming more prone to illness. And we’ve seen that with the vaccines, and we’ve seen that with COVID. We’ve seen people that are vaccinated actually being more prone to developing severe illness.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Now, the claim from the vaccine manufacturers that the vaccines prevent severe illness and death, I find that amazing that they could make that claim. They’ve refused to accept my work on the pathogenesis of COVID illness, I think simply because I have proven that spike protein is the primary pathogen. And if you accept that spike protein is the primary pathogen that shows the vaccines in a very dangerous light. Now, if you don’t accept what causes severe illness and deaths, how can you claim that your product can prevent it, so they have absolutely no pathologic evidence or pathophysiologic evidence of the working of their vaccine. We know that it’s not a vaccine because it doesn’t prevent infection and transmission. Now, it exposes you to spike protein. So clearly, if you’re allergic to spike protein, the vaccine works as a desensitisation tool. So we do desensitisation for patients that are allergic to certain allergens, we expose them to mild doses of those allergens, and then they become more tolerant. So the vaccine is giving people that are prone to severe illness and death by exposure to spike protein, which is the allergen, a little bit of tolerance for a limited period of time. And once that vaccine stops making spike protein, we become intolerant to it again, and it no more has the ability to prevent severe illness and death, and we’ve seen that globally.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Then as well with spike protein, it is a membrane protein. And we’ve seen with the Japanese studies that it circulates throughout the body. Now every tissue that is exposed to spike protein and starts to make spike protein will express it on its surface, it will be recognised as foreign, and that will trigger a host of autoimmune conditions, which we’ve seen as well. We’ve also seen that spike protein crosses the nucleus into the nucleus of the cell. It inhibits the BRCA protein which is used to repair double stranded DNA breaks, and so it will impact on your DNA’s ability to repair itself. And that would cause an explosion in cancers because cells that actually remain viable after DNA damage are most likely to become cancerous. And all this bears out with long COVID, and the vaccine adverse side effects that we’ve seen, the increase in all cause mortality that we’ve noticed globally since the vaccine. And if you look at the trend in that all cause mortality, it is exactly what we predicted the vaccine would do. We are seeing the neuropathies, we are seeing the blood clots, we are seeing the myocarditis, we are seeing the emergence of latent infections, we are seeing the re-emergence of cancers, we are seeing Alzheimer’s, dementia, neuropathies, we are seeing all these things.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Now when we come to Omicron. Omicron started here in South Africa, and immediately everyone shut their borders. I thought that was absolutely unnecessary. It was almost a vaccine that we could use, a mild, attenuated vaccine, but I was also suspicious that Omicron with all the changes we saw in it might be a new engineered virus, cos now suddenly we had 30 new mutations in the spike protein. And like the previous guests have alluded to, that is not natural. So I had at the back of my mind that this might be the Christmas present we all wanted, but there might be a sting in its tail. And so I watched Omicron very carefully. The only system that was not affected by COVID infection was the neurologic system. But we saw the neuropathy in the vaccine side effects. So I knew that spike protein had the potential to injure your nerves. And so I looked at Omicron in that light, and with Omicron it became clearly evident that it was neurotoxic. A lot of the patients that I’ve seen have presented with neuropathy, burning of their hands and feet, strange sensations around their body, migraine like headaches, pain radiating from their neck, it seemed to affect C67 brachial plexus kind of neuropathy. It seemed to affect T10 and 11 in your spine, which affects the diaphragm. And people have strange symptoms.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Dr Thank you so much for giving all that information and being so elaborative, I’m actually also looking that we still have a few witnesses that still need to give evidence –

Dr Shankara Chetty
Yes, yes. I’m actually done. That was the last, Omicron is where it all ended and where we are.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Okay, awesome. But (inaudible) is about to wrap up as well, also, therapeutic trials. That’s basically what you were talking about, modality treatment and hypersensitivity. You have covered everything in relation to those three pointers.

Dr Shankara Chetty
Yes,

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Okay. So, what I will ask you is that I have now, even the jury and the citizens of the world, has seen that when it comes to SARS-CoV-2 it is not a death sentence, without a shadow of a doubt. It can be treated, and you have very brilliantly set out as well also your treatment plan. So my question to you what is currently happening all over the world in each and every country, will you agree with me that the government is actually practising medicine on the population, and as a consequence of bad??, they are actually standing in the way of like doctors like yourself to give suitable life saving treatments. Will you agree with that statement, Sir?

