SPEAKERS

Rui Fonsca E Castro, Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz, Mike Yeadon, Terrance Munsamy (Pfizer Vaccine Victim), Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt, Viviane Fischer, Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger, N. Ana Garner, Virginie De Araujo Recchia, Deanna McLeod, Interviewer Munnich Security Conference 2022, Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, Reiner Fuellmich, Bill Gates, Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti, Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt

Meredith Miller, Viviane Fischer, Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt, Virginie De Araujo Recchia, N. Ana Garner, Dr Ariane Bilheran, Translator, Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, Reiner Fuellmich, Prof Sucharit Bhakdi

Reiner Fuellmich 0:13
Good morning, good day, good evening, wherever you are. This is the fourth session of the grand jury investigation with a real judge, real lawyers, real expert witnesses and real witnesses outside of the system. The last session dealt with the PCR test and alternative methods of treatment. We will have a brief summary given to us by Judge Rui in a minute. But this is just to inform you that last time we learned that there is no real pandemic, only a PCR test pandemic, and that the virus which is out there can be dealt with with regular methods of treatment. Before we go in (inaudible), we will show you two videos just to remind us with what this is about. The first one shows one of the chief proponents of the so called vaccines Bill Gates, explaining how ultimately, natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity, and another video that shows a victim of these shots.

Interviewer Munnich Security Conference 2022 1:25
To kick off, actually, and get a bit of a scene centre from Mr. Gates, because this is, I know, a topic that you’ve spoken on again and again. You were ahead of the curve prior to the beginning of this pandemic. Where would you assess where we are today, in beating COVID-19?

Bill Gates 1:45
Well you know, sadly the virus itself, particularly the the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine that is it creates both B cell and T cell immunity. And it’s done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with vaccines. If you do surrell?? surveys in African countries, you get well over 80 percent of people have been exposed either to the vaccine or to various variants. And so, you know, what that does is it means the chance of severe disease, which is mainly associated with being elderly and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection exposure. And, you know, it’s sad, we didn’t do a great job on therapeutics, you know, only here two years in do we have a good therapeutic vaccine, so it took us two years to be an oversupply. Today, there are more vaccines than there’s demand for vaccines. And, you know, that wasn’t true. And next time, we should try and make it instead of two years, we should make it more like six months, which certainly, you know, some of the standardised platform approaches including mRNA would allow us to do that. So, you know, it took us a lot longer this time than it should have.

Terrance Munsamy (Pfizer Vaccine Victim) 3:50
I’ve just taken my first dose of the vaccine on the first of December 2021. I’ve taken the Pfizer vaccine, and I was in really fit health condition. All of that change the instant I took the vaccine. When I started this new employment on the 23rd of November, they instructed me and requested my green card to prove that I’d been vaccinated. The only reason I took the vaccine was because of work. No other medical checkup was done prior to taking the vaccine. My left arm has been put totally out of use from the day that I’ve taken the vaccine the very same night I couldn’t sleep. And it proves in the next slide as well. I put up with the pain and the agony for the two nights, but like on the third night I noticed that it was deteriorating. The bubble started here initially they started here, and then you could see they were developing. During that timeframe, my hand was deteriorating, and I could not use it at all. I couldn’t bath, I couldn’t look after, care for myself and groom myself. So I went to my private doctor. Upon examining me when he looked at my hand, it was in a very, very bad situation, it ran all the way down to my pointer finger. And he by sight only he diagnosed that it was shingles. He gave me something to help me sleep at night, and a few pain meds. He also prescribed to me an antibiotic. Also blood clots forming on my fingers and on my palm because there’s every two hours there’s like a sharp pain that just hits my entire arm. And it’s like, it’s like a burning, it’s as if when you get burnt, and I had to constantly run my arm under cold water to eradicate that pain. I don’t sleep at night, my arm is riddled with pain. I’m constantly waking the family up. Even though the blisters have healed down, there’s still pain of numb running through my arm all the time. I’ve been not working since the first of December due to me not being there for such a long period. I am so afraid. I will never take another vaccine, and others say, you know, I’d rather die or rather get the COVID maybe I’ll survive. But this unbearable pain and this disfigurement of my arm because I’m somebody that just does really well (inaudible). Now with the scars that’s connected to my body, I don’t think I’ll be the same person again. I hope this opens up people’s minds and their intelligence and I hope they do the right things for the benefit of their health.

Reiner Fuellmich 6:48
Now that we’ve heard from the famous medical expert Bill Gates and one of his victims, we will very quickly hear from the real medical experts. But before that, Judge Rui E Castro will summarise the last session. You must unmute yourself, Judge Rui.

Rui Fonsca E Castro 7:18
I’m sorry. Good evening, everybody. Summary of this of the grand jury investigation of the court of public opinion, February 2022. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger explains how the PCR test was introduced 2020 as a diagnostic tool which had never happened before. Also, normally in pandemics there is a patient zero but there wasn’t the patient zero in this so called pandemic. Explained also that all attempts in the past for a Coronavirus vaccine failed because it mutates all the time. Mentioned the conflict of interest involving Drosten since there were three payments from GAVI to La Charite between 2018, 2020. Stated that Drosten must have known PCR tests are designed to produce a massive amount of false positives, so you should have known. He knew.

Doctor Ulrike Kammera explained that how the PCR tests works and why it is technically not able to decide if a sample which is found positive is indicative of an infectious contagious person, even if performanced under perfect conditions can’t be used as a gold standard and basis for non medical actions intended to stop the spread of a virus, since all the active material is destroyed in the process of the PCR. The first WHO protocol from Christian Drosten is technically very poor. Explained about PCR tests with Drosten protocol started to be misused as a diagnostic tool. And also how a bad PCR test design can lead to a massive number of false positives. Stated that it is first time in history that the molecular genetic test is used as a diagnostic tool agreeing that the goal must have been to create false cases in order to fake a pandemic

[Dr] Sona Pekova explained the difference between the difference in genetic sequences between different waves during 2020 concluding that there were different viruses causing them. Therefore explained why the Drosten PCR tests aim at since the beginning to three targets in order to not miss anything so it will produce the required number of cases for a required pandemic that he wanted. Explained furthermore that if you have a virus that is changing so much, it’s not possible to use one single vaccine that was designed against the original virus, which does not circulate anymore, which would lead to antibody dependent enhancement.

Dr. Brian Ardis explained how so many people were dying in the early 2020, which is related to the use of Remdesivir, leading to a massive acute kidney failure, liver failure and heart failure.

John O’Looney funeral director said that there was in UK there was no increase of the deaths right into 2020. Only after the starting of the massive vaccination the death rate increased dramatically when it was clear that many young people were dying from thrombosis.

Dr. Shankara Chetty, says found very suspicious that the new so called virus spread from Wuhan to the rest of the world but not to the rest of China. Found weird that the PCR test started to be used as a diagnostic tool, and that the health authorities were saying asymptomatic people were able to infect others. Explained that his medical practice in South Africa during 2020 treating patients that were showing an uncommon kind of anomaly using Hydroxychloroquine, which he [has] used for a long time, and theres anti viral effects. This is a summary of Day three. Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich 11:44
Thank you very much. Now, let’s hear from the real medical experts. What is it about the vaccine. We’ve learned last time that no pandemic exists, and that the virus can be treated by a traditional methods of treatment effectively and safely? What is the truth?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 12:16
I can share my screen. Hello, everyone. My name is Alexandra Henrion Caude. And sorry, I will share my screen. Can you see it correctly?

Reiner Fuellmich 12:36
Yes.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 12:37
Okay.

Mike Yeadon 12:38
Yes.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 12:39
So I [am] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, Director of Research in genetics and director of (inaudible) declare no conflict of interest. It seems that the we do face an unprecedented problem. And I want to stress to start with to give more relief to the testimony you just showed, Reiner, that we have in the present database, over 3 million adverse reactions that have been notified in the database VG access by the World Health Organisation. This is unprecedented because if we gather all the deaths, for instance, that took place only after COVID-19 vaccination in comparison to over the 30 years of any other vaccines, they already account for over half of the deaths over 30 years. So basically, within one year of those COVID vaccination, we’ve already reached over half of the deaths. They problem is actual because no matter how the way we look at the data, talking with our world in data, we have an increase of the weekly confirmed COVID-19 death per million people that keeps on increasing specifically, all the more in the countries that do vaccinate at a high rate, and more so than in countries where the rate is difficult to assess, basically because it’s India and Africa. But the trend of the curve is just so obvious that we can only say that the vaccination is not the solution.

I want to stress that the problem is not an “anti-vax” or a “pro-vax” problem as it has been constantly presented to the people. The problem is to openly discuss our scientific knowledge and the gaps of this knowledge. And typically, we need to accept that RNA viruses undergo relatively rapid mutation, which can particularly impact vaccination strategies. To take an example, I will take the ancestral Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 variant that is likely extinct, that is to say that we haven’t seen it in Europe or in any other countries. And these Wuhan variant happened to be extinct without a vaccine. So for the last two years, a sole answer to COVID-19 has been repeatedly offered to us, which was presented as the “vaccine”. Yet we have at least five issue[s] with this presentation of the sole solution to COVID-19. One is that these vaccine[s] are ‘unwar’y and ‘unethical’ products.

We all know, I hope, that they are still at the R&D stage research and development, they are on, those products were still in the research and development stage, and therefore are still under clinical trials status. The second aspect is that they were presented as the sole solution with false and changing promises, mainly due to the fact that, again, there was this ongoing status of the clinical trial that would end in 2023. The third aspect is that they could be imposed to the world because they excluded any other treatment. Basically, we have this conditional existence of this emergency authorization that solidly depends on the lack of any alternative treatments. So one can only understand why no other treatments were presented. The fourth aspect is that there was no assessment of the epidemic dynamics in terms of the decision of going further to vaccinate massively. And this is also something very important, as well as a defectuous pharmacovigilance because the issue was so big. And the last but not least aspect, the fifth one, is that there was a ‘flawed’ risk benefit analysis, that would not take account the age, nor the disease status, nor the status of immunity, whether natural, or even the waning one now, as well as the adverse reaction. With these five items of the background, we understand how these COVID-19 [vaccines] were imposed to us as the unique solution.

I will go reverse. So instead of going 12345, I will quickly browse the fifth point, this ‘flawed’ risk benefit analysis, but we’ll go later on in detail because those concern the future. The fourth point is the fact that there was no assessment of the epidemic dynamics. And this is important because normally when you do vaccinate a population, you try not to be in an replicative stage of the virus that will go beyond a certain threshold. And you don’t want to be in the dynamic that there is an increase. In Israel, the black line here was the start of the vaccination campaign. And therefore, and after that, you got the strongest peak of death COVID-19 death of the Israeli population. The same happened in UK where it was actually more in the lower part of the dynamics of the epidemic, but yet, again, it was follow this start of the campaign was followed by the highest peak of COVID-19 death. Same with Emirates. And with those three countries that took place quite early because they were the soonest to vaccinate massively their population, they should have had a heart?? The exclusion of any other treatment, we have loads of studies that do show other treatments, yet those were excluded, just for the sake of saying that there was no other solution. These false and changing promises are important. The failed promises, those are typically the fact that those products were presented to us as a mean to end the pandemic.