Dr Shankara Chetty
I will agree with that completely. Doctors are not left to make the decisions they are trained to make. And they are being made by people that are wholly untrained.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
So then you will say, so yes, it is that you are in agreement that the government needs to step aside and they need to trust in the medical doctors. I mean, can you also at the same time, tell us what is your success rate percentage wise?

Dr Shankara Chetty
I’ve been through over 10,000 patients that I’ve seen myself, physically myself. I have not had a single death. I have not hospitalised a single patient. And I have not put a single patient on oxygen. There were four deaths in my practice. But four deaths were because of an overabundance of caution by family members who wanted those patients hospitalised. When those patients were put in hospital, the doctors there refused to collaborate with me. My treatment was stopped. They were put onto hospital protocols. And those were the only four deaths that I’ve had in my practice.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
So will you then say when it comes to your treatment plan, you’ve got 100 percent success rate?

Dr Shankara Chetty
I would say that without a shadow of doubt, and I have doctors around the world that I’ve trained with the same protocol and have had exactly the same success.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Thank you so much, Doctor.

Reiner Fuellmich
Yes, thank you very much, Shankara. This is the good news at the end of the day, so to speak

Dr Shankara Chetty
I hope it throws light on what’s transpiring around us and the plan on us, that there’s more than meets the eye.

Reiner Fuellmich
I agree. Now, since it is very late. Are there any comments that you Mike or you Thomaz, or you Sona would like to add to this? Does that change any of your views that you have expressed earlier? Or does this confirm what you have said? And Delores, of course. So it seems like

N. Ana Garner
Mike, you’re muted. I think you were trying to say something. Yeah.

Mike Yeadon
Yeah, I was just gonna say really that, I think in great detail, Dr. Chetty has illustrated some things I think they’re worth saying. And I often say this to people don’t be scared of the virus. It’s, you know, it’s a middling kind of virus, we now know that the infection fatality ratios, certainly the current strain is approximate flu. And if it approximates flu, please people of the jury then we shouldn’t be taking, you know, unreasonable, oppressive, totalitarian steps. And not only is it a similar fatality to flu, but it’s very treatable. And there are a variety of treatment protocols, early treatments, you will know about this. But the thing that drew me as an experienced R&D Professional into this game, and I think very early in the UK, was that I noticed the government’s and their advisors lying to us. In fact, I think I have famously given many interviews where I featured COVID lies, and they would tell us that this virus is much more serious than it actually is. And then told us things that we needed to do that are not true, like masking and lockdowns and border closures, school closures, mass testing. And I just want to point out to people that until 2019 all countries had a pandemic preparedness plan, which involved none of those things. The pandemic preparedness plan on the WHO website and the UK website simply said, if you’re symptomatic, stay home and wash your hands more often. None of the other things, none of the other things have ever been used. And yet, I point out to people that in March 2020, all of the countries discarded those simple time honoured plans, and they all adopted the same set of crazy oppressive measures that in large measure continue to this day, they’ve kind of burned them into the global consciousness.

Mike Yeadon
But as I seem to point out to you, none of them were validated, they were all most of them actually were analysed in 2019 by scientists at WHO, you can find that review and they tested, they showed that masks have been tested and have no impact whatsoever on respiratory virus transmission. And that school closures, border closures, business closures also didn’t affect transmission. And that’s because the only people who are good sources of transmission are symptomatic. And when people are symptomatic, they generally stay home and out of circulation. So I point that out to people, because the only conceivable way, dozens and dozens of countries all at the same time with throw away the plans they’ve used for decades, and adopt a set of crazy measures that don’t work, and many of which were actually proven previously, in the previous year not to work, all adopted at once. I’m afraid the only way that could have happened is if you had a supranational plan to do that. And so don’t be frightened of the virus, it’s treatable, do be frightened of the government’s measures that aren’t evidence, and they’re all doing this at the same time, so that’s lies. We’re not going to talk about it today.