Instead of ending a pandemic, we can read like on the World Economic Forum on the conversation in September 2021, that COVID-19 was likely shifting from pandemic to endemic. So this is a failed promise of the virus. The other promise was that it would be a weapon to eradicate the virus. Now in Bloomberg last month in January, one could read that Europe was slowly starting to consider treating COVID like the flu, meaning to take medication and not suddenly rely on vaccination, so it was a failed promise. Another failed promise was it was a drug to protect from the disease that we all know, and Bloomberg again published it, I think it was yesterday, that new COVID variants obviously did complicate the question of vaccine mandates, because these variants cannot ensure the fact that those drugs will protect from the diseases. The other part that is important in this false and changing promises is that at no stage was the immune status taken into account. And this is a big issue. There is this very nice paper taking over 52,000 employees, health employees, that clearly shows that whether you have been previously infected, or whether you have been vaccinated, you have a substantial protection against the COVID-19. And that vaccination of previously infected individuals does not provide additional protection against COVID, meaning that all these passport[s] imposed on the people on not taking care of their immune status are wrong.

The first to stand and end up as the first pawns?? which was the unwary aspect of those products. One should know that there was sufficient data in the literature to have all the warnings to understand that any anti coronavirus vaccines were never successful. No anti coronavirus vaccines were ever approved in France, whether in animals or in human. And this had led to a scientist to publish this very nice paper early on stating that independently whether you would fight against SARS against MERS with vaccine candidates, you had an phenomenon with antibodies that were associated with a high inflammatory morbidity in all the preclinical models and therefore obstructing the advancements to the clinic. So they bypassed this knowledge. They also bypassed the fact that this phenomenon was consistent across any sort of vaccines used. It was not a question of the strategy with an mRNA or a DNA or what kind of vector, but it was irrespectively of the type of vaccine an issue, and therefore they were asking that if we were to vaccinate anyone, we would disclose to them the specific risk of worsening COVID-19 disease from the vaccination.

The other part is that there was no warnings for the mRNA vaccine as well. As such, a little bit like the anti coronavirus vaccine, no mRNA vaccines were ever approved worldwide for any disease in human. And this, you see very well in the literature through reviews. Basically, when you unravel all the clinical trials in the past, except with the exception of COVID, they did not reach beyond phase two. The last issue that I want to stress with these unwary products is the fact that choosing spike in the design of all these vaccines, because no vaccine does not target spike specifically, were a big mistake for three reasons. One is that spike is known as a hotspot for evolutionary, for mutation, all these little triangles that you get means that you had an intense mutation in the spike. So now, if you build up antibody against a region that keeps on changing and mutating, obviously you know, in advance, that your product may be very well outdated. The second part, spike is a hotspot for glycosylation. It is a little sugar that is added to the spike protein, in red, that you see this is the virus in red, the spike and this glycosylation are the sugar, meaning that the patterns of those sugar on the spike keep on changing, and this again will clearly make any sort of vaccination more than tricky. And the last part, not the least, is the fact that they chose a pathogenic antigen, that they did not try to attenuate or to inactivate, which is normally the case in vaccination, that is to say that the toxicity of this spike was remained.

So the last part is the fact that we know now that there will be repeated boosting repeated injection. And this is again, from our past knowledge, a critical issue because systemic autoimmunity appears to be an inevitable consequence of over stimulating your host immune system. To that I will pass it on to Vanessa and Succarit, I believe. I want to stress the fact that we face an unprecedented worldwide situation, harming a few people, at least three million already, potentially endangering all of them, meaning billions of people, and likely future generations with a lack of demonstrated benefit, as compared typically to vitamin D, for instance, because they could have compared their strategy. So it is, I believe, our responsibility to stop at once this never ending campaign, as the fourth dose has already been announced in Israel. Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich 28:25
Thank you very much, Alexandra. One question I have, you said no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for humans? Is it correct that mRNA technique has only been used in cancer research and been used on patients who literally had nothing to lose, not on helathy patients?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 28:49
Cancer and infectious disease, that was the different trials, clinical trials ongoing.

Viviane Fischer 28:57
And could you quickly say what the second step of the trials is because phase two, what does that mean for the audience who doesn’t know what that means?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 29:13
It means that you have a number of of critical steps that you need to to reach in order to ensure safety that you can move forward into human and those are like the preclinical issues, the preclinical stages that you normally have, phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four. And because they did not, they were not successful, they did not pursue further.

Viviane Fischer 29:58
So but phase two means it’s a

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 30:00
That is what I wanted to elaborate, I think.

Viviane Fischer 30:02
Okay, good.

Reiner Fuellmich 30:06
Any other questions from, sorry Dexter,

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 30:11
No problem, Reiner. Good day doctor Henrion Caude, I just wanted to find out you are a geneticist, is that correct?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 30:22
Correct.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 30:23
Okay, for how long have you been practising as a geneticist?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 30:29
For, I’m very bad with time, since 1990, since I graduated my doctorate, so it was in 1997.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 30:43
So 1997, that’s definitely quite a number of years, we are talking more than 20 years approximately.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 30:53
And yes, and over more than that, yes. And over 15 years, 12 to 15 years on RNA biology on RNA specifically.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 31:05
Okay. So you will then say that you are an expert when it comes to genetics. You know all the ins and outs, basically, when it comes to genetics?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 31:15
No, that’s something very nice in our job is that we never know nothing, and that we are always in the process of acquiring knowledge. So, we are supposed to be specialists, that is to say that we have a good knowledge of the literature of a number of things, which is the stage at which the knowledge is, so it’s never the truth, it’s never something that is completely established, it is always evolving.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 31:56
Okay. So, when it comes to these vaccines, it is public knowledge that when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, we are talking about and you have presented evidence, we are talking about the mRNA vaccines, which is the genetics, or it is a genetic way of introducing new cells to the human body, is that correct, doctor?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 32:25
Again, I didn’t understand your point,

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 32:28
it is common knowledge that the COVID-19 vaccines and you have given evidence that it is mRNA vaccines, which means it is a gene therapy. So it is then certain cells that it is injected into the human cell, the human DNA, is it correct if I say that?

Unknown Speaker 32:53
I still didn’t get your point. So it is correct to say that it is an advanced medicinal product based on gene, some call it gene therapy, even the FDA, I believe, has called it gene therapy. I am not comfortable with the fact it is a gene therapy, because therapy means that you are being cured of something, when here in the current case, it has been injected in people who did not need to be cured, did not need to get treated. So that’s why I’m not comfortable with this “gene therapy”. What it is, is that indeed, by injecting those mRNA into the cell, what one cannot say that you do not reach a status of gene modification by this sole fact that this gene viral gene goes into the cells and and to the best of our knowledge, we don’t know yet when it gets degraded, but I think when it’s time again, we’ll elaborate on that. That you’re modified without we don’t know at which stage you “cease” being modified, if ever.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 34:26
May I make a comment, Dexter

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 34:28
You may make a comment, Professor.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 34:31
What Alexandra was saying is actually that you’re not injecting the body with cells, you’re injecting the body with a viral gene and the gene gets into your cells. So it’s a big difference. But otherwise, whether you want to call this gene therapy or not, is a matter of semantics.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 34:54
Okay, excellent. Thank you so much for clarifying it. Doctor, just before you go

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 35:02
Oh no I’m staying so you, and I think you will get to know much more now.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 35:08
Okay. Just again. So you have given evidence and your evidence, and for me, I actually regard it as very crucial evidence. And you have stated that no assessment of the epidemic dynamics has been done. According to you, how crucial is it for that to have been done? And, yeah, so let me just just stick with that, how important is it?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 35:35
special enough as to be in any books of any medical student in medicine, that is to say it’s the basics that you get to learn. You do not want to vaccinate someone when there is a chance he or she is sick, or getting the disease, so you don’t want to take the chance?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 36:02
Okay, so my last question to you doctor is that, and I believe that you are aware when it comes to the four basic ethical bioethics code of medicine, and I am going to mention it to you briefly. The first principle that’s the four main principle of ethical principles, there is beneficence, and then we have now non malfeasance, autonomy, injustice. Now, having regard to the evidence that you have presented, will you say that any doctor who presents or actually injects any citizen in the world with the same RNA vaccine, which has never passed phase II. Any of those doctors, are they in a breach concerning the four main ethical principles that I’ve mentioned?And I’m going to quickly just, beneficence, non-malfeasance, autonomy, injustice.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 37:19
What is, when it is their ignorance?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 37:27
But when it comes to a medical doctor, you’re –

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 37:31
If you don’t mind, perhaps we can add some points too for Professor Henrion Caude, about the Nuremberg Code. It’s about enlightened consent, and I think it’s very important, if you don’t mind, I will confront the scientific conclusions of Professor Henrion Caude with the principle which were determined in 1947.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 38:02
There is already, you can proceed with that.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 38:06
Okay. The Nuremberg Code of national, yes, sorry Dexter, can I go on. Yes.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 38:16
Please, proceed.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 38:18
Thank you. There are Nuremberg Code of international criminal jurisprudence presents a list of 10 criteria. The first is the following, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person concerned must have the mental capacity to consent, that he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any elemental force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other unendered forms of compulsive or coersion and that he or she must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of what is involved to enable him or her to make an informed decision. Where to say this consent with its replicability is the essential criterion for discreet distinguishing from a criminal perspective between the victim and the subject. Professor Henrion Caude, in your point of view, can we consider that people injected with so called anti COVID vaccines are given a true enlightened consent following what you said?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 39:43
Yes I do.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 39:46
You think that they gave very enlightened consent to the vaccines, anti COVID vaccines.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 39:57
No, they were not giving an enlightened consent, they were not enlightened so they could not. So I think that there is the, due to what I think was their ignorance, they could not, they were not in the capacity of informing the patients.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia 40:29
So they are victims because they cannot be subject of an experimentation if they didn’t give an enlightened consent, a true consent.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 40:44
So basically, the victims are jewel. The victims would be the medical doctors who, a number of them who injected without having the knowledge, and the other were the victims themselves because they were not having an informed consent, sufficient.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 41:08
Can I quickly come in there, and I think this is very, very important doctor is that we need to make this differentiation because right you have actually defined two types of victims. To one victim you’ve defined is the medical doctor who actually inject this experimental mRNA in an unsuspected citizens. There is then the first victim that you’ve said. The second class of victims that you’ve identified is then ultimately the patient per se. So what I want to get to, and there is the first class, I am of the view, and you can tell me as to whether you agree with me, is that when it comes to a medical doctor a medical doctor can not plead ignorance under any circumstances, based on the four ethical basic principles that I’ve read to you, and that each one of them whatever they inject, or whatever prescription they give, it must be to the benefit of the patient. So a doctor that has not done his or her research in any country of the world, injecting this mRNA, now we’ve got evidence, it has never even past the phase II, that doctor can not plead ignorance and he must she must be held liable. Do you agree with me on that statement that I’ve made doctor?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 42:37
Not quite because as I said in my presentation, I think we were facing an unprecedented situation. That is to say the pressure of the medical doctors to do the job of injecting the people was so strong that I do not see how they could possibly or where could they possibly look for the information. And because the information they were receiving themselves was not sufficient to get their information. So that’s why I really think that this is a very unprecedented situation.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 43:35
May I Dexter,

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 43:37
Thank you very much for that, doctor. When it comes to, I’m (inaudible) of you, Professor Bhakti, I’ll come to you just now. So you’ve now clarified basically, according to you, and that’s basically your evidence, and in the evidence it is unprecedented. So which means these medical doctors, in a sense, it is justified for them to be ignorant, although I will completely disagree with that. Because as a medical doctor, you actually put yourself out there to ensure that you look after the best interests of your patients. And it is your duty, even when it comes to pandemics and epidemics, or any kind of illness to actually do thorough research and actually consult whoever you need to consult. And this is the problem what we have, because everything has been talked down from the World Health Organisation. There are ministers and ministries of health in each and every country in lockstep. But what I just want,

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 44:33
I agree with you but as I said, when you don’t know where to find information this is more critical.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 44:44
I understand what you say thank you, doctor, and I just want to put it on record because we do have evidence in this grand jury where a South African doctor gave evidence last week, and in his evidence he explained to us what was the medical analytical process he underwent when he was confronted with this novel Coronavirus. So then in conclusion, seeing that he could have actually done that, as a general practitioner, that’s actually not from one of the main cities in the country, but he could have done that. So I will say, when it comes to a duty of care, medical doctors, and specifically, yeah, I’m actually making reference to Dr. Fauci, he’s supposed to have known and I’m talking about all the medical experts as well, also a medical society’s in each and every country they were supposed to have known and again not plead ignorance. But thank you for your evidence. I really appreciate it. In conclusion, Professor Bhakti, would you like to add anything?

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 45:50
Yeah, I just want to say that what I presented was a little browsing. And the details are upcoming now with the presentation of Sucharit and Vanessa. So it was just meant to be a browse, so I took a shortcut into presenting it.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 46:09
Dexter, I just wanted –

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 46:11
Thank you doctor, yes professor Bhakti.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 46:09
I just wanted to say that I would absolutely share your opinion about the responsibility of doctors to get informed, especially when they see that something is going wrong. Not perhaps at the very beginning, but after months of these deaths and injuries that we’re seeing, no one can plead innocent. The only other detail I wanted to say is that this new vaccine has passed the stage four because of the manipulation of the studies. Alright, so let’s not make a mistake here, a foremost mistake.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 46:57
I said but the COVID I said to the exception, yeah yeah, to the the exception of the COVID.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 47:03
Exactly. I think we should move on now.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 47:08
Thank you doctor. Yes we can move on, thank you very much.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 47:09
Vanessa, would you like to go ahead?

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 47:15
Yes, thank you. So thank you very much for having organised this event. My name is Vanessa sugar. I am moleculer cell biologist. And I think it is very important to inform people with the real scientific facts that the mainstream media obviously hide or do not know better. So at this event basically, we want to show the public that there are also other opinions about the virus and also about the vaccination, than the ones that the vaccination propaganda tells us every day. In my presentation, I will address four main messages. And after that, I will hand over to my wonderful colleague. So let’s start with the first message, what you should know is we don’t need any vaccination against coronaviruses. So I have divided into three points. So point one is not nearly as many people have died from Corona as the government and the media would have us believe. So the first thing people what should know is that SARS-CoV-2 is not a killer virus. This is also shown by the official statistics. It is only the media and the government that make basically a mountain out of a molehill. Now several countries, including the US, Italy, Sweden, have published that and far over 90 percent of the COVID-19 deaths, the patients suffered from several underlying diseases. These diseases damaged the patient’s immune system to such an extent that these patients could no longer fight the virus as healthy people easily do.

We would also like to emphasise here that the average age of death in connection with COVID-19 is higher than the average life expectancy. John Ioannidisis, a world famous epidemiologist, has calculated the worldwide infection fatality rate from an incredible huge number of publications. It comes up that 0.15 percent. This number also includes people who did not die of COVID-19 but of other chronic or acute disease, but who had a positive PCR test but no COVID-19 symptoms. And we know from the previous session last weekend, that the PCR test is of no use for clinical diagnostic. According to this knowledge, the effects of fability rate of 0.15 percent must be lowered even further. And just as a comparison for you. I would like to mention the infection fatality rate of cancer, which is 0.3 percent – double, and of cardiovascular diseases of 0.44 percent which is three times more and so people regularly run to fast food restaurants, even though we know that high sugar consumption is one major risk factor for this disease. So our message here is we do not have to be afraid of this coronavirus.

So I come to the second point then, why we don’t need any vaccination against Coronavirus. We all have already a strong natural cross immunity against all Coronaviruses, also against SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 is not a new virus. Whether a virus is novel or not depends on the genomic sequence of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 has 82 percent sequence identity at the nucleotide level, so on the genome level, the SARS-CoV-1 the flu in China 2003. But much more important than the nucleotide sequence is the amino acid sequence of the proteins in the code of the virus because these proteins are the docking sites for antibodies and lymphocytes. In fact, all proteins of SARS-CoV-2, accept of two proteins, have 95 and to 100 percent amino acid sequence identity to the respective SARS-Cov-1 proteins and they also have equal protein 3D structures. This is important in assessing whether antibodies or T cells, which are already present in the body from previous coronaviruses can recognise and bind these proteins. Indeed, only three proteins are of great importance, namely the three proteins that are embedded in the viral envelope. These are the S protein, so for spike, the M protein for membrane, and the E protein for envelope.

Antibodies and lymphocytes can only neutralise the virus from outside. This means that interaction with these three proteins of the envelope is crucial. And precisely these three proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are highly identical to the proteins of the virus from 2003. So, we have 91 percent identity for the M protein, 96 percent for the E protein and still 76 percent for the spike protein. There is a study from 2020 that compared all the cross immunities between proteins within the Coronavirus family. In this study the authors came to the conclusion that only 67 percent sequence identity needs to be present in the proteins for having cross immunity, and they have far more identity in SARS-CoV-2 and important code proteins. I also want to mention that they are already 149 studies, and these 149 studies have confirmed that we have already a big (inaudible) trial on specific T cells and antibodies in the body against all human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2.

Blood plasma of individuals who were not infected with SARS-CoV-2 through?? the pandemic, and also blood plasma of the individuals taken years before the pandemic showed very good pre existing cross immunity in a multiplex assay that detected antibodies against different SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Even babies below the age of six months had already had these antibodies in the blood plasma most likely through breastfeeding. These antibodies in young children disappear but the kids quickly come into contact with Coronavirus during the time of flu each year. That in the end at the age of 3.5 years, the children are already immune to circulating coronaviruses. Children need contact with SARS-CoV-2 as early as possible so they can build up an immunity already from early age which protects them by cross immunity to new coronaviruses later in life. If we lock the chidren away we are changing the immune system in a way that nature did basically not intend. What we are doing to the children now, at least in Germany, is catastrophic.

I want to come to the third point now why we don’t need any vaccination against coronaviruses. So besides the sequence the high sequence identity and the viral proteins, yeah, which our body already knows. There’s another evidence that we all have good cross immunity. The injection shows it. (inaudible) who are still naive. So before the age of four, mainly produce a certain type of antibodies after contact with the viruses. These are the IgM antibodies. The amount of these antibodies reaches an optimal plateau at the age of six years, and there is from there on is herd immunity. These IgM antibodies are not found in others, only very, very low levels if at all. In others only IgG and IGA antibodies are produced after virus infection and IgG antibodies are also the prominent type of antibodies after vaccination. IgM and IGA antibodies are almost not seen after the injection. This is basically the final proof for a pre existing cross immunity and re-exposure of the spike proteins to a pre existing repertoire from (inaudible) immune cells existing in our body. Within this 149 highest quality and robust scientific studies I mentioned earlier, which confirm cross immunity, there’s also a publication that showed a long lift immunity. The authors of this publication states that recovered patients from SARS-CoV-1 infection 2003 still possess long lasting memory T cells were active to SARS-CoV-1 nucleocapsid protein 17 years later, as well as robust cross reactivity to SARS-CoV-2to nucleocapsid protein. So, that means natural infection cause long lasting immune defence.

The scientific evidence also destroys any narrative of the need for boosters. The pressure that you have to boost again and again because you can no longer find antibodies in the blood plasma is completely nonsense and contradicts any basic knowledge in immunology. So, the body strictly regulates the amount of antibodies in your body. Antibodies always have a residence time of a few weeks and then they are discarded from the blood. Iit would be a waste of resources and the body keeps the quantity of all antibodies always at higher levels throughout lifetime. Therefore antibodies are broken down after a while. What remains are the memory cells, which can react immediately and produce directly new antibodies when the pathogen arrives again. By keeping the quantity of antibodies high for years by regular booster vaccinations is absolutely nonsense. Their narrative that people get reinfected as antibody levels in the blood drops is also wrong. People get infected because the vaccines cannot prevent infections. I will discuss this later in the section, so for example, during the summer, there were just a few people infected because other external factors help the immune system such as vitamin D levels, warm temperature, etc. But definitely not the vaccines. And while I’m on the subject of booster shots, the second narrative for booster vaccination is all wrong, namely, that we always need new boosters for new virus variant. As I mentioned before the three proteins S M and E proteins of the virus envelope are relevant as docking sites for antibodies and lymphocytes to neutralise the virus.

We looked at the amino acid sequence of these three proteins of the most relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants. Among them, there was the original sequence of the Wuhan virus from 2020, as well as the Alpha, the Beta, the Delta, and now also the Omicron variant. The protein sequence of the M and E proteins of the original Wuhan virus are 100 percent identical with Alpha, Beta and Delta, and 99 point something percent identical to the Omicron variant. So I mean, again, 100 percent identity, the spike proteins also 98 to 99 percent identical in all five variants. The current mRNA and DNA injections that trigger antibody production against the spike proteins in the Wuhan sequence should also work against the spike proteins of all the other virus variants. The problem is the vaccines simply do not work, and there is absolutely no need to adjust the mRNA sequence. No way. No vaccine that triggers antibody production in the bloodstream can neutralise a virus that comes via the air into the lungs. It cannot physiologically work. These vaccines can never work. I will speak up about that in a minute. So basically the whole thing, I think it’s a big big hoax.

So in conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus. For me, the high identity and the proteins sequence proves that. We know this virus already at least since two decades and therefore we must and can rely on the experience and knowledge from already published data. We all display a very good and robust cross immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Our immune system can easily handle this virus. We are not dying from the virus. Some people die because they have underlying diseases which weaken their immune system. They die due to a weak immune system. I think I make a break here. So maybe there are some question before I go for the next chapter.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:00:33
Wait for the questions. Dear colleagues, let us ask our questions at the end of the expert witnesses testimony.

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 1:00:44
Sorry shall I continue?

Reiner Fuellmich 1:00:45
Yes, please.