Mike Yeadon
But the second risk you should be frightened of and not the virus, are the vaccines. And I’m afraid the third risk, which frightens me as much as the other two, is our general passivity, and as citizens of free countries we’re accepting these measures that we should not. And I’m glad to see people in Canada in particularly saying they’ve had enough, [and] rightly so. Until we all show that we’ve had enough, the people who have brought about the global lies that I mentioned early on, I think will l keep pushing, they’ll keep pushing and if you just wait for it to pass, it will never pass. But just very briefly, [there were] excellent presentations earlier on PCR, and I really want to just point out a few things. One is that there are very many scores of respiratory viruses, people can have a variety of symptoms that can often be quite similar. So people say to me, well, if if these COVID tests, PCR tests aren’t reliable, how come my grandfather died? And I’ve said, well, they were symptomatic, almost certainly with something with something else. And you can have a false positive from people who aren’t symptomatic at all, and are certainly not ill from this particular virus. So it’s worth being aware that the normal respiratory viral infections that we’ve all known throughout our lives still exist. So this insertion of this inaccurate PCR test when positive does not mean suddenly you’ve all got COVID. You could probably still have influenza, rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, and coronaviruses, by the way.

Mike Yeadon
And then in terms of just building on very briefly on the theme of bad mass testing, I happen to specialise in the UK system, cos that’s where I was living. And I pushed and pushed and I could not get the people involved in mass testing to agree that there was a false positive rates of any test. Every single test, if you do this in hospital laboratories you always want to know what’s the rate of false positives, the operational false positive rate. You need to know what that is in the context you’re doing it. And some of the super labs in the UK doing very large numbers of tests, eventually hundreds of 1000s of tests a day, they never conceded that there were any fraction of those tests that were positive that were false. And they would only declare the positive results as the number. So that’s how many cases there were. And that means, if you had a 1 percent false positive rate and you’ve tested a million people, you’d get 10,000 cases. But actually net of false positive is actually zero. So poor UK lab technique in the bulk labs, they were also recruiting and this must be true around the world, they were recruiting people to perform those tests, who were not properly trained as diagnosticians. They had usually a science degree, they didn’t have to have ever worked in the lab, they were taught how to use pipettes, since Professor Kammera said, if you’ve got poor pipetting technique you can easily contaminate your work area, even if there was a small number of genuine positives in those clinical samples. Poor technique will contaminate your work area. And I think that’s why they deliberately hired people who weren’t very good at what they were doing, and had to show him what to do, almost knowing that that poor technique would increase the number of false positives.

Mike Yeadon
A friend of mine even went to work in one of those labs, a very experienced PCR scientist, and I asked him afterwards, from the techniques you observed, what do you think the false positive rate would be just from bad technique? And he looked at me and he said, any number you like .,115, I don’t know. He said, it’s that bad. You should utterly disregard the statistics coming out of this laboraratory, and it was the biggest one in England at the time.

Mike Yeadon
So probably haven’t really got anything else to say, but I hope people will, if they listen to anything I’ve said in the past and will tie it back to today, that we’re being lied to, that the measures that are being imposed are inappropriate, are damaging to the economy, our society. And that we should be frightened of that and not the viru, which is very treatable, because if we don’t eventually, you know, peacefully but en mass rise up and throw off this oppressive regime, I just don’t think we’ll ever recover our freedom.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you. Thank you, Mike. I think this will have a great impact on a lot of people. As this is a jury of the people, we do believe that this will have an impact in the sense that they will start to rise up because that seems to be the only solution to what we’re facing currently. After everything I’ve heard today, we have to appeal to the people to the jury of the people to stop this. Now, as it’s a very late hour already, I would like to ask you to Thomaz to save your conclusion for after the vaccination session, because that is another important thing. And after that, I think it’ll make even more sense than tonight to summarise what we are witnessing, according to what we’ve heard tonight in particular. Is that okay with you, Thomaz?

Thomaz
Yes. Okay. I will be there. Okay.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you very much. Now, unless there’s anything else that we need to ask our experts, I would suggest that we adjourn this hearing until next Saturday when we will continue with the vaccinations. Is that okay with everyone?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
That’s in order with me. Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you very much. And thank you everyone for having joined us and for helping in this endeavour to stop the pandemic and hold all of those who are responsible for this plandemic liable in the courts of law. Thank you very, very much.

N. Ana Garner
Thank you. Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you Ana.

Prof. Dr. Dolores Cahill
Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you all. We will see you all next Saturday. Thank you, Dolores. Thank you.

Prof. Dr. Dolores Cahill
Bye everyone.