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 1:00:47
Okay, then I come to message two, which you should know. The so called vaccinations are inefficient and useless. So besides the already existing robust natural cross immunity in us, which I just mentioned, the public should know that Pfizer has cheated, Peter Doshi one author?? of the famous journal the British Medical Journal published last year major concerns about the trustability and significance of the border efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine. He has criticised that conflicts of interest existed in the conduct of the phase three clinical trial. Three of four experts, the Pfizer personnel who decided whether symptoms that occurred could be attributed to COVID-19 disease and whether the subjects should therefore undergo a PCR test. This is important since it has emerged that the phase three study displays serious errors, including at least partial underlining of the study. A very large number of individuals, the symptoms in both the vaccinated and placebo group were excluded from the study for various reasons, and no one knows why. Also, the vaccinated persons received three to four times more medications for post vaccination side effects than the plateau group. That means that these persons may have escaped the data collection as symptomless although they had an infection. Numerous technical errors occurred in the study. So, basically this study should have been declared invalid, as manipulations cannot be ruled out. So it is very questionable whether the high quality vaccine efficacy is true at all.

The manufacturers use the relative risk reduction for its statistics, but this number is actually not relevant. Instead, they should have used the absolute risk reduction, which also includes the probability of being infected at all in a population. You must also include the number of persons in the study who do not get symptoms, but still get infected with SARS-CoV-2. So, if we calculate the absolute risk production of the four vaccines, we are at the protective effect of only about 1 percent or below. 1 percent is not enough. Each vaccination is stopped below 50 percent. Also, very, very few positive cases were found during the study. The Statistical power is practical zero. In a serious scientific work, these results would be meaningless and unthinkable to publish. For example, if only one person out of 20,000 of the placebo group gets sick, by chance or not by chance, and no person in the vaccinated group gets sick, then according to this strange logic of the vaccine manufacturers, we will get 100 percent efficacy. This is ridiculous and the real numbers were not much higher. So the meaning of it of this efficacy must be clearly questioned.

So point two is why the vaccines are completely inefficient. The lungs has its own defence system against pathogens. It is very important to know that the antibodies formed outside the lungs and the spleen of lymph nodes after vaccination float with the bloodstream and can never reach the virus that enters the lungs there. First of all the antibodies in the blood cannot cross the inner wall of the blood vessels which is lined with a specific cell layer. It’s so called endothelial this endothelial is a barrier. There are some organs which have holes in the endothelial like in the liver. So and there are also some organs which have small pores in the endothelial. This is, for example, in the glomerulus of the kidney and in the bone marrow for better blood exchange, but in all other organs including the lung, this endothelial layer is continuous, there are no holes, so the antibodies cannot get out of the blood vessels and never reach the small air bubbles in the lungs.

And there’s also a second barrier, it’s epithelium. So basically you have the epithe here, and if a respiratory virus comes with the (inaudible) here on the top, and then the antibodies are produced in the lung tissue and lymphoid organs here below the barrier. And basically only IgA, and IgM antibodies produced in the lung. And these antibodies can cross this epithelium in the lung, and which is a virus. Why? Because there are transporters in this barrier, which bind these antibodies and take them up, transport them through cells and release them on the other side of the barrier where the virus are located. And these two antibodies, IgA and IgM, are basically not produced in the vaccinated people so IgM almost nothing, you see nothing, and IgA very low at very low levels. So the main majority, I think it’s more than 90 percent IgG antibodies, but IgG antibodies in the lung tissue can never cross the epithelial. Never, because they are not transporters for this kind of antibodies. So it’s completely useless. So there are two barriers. So the vaccination produces antibodies with the wrong?? species, and there are two variants which they cannot cross so these vaccinated can never prevent infection, or neutralisation of the virus in these air bubbles in the lung.

So it could be that some are saying, oh, it is proven that the generated antibodies after vaccination can neutralise the virus. Yes, but this is only possible in an in vitro experiment and artificial cell culture system, never in vivo in the human body. So what you do in this experiment is you have a bottle of isolated antibodies and the bottle of an artificial virus, then you put the antibodies to the virus, you mix and then you put it on a cell culture so (inaudible), and then you look whether it’s neutralising the virus infection or not. Of course, this is possible because you mix before antibodies together with the virus, but this never happens in the body. So this [is] all ridiculous. So in conclusion, so the antibodies are absolutely useless to prevent any infection and they cannot neutralise the virus in the lungs. So should I continue with the next message?

Reiner Fuellmich 1:07:58
We are? Some of our experts are under pressure.

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 1:08:04
Okay, okay.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:08:04
So please give them a chance to tell us whether one of them or two of them need to be pulled forward in our chronology.

Deanna McLeod 1:08:17
Am I next then?

Reiner Fuellmich 1:08:18
Yes.

Deanna McLeod 1:08:19
Right now. Okay, fantastic. So is the screen sharing capabilities activated? There we go. Let me just get to this. So my name is Deanna McLeod and I am the principal and the founder of a medical research firm called Kaleidoscope Strategic. I have a background in immunology and psychology from McMaster University, which is the home of evidence based medicine here in Canada. My particular perspective is unique in that I worked in the industry for 10 years in many roles and medical marketing and sales. And I became concerned at the end of about 1999 by a trend that I saw in pharmaceuticals, where benefits were emphasised and risk minimised, both in how they conducted their trials, both in how they conducted their marketing, and also their business practices. So in 2000, I launched and founded an independent medical research firm that was designed to help clinicians prepare objective clinical guidelines. So we provide research, medical research, writing, administrative support to help that. So what we’re doing is we’ve worked with hundreds of doctors in Canada to prepare guidelines in oncology and we spend a lot of time looking at clinical trials and clinical trial design. And one of the unique perspectives that we have is we’ve acquired over the years an ability to see how pharmaceutical companies manipulate data. And so when I’m presenting what I’m doing is I’m bringing our firms’ many years of experience in preparing these guidelines to look at, specifically, the Pfizer phase three trial, and particularly the six month publication, or the six month follow up data for that particular trial. And I’d like to highlight a number of things that would make me question whether the purported reported benefits and risks are actually accurate.

So moving on to that, one of the reasons why I’m choosing to look at the phase three clinical trial for the Pfizer data is that here in Canada, Pfizer is the backbone of all mRNA vaccines. And although there is also use for Moderna, it’s much more limited. And Pfizer is the vaccine that’s being promoted for children. And what I wanted to do because this particular trial is the backbone trial, meaning that all the other trials are built on this trial, I wanted to make sure that in scrutinising this data that it was that the benefits and risks are actually fairly reported. And so that’s what we’re going to get into. And then in Canada here, one of the other things too is that there’s a lot of discussion, you know, after this phase three trial was completed at two months, with two months follow up, and they began the mass vaccination rollout. They then shifted to observational studies, and observational studies being real world analysis of data that basically said, you know, this vaccination rate is this high, and our numbers were this, and we looked at COVID-19 cases, etc. But that type of data is actually freight with bias, it is very difficult to interpret correctly, and so our firm basically sought to look at exactly the level one data because that is the only way that you can actually create a causal link. So if you don’t, if you have an observational trial, you can say it’s associated and there may be a benefit. But the only way to actually prove something in clinical trials is in the context of a phase three trial. And so proving efficacy or proving safety. And that’s what we’re going to look at today.

So I know that my colleague Vanessa mentioned some of the the strengths and limitations of this particular trial. But one of the things that I want to highlight is the fact that it was conducted in healthy individuals, which is not uncommon whenever you’re thinking about a vaccine trial, because what you want to do is you want to treat the healthy in order to minimise transmission to the more vulnerable people in the society who might not be able to mount an appropriate immune response. However, if the vaccine or the purported vaccine, I’ll call it an inoculation, is unable to stop transmission then it actually isn’t a vaccine and should be studied in [the] actual population that it is meant to benefit. And in this case, the benefit of the population at risk with specifically elderly people in Canada in long term care facilities, specifically, with multiple comorbidities. And in addition, one of the things that we found when we did a Royal Commission report in Canada was that these patients also had, the majority of them had, I guess, documentation that said that they would have no medical intervention. So it’s a wildfire where you have a disease that transmits through community spread. You have elderly patients who have no strong immune systems, we have under resourced facilities, and we have a virus. And then we have people who basically have mandates that say no medical intervention. So you can imagine that in Canada, the death rates were very, very high. In fact, 81 percent of the death rates were in people who were in long term care facilities. So studying a treatment, which we’ll call an inoculation, because I don’t really think it qualifies as a vaccine, in a population of healthy people does not help us with the problem that is specific to long term care facility transmission in elderly people who are health?? compromised.

Again, I believe my other colleagues mentioned this, but the vaccine the inoculation should have been compared to the standard of care if we wanted to prove something, and the standard of care was natural immunity and treatment. It was not placebo in the sense of non treat or non, or somebody without any natural immunity. So we should have basically compared those two things, rather than comparing it to a placebo. And based on the trial design, we cannot say anything about whether the inoculation is better or worse than natural immunity because they weren’t compared. In terms of the testing, it’s also been mentioned previously that it was selective testing, they did not systematically test for they did not do systematic testing in the sense that they waited for somebody to be symptomatic. And then they were able to, they left it at the discretion of the investigator to actually test or not to test and what that actually did was it created an investigator bias. And I think my colleague also mentioned the fact that they were taking treatments to lower temperatures that might have minimised symptoms, there might have been infection without symptom which might have been compromised the efficacy endpoint in that regard. But they also weren’t able to detect asymptomatic infections. And also, they didn’t use the standard virological tests. So for instance, when we’re looking at clinical trials we want to make sure that whatever tests they’re using to determine the efficacy endpoint is validated. And the standard for testing viruses is a virological assay, and that was not used. So when we look at a trial like this, we immediately begin to say, you know, is this a manipulated endpoint? And that’s what we begin to question.

Further to that, let me just keep going here. The endpoints for the trial, and again I’m going to focus in on the primary endpoints because the primary endpoints are such that this study is actually designed to detect statistically significance in those particular endpoints. One of the endpoints was, of course, COVID-19 symptoms plus a positive PCR test seven days after the second dose. And the second one was safety data. So the safety data, there were different forms of safety data collected, one was solicited, and that was the reactogenicity data. And they only did a subset of patients. They only tested that the reactogenicity in a subgroup of patients, not the whole trial, and they only did it for seven days. And then they had unsolicited safety. So that means that a patient could say, you know, I’m not feeling well, and they would report it in an open diary, and then they would mention it and if it was a severe, any type of adverse event unsolicited adverse event that it would basically be recorded for one month only. And if it was a severe or serious outcome, it would be reported for six months. So you can imagine that if you’re reporting the endpoint, continuously monitoring the endpoint, but only measuring or monitoring the safety data for seven days or one to six months, then what you’ll miss is a lot of the safety data. And so there was minimal, there was inappropriate safety monitoring for this particular trial, especially when you’re considering that you’re using a genetic therapy in a population of Healthy People. They also focused on the clinical rather than subclinical endpoints. And when I’m talking about subclinical endpoints, that means that they didn’t look at biomarkers and different factors. So they could have been looking at D dimer levels, for instance, if they were suspicious that thrombosis might be an issue. And the other thing too is that the secondary endpoint was severe COVID-19 symptoms. So although we’re claiming that it reduces both COVID-19 cases, and severe COVID 19 cases, the other one was a secondary endpoint, and the numbers and events were insufficient to actually establish causality.

Finally, I’d like to talk about the fact that really what we want to be looking at is all cause morbidity and all cause mortality. All cause morbidity means looking at, you know, the sickness from the the disease COVID-19 as well as a sickness from the actual vaccine, both looking at the symptoms and the symptomic burden for that, and also for the deaths related to that. And of course, the particular trial reported de-emphasise that and emphasise something that really isn’t clinically significant, which is symptomatic positive PCR tests. And the reason for that is that the majority of those symptomatic cases were mild and really not of a concern. What we really needed to know was whether it was going to stop COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths in elderly people, and whether the all cause morbidity and mortality was higher in the inoculation group versus the placebo group. So and I guess the other final thing is, and we mentioned this earlier, is if it’s going to be presented as a vaccine, then it would have to be, we would have to be able to prove that it stops transmission and this was never part of the clinical trial design. And so therefore, anybody who’s claiming that it stops transmission would be making false claims. Anybody that claims that it reduces severe COVID-19 disease based on this trial would be, again making false claims because the number of events weren’t sufficiently high. And anybody who’s making claims regarding lowering deaths, again would not be supported by this particular trial. So I just want to emphasise the fact that after two months, we had a crossover so there was an unblinding of the two groups. And when they were unblinded people in the placebo group were offered the opportunity to cross over into the inoculation group, and about more than 80 percent of the people, I believe it was close to 89 percent of the people, actually crossed over And what that means is that as of two months, we no longer have efficacy and safety data from a controlled trial.

So all the safety data that we’re going to be looking at, and that’s the angle that I want to be looking at specifically, is really obfuscated by the fact that now most of the placebo group have actually been on occulated. And so when we present the data, we’ll be looking at the unblinded phase, which was really only two months of the trial. And we don’t actually get the full benefit of a randomised clinical trial to the point of six months, which is this data because of this crossover. And I don’t want to ascribe intent. However, there is a great benefit if you’re interested in minimising safety, to have your placebo group crossover at a very early stage. Therefore, you will never be able to have a causal link to long term safety issues.

When it comes to efficacy, one of the things that we noticed in this particular trial report is something called combined efficacy endpoints. So one of the things in this particular trial, as they noted in the discussion was that the immunity was waning at about four to six months in the adult population. And this is a publication that presents six month follow up data. And in this particular publication what they did, instead of reporting adult outcomes, as they should have as a follow up to the original two month report, what they did is they combined the reporting of the efficacy outcomes of adults and adolescents. And the adult outcomes, of course, had six months of follow up, but the adolescents had two months of follow up. And by combining these two together, what they did was they boosted the the numbers overall so that they could continue to report a 90 percentish efficacy rate. And that was likely due to the boosting of the younger adolescent group, which was basically only followed up for two months. So we actually, at this point, do not know what the efficacy at six months was for the inoculation in adults. That data was not provided in the particular report.

So one of the other things that I’m going to do here is I want to compare, what we did was we pull the data from the supplements, and we compared it to how they were presenting the data for efficacy, and we use the same treatments using relative risk reductions and absolute risk reductions, as Vanessa had noted previously, and we put them in one table so that you can compare the efficacy versus the risks of this particular vaccine by looking at it in one particular table. So here you’ll see for symptomatic cases, which is again, our primary endpoint, there was a net reduction in the number of symptomatic cases from the inoculation group to the placebo group. And there’s our beautiful 91 percent efficacy, remember that this is both adults and adolescents combined, it’s not adults alone. And what that does is it provides about a 4 percent absolute risk change, which is over here, minus 4 percent. So there is a purported benefit. But if you’re inoculating 20,000 people a 4 percent benefit is not that great, it’s not dramatic. Here, it looks much better whenever you’re looking at relative risk change, and that’s why they tend to emphasise that because that looks much more impressive than the 4 percent benefit that you’re getting when you’re looking at an absolute risk change, which is the number of people who are actually benefiting from the inoculation.

And what I’m going to do is I’m going to just jump right here to the other primary endpoint. And these are all primary endpoints. So treatment related adverse events, severe adverse effects, and serious adverse effects are all primary endpoints of this trial, which have not been mentioned to the same degree as the efficacy. And one of the things you’ll note here, is that in the inoculation group the investigators ascribed adverse effects, which when you looked at the (inaudible) data are actually COVID like symptoms to 5241 people who participated, and in the placebo arm only 1311 for a 300 percent increase. And if you consider the absolute risk increase was minus 4 percent, that’s the benefit there, the risk is plus 18 percent here, so there’s more people at risk with this particular inoculation than you have people benefiting from the inoculation overall. When we look at severe cases here you can see that there’s a net difference of 22. This number of events is clearly not clinically meaningful. 22 differences not, but if you put it in a relative risk change setting then it looks like 96 percent. However, there’s only a .1 percent benefit overall to reducing severe symptomatic COVID cases.

So again, an overemphasis by looking at the relative risk reduction and a very modest or minor benefit overall. However, when we look at severe adverse effects associated with the vaccine, we see that in this group you have 262 versus 150. So that’s a difference of 100 cases, severe adverse effect cases here, and an increase in 75 percent, and it’s an absolute risk increase of .5 percent. So again, what we’re seeing here again when it comes to severe cases and severe adverse effects, that you have more risk than you do benefit for this particular inoculation. When we look at serious adverse events, which are very concerning to me, because we’re treating very healthy people, and serious adverse event as defined in this particular study is an event that requires inpatient hospitalisation, is life threatening, results in death or persistent disability. And you can see once again, that you have more severe adverse events 127 versus 116 in the inoculation group, which is an increase of 10 percent. And the incidence of these is about the same as the risk of many people in getting COVID-19 overall. I mean, it’s minimal it’s small, but significant when you’re considering how severe those adverse events are.

So that is as close as we got to looking at all cause morbidity versus benefit. And here when we’re looking at deaths, again we went to the supplements table and we pulled the deaths, and these deaths are basically from the unblinded phase only, which means it’s the first two months of the actual trial or the first two months of follow up from that actual trial. Because they crossed over then it’s more difficult to find out. But in this unblinded phase, the deaths were comparable 15 to 14 inoculation to placebo. However, we have to remember that this is a very healthy population with their diseases that were controlled with control disease. So to see this number of deaths in the placebo arm where they actually caught COVID-19 might be reasonable within the two month time frame in 40,000 people. But to see this many deaths when people are purportedly not getting COVID-19, but are getting inoculated is concerning to us. When we looked at the deaths after unblinding, you can see here that there were five deaths in the unblinded phase, oops, sorry, excuse me, I’m missing a number there. There were five deaths in this case, and zero deaths in the placebo arm for a total of 20 in the inoculation arm and 14 in the placebo arm. So again, just to be clear, after the patients during the placebo arm crossed over and receive their inoculation, there were an additional five deaths, for a total of 20 deaths in people who were inoculated in this study, and 14 in the placebo.

Again, we have to consider that at least in this particular case, for the second half, there were more patients who had gotten inoculated than the placebo group. But still, this is concerning, this is not the the trend that we would like to be seeing. And finally, if we actually look at COVID-19 related deaths, there was really only a difference of one death between the inoculation arm and the placebo arm. However, when we looked at cardiovascular deaths, we saw that there were nine cardiovascular deaths in the inoculation arm, and five in the placebo arm. So again, what we’re seeing is if our desire was to see morbidity and mortality decrease in the target population, which was elderly people, what we’re seeing in this particular study is an increase in morbidity in the sense of risk and mortality in a healthy population. And so, we are very much familiar with cancer research. And if we ever saw something like this in cancer research, we would not even proceed with administering this to people who were in the end of their life. So these results are extremely concerning.

And I’m just going to touch base very briefly on the companion trials that were conducted for children. And so one of the things that they do is they create a phase three trial and then they basically do these companion trials, where they, in this particular case, are called immuno bridging trials. And these immuno bridging trials, basically were just focusing at neutralising antibody titer production and what they did rather than doing a clinical trial, you know, if we were to be thinking about the people who are at greatest risk, it would be children. They’re at no risk of severe disease. Therefore, what we would have liked to see is the safety being much higher, much more rigorous, larger numbers of people enrolled. Very strong endpoints like clinical, you know, subclinical safety, clinical safety, long term safety, morbidity, mortality, we would have liked to see all of that. However, the trial that was designed or the endpoint that was used to approve these vaccines, or these inoculations, was non inferiority of the neutralising antibody titers, which what that means is that they compare antibody titers in people who are 12 to 15 years and they compared them to antibody titers in 16 to 25 year olds. So this study wasn’t even designed to make any claims regarding clinical efficacy or safety. And anybody who makes clinical efficacy or safety claims based on this study is basically misreporting or making false claims.

Again, they did the same thing with 5 to 11 year olds, again a slightly smaller dose, and they compared them to the neutralising antibodies of 16 to 25 year olds. And if you could note here that the number of patients or people enrolled in each of those two cohorts is very small. And so this is the basis by which we’re moving forward with the vaccination of children. Now they did, you know, enrol a thousand people in the clinical side of things, and in the placebo side of things about a thousand in each arm. And these particular endpoints, unlike the main trial are descriptive endpoints. So they’re not meant to actually claim anything, but they do give us some sort of a window into the benefits and risks of the inoculation in this particular group. And I’m just going to very quickly move to this side, because this is the absolute risk change, and this is the one that we really need to keep an eye on when we’re looking at absolute clinical or clinically meaningful benefit. For symptomatic cases, it was minus 2 percent. So there was a reduction based on this. And if you can note here, that it’s really only a difference of 15 cases. And we also have to note that symptomatic cases in children are really not clinically concerning. So I would probably move to say that this is a clinically meaningless endpoint. Again, they’re at no risk of severe disease, and of course there was no differences in severe disease. So that’s not a benefit for them. And however, if we look at treatment related adverse events, what we see is this concerning trend, again, where we have more risks or more adverse events in the inoculation arm than the placebo arm. And I’m just going to emphasise this very carefully. The types of adverse events that were reported in the placebo arm and the inoculation are very similar, and their clinical symptoms, their COVID like symptoms, for the most part, at when they were reported at least based on the reactogenicity data, just see more COVID like symptoms in the people being inoculated versus the people who are actually getting COVID 19, according to this particular data is very curious. And again, that’s a 1 percent increase in adverse events here.

But when we look at severe adverse events, remember there’s no benefit here, and suddenly there’s an increased number, although small, of serious adverse events in the inoculation arm for a .4 percent increase. And again, when we look at the serious adverse events, and remember that this means inpatient hospitalisation, life threatening results in death, or permanent disability, we have four of those in the inoculation arm versus one in the placebo arm. And how many patients or how many children that you know, where you take a thousand children and you treat them, that you would allow four of them to have inpatient hospitalisation, a life threatening event [that] results in death or permanent disability if they’re at no risk of severe disease? So again, because this is descriptive statistics, we can’t ascribe cause to the inoculation and say that it is causing harm. However, it certainly looks like the trend is in a similar direction at two months, as the data was for the adults at six months.

I’m just going to move very quickly to our wee ones, the 5 to 11 year olds who are being inoculated, again, no risk of severe disease, no episodes of severe disease, slight differences in the number of actual positive symptomatic COVID positive events or cases here. But we can see again here that in terms of any adverse event, it’s 46 versus 16. So they’re actually getting COVID like symptoms more in the inoculation group than we are in the placebo group. And just on that, know what we would say if we started to see something like this, where the symptoms were similar in both groups, and you’re getting more in the inoculation group than you would in the placebo group, we would begin to say how rigorous or how reliable is the actual test that you’re using to ascribe efficacy. I’m just going to whisk past this. This is the whistleblower report from the BMJ that basically questioned the integrity of the data that was going into this. Our firm is basically questioning the reporting of the data and the emphasis to the data. We definitely noticed some tricks in terms of trying to boost efficacy and minimise safety by under reporting. And also by using, you know, considering one was relative risk reduction, and then what they did with safety was they buried it in the supplements and they considered it as percentages.

And the other thing too that we look at when we see this type of reporting is we immediately go to say, what are the conflicts of interest? Who conducted the trial, and who wrote up the report. Because the conclusions for this particular report were that the inoculation was both safe and effective, when we took a closer look and with no concerns related safety, no new safety concerns, I believe, is how they actually phrased it in the six month trial. And we would not agree with that conclusion whatsoever based on our analysis. And therefore, we go to look at conflicts of interest. And it is notable that there were conflicts of interest, significant conflicts of interest in the majority of people who were involved in this trial, notably employment and stock for the corresponding author, the last author, and notably the two BioNTech founders who basically have earned $9 billion at the time when we made, you know, I think this was made early in the fall of last year, so again, have made incredible amounts of money based on this particular report. So we’re trusting these people with these incredible conflicts of interest. And again, even the the senior author, the lead author, SJ Thomas, has had conflicts of interest. They do have, they experienced grant or consultancy or clinical trial development. And notably also, and I just discovered this recently, is after the publication of this particular trial result, which basically boosted the Pfizer stock prices, the CEO of Pfizer divested of his stocks. And again, this is pure speculation, but if I were an insider, and I knew the safety data, and I knew the underpinnings of the safety data and what had gone on behind the scenes, then I would probably be concerned about people eventually finding out about this safety issues, and might very well be prone to divest of my stocks as well.

So my position is such that this trial should have never been passed. That there were issues of, again it’s hard to ascribe causalit, but definitely there were tendencies towards over emphasising benefits, and minimising risk, both in the manner in which that it was unblinded and crossed over the short duration of trial, the short monitoring periods for the safety results, the questionable test used for efficacy. And again, the emphasis on clinical benefit, without really taking a very close look at the safety and I would have loved to see all of the unsolicited adverse events to see what kind of adverse events that were reported. But again, all that they allowed us to see was COVID like symptoms in both groups. And so again, I would say that that’s an obfuscation of safety data, and that that’s minimising the representation. So it would be difficult for me to understand how, based on the reporting of this particular trial, anybody could possibly say that they had informed consent when they agreed to the inoculation. Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich 1:38:23
Thank you very much for this devastating testimony. Let me just add one thing, because we want to ask our questions at the end of this session. Your findings, your groups findings have been confirmed by a whistleblower from one of the companies, or the company that conducted the trials for Pfizer. I believe her name is Brooke Armstrong and we will delve into that in more detail tomorrow, because this has significant economic impact as well. Their share price is dropping rapidly right now. Thank you very much. Who will be next? Sucharit?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 1:39:20
Vanessa, If I could come in now, and you could take it over afterwards because you [Deanna] have just given me you know a sort of the right starting point. Would you consent that I come in with my 15 minutes. I don’t need longer and you could take over from there.

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 1:39:51
No, it’s fine with me.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 1:39:54
Thank you, because time is running for me too. Listen, these have been very, very important informations and presentations. And I want to bring in another aspect, which is, we don’t have to really discuss very much anymore because also moulded in the Nuremberg Codex, if anything is under experimental “use”, even the experiment is ongoing as it is right now, we are at the R&D stage. Then whenever something happens, that is a clear indication that that agent that is being administered to the experimental group is causing illness and death, it has to be stopped. And you must first delve into the question of whether it could be the reason. Now, we are not talking about one or two or three cases, we’re talking about thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases of serious adverse events. And so, for this simple reason, if the propagators and the instigators of this whole vaccine madness cannot show that it is not due to the vaccine, it must be stopped on the spot.

Now, we have heard from Vanessa, that the vaccines could never work in the first place. And they don’t work. And we don’t have to ask whether protective antibodies “so called” are being produced or not, because they’re not playing any role in preventing infection. That’s what we’re witnessing all the time. So let’s not go off on a tangent and stick to the point, if there can be no protection can there be any damage? And there of course, the answer is of course, because these, I’ll talk about the mRNA, although the idea of vector vaccines are similar, that these so called vaccines have two toxic components, one being the envelope the packaging, and people should be made aware of the fact that these lipid packages have never been tested and passed for safety, never been tested in any animal or human model. And yet, although they’re only “chemicals” that have never received licence for use in humans, they are being used on billions of people. These people who continue to do so have to go to jail. There’s no other way because these lipids are now known to be highly inflammatory. They are similar to one of the major bacterial toxins and killers of mankind, the so called endotoxin, which is the cause of the cytokine storms when you have a bacterial infection. And these lipids do the same thing. This has been published and shown, and there’s no doubt that when one injects people with these vaccines you are putting poison into the body, poison that causes severe illness and death in animals. And this cannot be allowed.

Apart from these lipids, which have many pathways to injuring you, we have the gene of the virus itself encoding the spike protein. And that can lead to harm by so many mechanisms. But the two major categories will be first, the spike itself when it is produced by your body cell and released by the body cell is a poison. The spike itself is a poison. Now, this is something that people now know, it wasn’t known five years ago, but now we know it and it’s published. And so you cannot inject an agent that causes the production of a poison. It’s ridiculous. Second, when the spike starts to be produced, the cells producing the spikes are going to be attacked by the immune system. This is a fact. Everyone knows this. Anyone who’s studied medicine must know this. If they don’t know this, then they must be stripped of their, they have to be prevented from practising medicine. They have too. There’s no excuse for not knowing this. So we have basic mechanisms that are straightforward. And of course they must occur.

The systemic effects are predictable. And when we predicted them one year ago, it was no big deal, because there was no other way they were going to work. The only thing that one had to assume was that these substances would enter the bloodstream, enter the circulation, well it would cause the lymph nodes and then enter the circulation. And this is the first major lie that everyone was confronted with by the FDA, the EMA, the producers, the agents would stay in the muscle, but anyone who studied medicine must know that if you inject something into the muscle, it’s going to reach the lymph nodes. And anyone who studied medicine must know that if something reaches the lymph nodes, and it is not a protein, it will reach the bloodstream. And that, of course, was known. Pfizer was forced to reveal this data to the Japanese authorities who asked for them. And it’s all there for anyone to read. And now it’s all there for anyone to read, who knows about human medicine because it’s now been proven that the spikes appear in the bloodstream. And lo and behold, they don’t appear for one day or two days. If they appear in the bloodstream, the producing cell must be touching the bloodstream, because there’s no other way for a spike, which is a protein, to reach the bloodstream unless the producing cell is not directly in contact. This is something so simple, so elementary in medicine, that if a doctor says I don’t know this, he’s got to get his licence taken away.

Now, what happens if we know that the spike is in the bloodstream, we know that the mRNA has reached the circulation, and in all probability has reached the lining of the vessels, which are the endothelial cells. That, of course, will create a focus for vessel damage, and that is what we said one year ago. It’s got to happen, you’ve got to get vessel damage. What will happen then, the vessels will leak. What will happen then, if the vaccines are still there they will be leaked into the tissues, into the heart, into the lungs, into the liver, into the brain, into whatever you want. And if those cells begin to produce the spikes, they are going to come under attack by the immune system, because this is what the immune system is trained to do. And as Vanessa told you, we all have killer lympocytes that have been trained over the years to kill those cells that are producing the spike. So you are going to get vessel damage. Where this damage occurs, if there is a God, he knows, we do not. Because it’s going to be haphazard, probably in the small vessels for the blood flow slowly, so there’s lots of time for the cells to take up these damn substances and produce them. Small vessels, probably, you know, the vessels in the brain, the sinus vessels, the veins in the brain. There the bloods, sometimes it’s almost stopping, or in the heart, you know, when you have the heart beating, the effort with every beat there’s a pause when the blood stops to flow. So of course, those are the predictions?? sites where these packages are going to be taken up. And those are the organs that one would think are going to be hit. The same by the way for the spleen, because the blood flow in the spleen is complicated. It’s known, but you have very slowly flowing blood there. Now, what will happen? You will be getting damage to the blood vessels that will cause blood clots. This is also what we said a year ago, we are god damn worried that these clots are going to form in the whole body. It may form in the brain of one person, the heart of another person, the liver, who knows. Because this is what one calls destiny. It’s destiny.

Now, the brain is especially fascinating because the brain is full of small blood vessels, going through the whole brain, keeping your brain cells alive, grey cells, white cells, and the tiniest disturbance can lead to death of nerve cells. And the death of nerve cells, depending on where these cells are, can produce anything, anything you want to think of. Of course, the whole thing may just start with a headache, splitting headaches, which are the typical symptoms that about 50 percent of everyone getting the second shot complains of. But it’s only, headaches are regularly?? the first sign that clots are forming in the brain. But, you know, if you’re unlucky, you start to get palsy, nerve (inaudible). The eyes start becoming unseen. The ears don’t hear anymore. People start getting paralysis. Where that happens, no one knows. But there are other things that are going on. Dear colleagues, many people tell me that they have seen psychological changes in people, the whole personality changes. Now, you know, we have our brain with the limbic system. That is you, it’s your person you have been. This is the human being God given. If there is a God. I’m a Buddhist, you see, but I believe in nature, and that we are all individuals each has developed during his lifetime to become what he is now. And this is all your whole personality, everything that is human is here. I starts there, it ends there, your memory. So people are getting Alzheimer’s. Some people are developing symptoms that are horribly similar to “Mad Cow Disease”. You know, I don’t want to go into this, I’m just telling you that the vision is so horrible, so horrible.

Now, next and last and then I’m finished, because I don’t know. No, not yet. I told you that these vaccines must reach the lymph nodes. And it is now known that they reach the lymph nodes. It is known that the cells in the lymph nodes are going to die. Why they die and how they die, we don’t have to discuss it, but they will die. And the cells in your lymph nodes are the cells that are keeping you alive because they’re taking care of latent infections in your body, viral infections, shingles, and blah, blah, blah, tuberculosis in 95 percent of the world population of the third world, and I have the tuberculosis pattern in my lung. I don’t want to get that shot. If my lymph node cells start dying, the cells that are responsible for controlling tuberculosis, this is what’s going to happen I tell you. And the same, not the same cells but other cells, are responsible for keeping cancer cells under control, cancer cells that are arising all the time in our body, all the time. People who have had cancer have lost control once, they may be healed now, but they are also healed because their controlling lymphocytes are also there. To keep the cancer cells that come a new get eliminated. And we’re hearing stories all over the world of strange cases of tumours exploding into action into people. Very strange, isn’t it now?

Now we know we’re looking at an agent that has no benefit whatsoever. No benefit. Zero. But has the capacity over a myriad [of] pathways to kill you? And has been killing, at is killing, and is going to kill our children? How can anyone stand to see this happen? We don’t have to talk about anything else. Look at the Nuremberg Code. It is I think it’s number six. If there’s any suspicion that an agent in the experimental phase is causing illness and death, that experiment has to be stopped on the spot. This has nothing to do with consent, it has to be stopped. Now, I’m going to finish now. Listen, if this werea question of one or two days, you know, Pfizer’s going to come by and yes, okay the benefit is still greater than because the risk only goes on for one or two days when this mRNA is causing the spikes to be produced. And in fact, yes, there are cases where this has been acknowledged to happen. There have been a few cases, but they are so rare and (inaudible). You know that, how long has it been Vanessa? In the last six weeks or two months? Two months ago, this paper appeared that was so shocking that the spike protein can be found in the blood of vaccinated people form, what was it Vanessa, three, four weeks, I don’t really care, it was many weeks. And so were asking ourselves, how can that be? Because we know that this mRNA has been tampered with to make it long lived. But how long lived is the mRNA? Question? Answer the answer has been published now in a paper called Cell. You know, Cell is one of these papers where you say, my God it’s something, it’s like the word of God. It’s not fake. It’s true. 60 days after vaccination, they could still find the mRNA in the lymph nodes, lymph nodes of the vaccinated. They did not look further. But do you know what’s happening to those billions [of] people who have received this damn vaccine, it has been in their body creating the poisonous spikes that is killing people for at least 60 days.

Now, I’m going to stop at this because I get so furious that nothing is happening. I get so furious. People are killing our children. And this, I’m afraid to say. looks premeditated. It looks premedi[tated], no one can say I didn’t realise [when] everything is published. Now, of course,the whole case will be closed, if anyone could come and show that indeed these spike proteins are being produced outside the site of injection in the whole body. And at those sites, you have immune attack going on and organ damage. And that is why this grand jury is going to maybe make the case because we have Professor Arne Burkhardt who’s going to come tonight to show you that he has proof. The proof is there. The proof is there for anyone in the world to see. And once the proof has been shown in 15 cases, it’s going to be shown in thousands of cases. And then whoa, you protagonists and producers of the vaccine and my prediction and my hope is that the stocks are going to plummet below the ground because they are going to go bankrupt. That is my big call. So Vanessa, I give the floor back to you. And then I think Arne Burkhardt is going to show you. You know what Arne has done, I think I am going to propose him for the Nobel Prize. And that’s what I’m going to do. Because he may be the person who’s saving our children.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:00:05
Thank you very much. I’m not sure because Mike said that he’s not feeling well. But if he’s still on the Zoom, and if he can hear us, we should allow him to make his case because you just gave him the introduction. You suspect that this could be premeditated murder. Please Mike, go ahead.

Mike Yeadon 2:00:27
Okay. Just give me a few seconds. I’m struggling to get my iPad to unlock.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 2:00:32
Nice to see you back, Mike.

Mike Yeadon 2:00:33
Thank you. Yes. This is ridiculous. I know how to get into this thing.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:00:39
Take your time.

Mike Yeadon 2:00:41
I can’t seem to here we go. No, I’m okay. I found it. So can you hear me okay?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:00:49
Yes we can hear you.

Mike Yeadon 2:00:51
Okay so I’m well aware that there’s been ‘an] excellent testimony already, so just very briefly, for the record. I’m Dr. Mike Yeadon. I’ve spent 32 years in the biopharmaceutical industry as a biologist, immunology, toxicology, biochemistry, I was 11 years ago, or 10 years ago at Pfizer. Since then, where I was vice president, head of respiratory and Allergy Research worldwide. And I’ve spent 10 years in the biotech sector. I’m speaking out because, as we’re hearing this afternoon, these vaccines are very bad products. It’s been established already that it’s not necessary to have a vaccine. But I think it’s worth making a point at a higher level. Because I know that the drug companies know this, too. It’s never appropriate to seek to invent, develop, manufacture and distribute a novel vaccine for a respiratory pathogen of such modest lethality, even if it was a bit worse than it is. And the reason is by the time you’ve done all the work necessary to establish that it’s safe, because that’s the watchword for any public health intervention that you might give to billions of people, that’s the most important thing. It’s more important than efficacy. So in order to establish that that’s true, it’s going to take you longer than any plausible expectation of the length of time a pandemic will be around. So I know I only realised this recently really, but we’ve probably already known it. So what I’m telling you is it could never have been a proper thing to do, to do what they claim to have done, of course they haven’t actually done it at all. It’s a fake vaccine, badly developed, badly designed, and so on. So that’s an important that’s –

Reiner Fuellmich 2:02:42
– quick interruption. I think that was a slip of the tongue you said of such modest lethality, I think you meant to say such modest efficacy.

Mike Yeadon 2:02:51
No, I was sorry yes, no. No, I think it was that because the viruses.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:02:57
Oh I’m sorry, my mistake.

Mike Yeadon 2:02:58
No, because the viru it’s not like it’s flying Ebola. If it was 50 percent lethality you would take different risk benefit. But for something only a little worse than flu, if that’s true, yeah you wouldn’t do all these things. So that’s, and we’ve also established it’s not necessary. There are good treatments and so on. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, these vaccines have been made, these gene based products. So we have to as, what was the intention because it could never have worked? It could never have worked, even if it was safe, for the reasons Vanessa and Sucharit have outlined, but they’ve been done, so why was that? And there are various answers. One is just to make money and rip everybody off. I think, for me, the dominant reason was this control grid idea that we’ve talked about before, that people would have to be vaccinated to qualify for a vaccine passport, which is a digital ID.

But there”s another possibility, though. And it was to establish in the public mind that these are legitimate products, so they could use them for other purposes. And though I won’t extend my thinking at this point, I think it’s quite obvious why they use these particular kind of gene based products, because they’re going to use them again, ladies and gentlemen. But so just quickly then. Yes, on the safety, just very quickly, these are an entirely new kind of medical intervention. Although they’ve cunningly managed to disguise them under the word of vaccine. The only thing they bear in common with traditional vaccines is the word. That’s it. There’s no other similarity. And so when someone says, you’re being over cautious about safety, I will tell you that with any new class of products, in fact, every individual version of a product of any new class, you have to establish the safety in trials. People’s opinions are worthless, including my own, but the onus is on the part of the manufacturer to prove safety, not for me to prove that it’s harmful, although they are harmful. I think we’ve already talked very briefly about how, and I too actually state this, the design of these vaccines, so I’m a drug discoverer, I spent 32 years in R&D, and in Toxicology training, so I think I can state and you can believe me, being in that environment, these are what I would call toxic by design. That is, if you were discussing it around the whiteboard in a research office, by the time you’ve agreed to make a spike protein based genetic vaccine, you know exactly what’s going to happen, so these are not rational design, they couldn’t work. And they would likely carry risks, and you wouldn’t be able to characterise the long term outcomes, but they did it anyway. And these are clever people, from your highly paid drug companies with decades of experience, so that the three thoughts are one, it expresses spike protein that’s already been talked about without any modulation of that biology. Secondly, the spike is, again genetically the least stable part of the virus, again, that was mentioned by Alexandra. Thirdly, and no one’s mentioned this yet, it’s part of the virus that’s least different from humans. You really want to pick something that’s very unique to the pathogen, and very different from you. Why? Because if there are similarities, familial similarities than when you raise an immune response to this injected material, there’s a possibility of auto immunity. And in fact, I’m confident that that is occurring, and other people think so too. And I would say it’s my opinion that the companies knew that the spike was toxic, unstable genetically, and similar to many human proteins with all of the consequences that you would expect from that.

Obviously, they’re going to need to defend themselves. But I’m telling the general public that that’s my view. And I’ve had it confirmed by other sort of veteran drug discoverers. What else should we say? Yes,and I think Sucharit?? has also talked about in the design, there is nothing that limits how long the gene is transcribed to make protein. It could be minutes, hours, days, years, there’s nothing about it that tells us how long that will happen. We can’t just say, oh, it’ll be okay. How long is it gonna last, they were not required to measure it. They were not required to measure it, because they managed to persuade the regulators, or maybe they were corrupt, that these are quotes, “vaccines”. And they were allowed to proceed down a development pathway that’s relatively light in terms of obligations on the innovator, the drug companies. Really, it should have been classed as I would say, a genetic medicine, where the obligations rightly are extremely onerous, and would have taken a long time, and certainly would have included measurements of how long they are producing spike for, and where in the body. To Sucharit’s point, it’s doing that. And they were not required to do either of those things. That’s a catastrophic failure on the part of the regulators who knew fine, what I am saying is true, because it’s conventional. I’ve never seen an exception other than in vaccines, where you do not have to study what’s called pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. So they haven’t done that. It should never be done again, by the way. You know, Bill Gates was quoted recently as saying, we were a bit too slow. Mr. Gates, you’re not a drug discovery person, I think I’ve established and I can back up what I’ve said that in order to move into a public health environment to those billions of people,the highest obligation is safely not even efficacy. And you can only do that by treating very large numbers of people and observing them for a long time, not two and a half months, it’s completely inadequate. So his suggestion that next time we’ll get it done in six months, you must not let him do that. It’s a completely inappropriate thing to do. And it’s almost certainly going to be harmful.

Again, moving on just to manufacture again, the earlier colleague, she just left, but she gave a good account of herself in explaining that as the drug goes through, as this vaccine goes through development, it’s necessary to demonstrate that you can manufacture the product consistently, so that it is characterised as having in the vial, what you say is in the vial. Now, the clinical trials were done with relatively low quantities of material because they were going to dose a few tens of thousands of people at most. But when you go into production, instead of it being a few tens of thousands, in total, it’s going to be of the order of a billion doses. A billion doses. So this all just a magnitude higher. What that implies, for people who don’t know, is you can’t use the same process for manufacturing the clinical material, it’s going to be, you can’t scale that up. So you have to start again and making an industrial scale process. When you do that, the stages required to characterise what you have made, that is the drug substance, the gene based material. And then when it’s been formulated what’s called then the drug product, those two steps drug substance and drug products require, I would say roughly half of the entire workforce of an R&D based organisation such as Pfizer, I worked there, roughly half the people are involved in that latest stage of synthesis, manufacture, characterization on all of that stuff. And the reason they’ve got 50 percent of their resources over there is it’s very, very complicated. So the idea that they manufactured of the order of a billion doses, and got all of those processes stabilised, characterised, inspected, agreed by the regulator is for the birds. They did not do those things because it’s not possible to do them in under a small number of years, probably at least five years. So what they claim to have done, a consistent manufacturer is impossible, and the regulator’s know it’s impossible. And it’s clear to people who’ve read the regulatory interactions between the European Medicines Agency and Pfizer, that’s the one I’ve actually seen cos someone leaked it, in November 2020, for example, the technical assessors at the EMA in Amsterdam, had listed seven, what are called MO’s – major objections. And they were all related to the things I’ve just listed, they did not have control of the processes giving rise to consistent pure material, and they didn’t have control of what happened to it between manufacture and formulation, these lipid nanoparticles that Sucharit mentioned.

Seven major objection, just to give you an example, when I was at Pfizer, if someone had filed or the department of a company had filed a new drug application, and even one major objection came up, heads would roll because it meant you’d not had a dialogue with a regulator so as to understand what was required by them. So they have seven listed in November 2020. And then, no more than a few weeks later, in December of that year, that vaccine product was given, whatever conditional marketing authorization, emergency use authorization, so I’ll leave the listeners to decide for themselves, given what I’ve said to you about complexity, and I’m in close contact with people who have analogous to me in research have spent their whole life in that part of pharmaceutical industry. Is it possible that all of those major objections were resolved? Now it’s not. So what they have issued, and rolled out, and had injected into people are materials, which from batch to batch, vial to vial, syringe to syringe, they’ve got no idea what you’re actually getting. And I think that is probably a major contributor to the huge range of toxicity that we see in the database, such as VAERS in the US. Some batches or lots are associated with 6000 adverse event reports, and some with a small handful. That’s not possible to be due to differences in sensitivity, not across one and a half million doses per batch, the average should be pretty much the same, and yet they’re so different. There’s got to be a reason. And the reason is, it’s not the same stuff in each of the lots. So I would say it’s a criminal manufacturer. The authorization by the European Medicines Agency and subsequently other global regulators, I think it should be investigated, because I think there’s criminal level of collusion and fraud to sign off these packages as suitable when they’re absolutely it’s impossible that they were.

And then we heard from other witnesses, and I would agree they didn’t do the things that they were intended to do. They don’t protect you from an infection, or replication of the virus in airway or transmission. And I also, I’m coming to the conclusion looking at medical statistics, statisticians analysing the data, I’m afraid it looks like what you see in the public domain is almost certainly data fraud at the country level. So in other words, you’ve been lied to even then about what these products actually do. I’ve got I guess what I’ve listed as critical miscellany that is there’s a group of other things I couldn’t quite make out into a separate item. It was never appropriate, although Bill Gates said it was, you will remember, the world won’t return to normal, he said smiling, until we’ve pretty much vaccinated the whole planet. Well, the only people you would want to, assuming this was an appropriate route to protect people, and it wasn’t, you would only want to protect the people who are at severe risk of of harms if they’re getting infected. And that would be people who are elderly, older than me and Ill [with] three, four, concomitant morbidities [and] other diseases that are life shortening. So why would you want to vaccinate the whole planet? Even if this worked, and even if it was completely safe, you would not do it even down to the issue of money and medical resources supply to unnecessarily injecting, more than once, billions of people who are not at risk at all. So something is seriously wrong there. I’m mentioning it because people think it’s an appropriate thing to do, and it’s absolutely not. We’ve learned recently that people who have had certain viral diseases, it’s probably been known and I never knew it, that if you survive certain viral diseases in childhood, it’s associated with reduced chronic diseases in later adulthood, including certain cancers. So it is not as suggested by the media, always desirable, to evade or avoid infection. Honestly, if you’re young, healthy person, you’re not at any meaningful risk of severe outcomes. And if anything, I suspect that getting the lifetime immunity from this particular rather bland virus for young people is actually slightly positive. And so it would be inappropriate.

So why were they wanting to vaccinate every human being on the planet? Well, those of you who have been looking at this for a couple of years will know it’s got nothing to do with public health. But again, it’s this control grid idea. So that was that one? Yes, just quickly, if mass vaccination policies were really about public health, I’ll just give you three quick examples of the kinds of people you wouldn’t vaccinate. One is if you’ve had the disease already and recovered as that, as that anaesthetist in the NHS, Steve James I think his name is, he was arguing with the UK Health Secretary, Mr. Javid saying, I’m not going to be vaccinated, amongst other reasons, I’m already immune having been infected. So it’s a dangerous thing to do. It’s not, oh, well maybe you’ll give them more protection, no it’s a dangerous thing if they already have immunity to the virus, including to the spike protein, what do you think is going to happen if you introduce into their body a gene sequence that will manufacture large quantities of the thing they’re already immune to? Well, they’ll get hyperimmune responses, it may kill them. So it’s hopelessly a stupid thing to do. It’s reckless and unnecessary, since they’re already protected by their own immunity, to vaccinate people who’ve been infected and recovered. And by now, if it really is as contagious as they say, after two years who would not have encountered this virus by now. So it’s over. So, you know, we shouldn’t be chasing people who are already immune.

The second class are people who are young and healthy, probably anybody under 60. But certainly when it comes to children, it’s again, it’s just completely nightmarish that you would want to inject them, there’s no, they are not at any risk and so the risk versus benefit, it can never be other than negative, you will harm and kill children and save none of them. And the third group, I’m very passionate about this cos I’ve followed the research myself, pregnant women. As I’ve said this before, since 1960 and thalidomide, everybody in the pharmaceutical industry, every healthcare professional, and I would say, every pregnant woman knows that you don’t take anything you can possibly avoid. And if you have to take something you really want to do the research and make sure it’s proven safe in pregnancy. Have they done full reproductive toxicology with these gene based products? No. And yet, you will have heard your governments tell you that it’s entirely safe, One they don’t know. Two, they can’t know because the studies haven’t been done. And three, we know from history, never to do this. So the fact that they’re doing it those three reasons I think are absolutely solid examples why this cannot be about public health.

Similarly, I won’t spend any time on it, but the boosters again it’s completely immunologically mad just to keep injecting and injecting and injecting people, If you’ve not got an adequate immune response after one or at most two doses, forget about it. So that’s another piece of fraud who for reasons I don’t really understand. And then just finally, there are a few things forewarnings. We are not this people on this call giving evidence, we’re not being wise after the event. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I, as long ago as December 2020 before any of these products had even emergency authorization, were concerned just based on the designing of them, and we wrote what turned out to be, I guess, the first full scientific critique and concerns. There was no reply from the European Medicines Agency to this petition. But instead, what happened is the two of us became attacked by smear artists and censorship. So we did try and lots of people have tried so good members of the public, ladies and gentlemen of the jury of the public, know that people like me and others on this call, were very concerned, even before emergency authorization and have been raising to the attention of the regulators and others, including media of these problems. And the fact they didn’t do anything with that information, even to say my God that’s worrying let’s discuss this tells you everything you need to know that it wasn’t about public health, and they were not going to bring an alternative view. So I think I’m done.

Yeah, I think that’s probably enough too. I hope I’ve demonstrated to you that from someone experienced in the process of biomedical R&D, although not vaccines, I’m not claiming that, but these kinds of products would be the sort of thing I would work on novel, chemical and biological entities and I understand the research development and somewhat the manufacturing processes very well. And none of the normal processes have been followed, and as a result they’ve ended up with products that are rushed, dangerous, of intrinsically poor and variable quality. And then the moves to inject the population, including mostly people who are not at any risk from the virus, I hope will tell you, even if it’s with horror that this whole thing is a fraud. The entire thing is a fraud. And we have to be incredibly vigilant as I close for not only eventually, hopefully prosecuting the driving people in this crime because it is a serious crime. But also we must stay hyper vigilant for what else might be coming. I’ll pause there. I’m happy to take any questions if there are any.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:22:43
Just one quick question, because I don’t know if you’re going to be able to stay on this much longer. If you look at the totality of evidence, as we have received it tonight, is there any chance that the mistakes that we’ve seen happened by accident?

Mike Yeadon 2:23:05
No, there’s absolutely no chance I’ll say why. Here’s another example, the four leading companies that have brought forward these gene based vaccines, so Johnson and Johnson AstraZeneca, Moderna, and then the pairing of Pfizer, and BioNTech, all four of them decided to choose the most inappropriate parts of the virus to make a vaccine out of. How did all four of them independently, unless they’re colluding, how did all four of them make exactly the same set of mistakes? Well, no, it’s not possible, Reiner. They would put each other right, they would probably come up with several different designs. If you can’t be first in class, or obviously differentiated over the competition, you usually withdraw from the fight, or you do something different. That’s what I did 10 times, you know, so once you learn what the others are doing, unless you think you’re faster or better, or safer, then you either quit, or you do something else. But no, so all four of them brought forward a badly designed product, and they made the same inverted commerce mistakes. And then just by the way, if you start a new programme, the probability it’ll get to market ever is a fraction of a percent. But that’s what’s called the attrition statistics as programmes move from your mind into laboratory [and] eventually into development, the probability it’ll reach the market is very low. What’s the probability that all four started around the same time would succeed? I’d say, you know, we could demonstrate mathematically it’s infinitesimally tiny. And so they didn’t do any of the things that they’ve said they’ve done. So there’s, I’m afraid there is whatever collusion conspiracy between the drug companies, the regulators and the people, allowing them to move forward. So no, it can’t possibly be a mistake.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:25:03
Thank you very much, Mike. I think we’re very rapidly moving into RICO territory right now. Thank you very much, Mike.

Mike Yeadon 2:25:11
Okay, my great pleasure. Thank you, and an honour.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:25:16
We should continue now with either Vanessa concluding her testimony or with Professor Burkhardt, but I think Vanessa has been waiting for too long now. Yes,

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger 2:25:31
I would make this suggestion because there are two chapters left and one of the chapter was already nicely summed up by Sucharit and Mike. First of all, biodistribution, etc, so I can skip this. And the other one is about why all vaccination failed so far, it does not fit within the concept of where we are now, I think. So it’s completely fine that we can go directly to Arne Burkhardt I think that’s more important.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:25:58
Thank you very much. We will surely ask some questions in our discussion? Okay. Professor Burkhardt.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:26:09
Yes, hello to everybody. First of all, Sucharit Bhakti introduced me very kindly. But actually, I just have to say I did in the last two years what I’ve done for 40 years, if somebody came to me and asked, well, can you look why my relative diet, will you take a look? I said, yes. If somebody asked me, Well, do I really have cancer? I said, well, yes, I will take a second look. And I invited them to my microscope and this is what I do with the results that I will present today. Everybody can look at them if he comes here. So to show you our study, I will need some slides to show, can I do this?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:27:10
Go ahead.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:27:13
Where should I

Viviane Fischer 2:27:17
There should be like a green area in the bottom.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:27:26
No. I don’t. No, this is not it.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:27:41
There it is. We can see it. Yes.

Viviane Fischer 2:27:44
No, this is not.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:27:45
Or maybe not,

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:27:46
No no. Now?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:27:59
No, not yet.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:28:02
Not yet.

Viviane Fischer 2:28:03
You have to pick the right window.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:28:08
Well I have

Viviane Fischer 2:28:10
I think you have to click on your document and then go for the screenshare

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:28:18
I have picture, whiteboard, iPhone, Microsoft.

Viviane Fischer 2:28:25
No, I mean just on the document that you would like to share, I think you have to click onto that. And then

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:28:31
It’s not I cannot see it.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:28:38
I will have Corvyn show you how to do it.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:28:42
Yes.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 2:28:49
If I may, Arne, you click on share screen and then you have a number of options that is shown.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:29:00
No.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 2:29:02
No, before before that you have to select the screen that you want on your computer.So there is an in between.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:29:16
You first have to open the document or the picture that you want to show us and then select share screen.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:29:26
Yes okay.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:29:28
That’s Corvyn.

Viviane Fischer 2:29:37
Shall we ask some questions, in the meantime, maybe? Yes, Dexter, go ahead.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:29:41
Okay. I noted Professor Bhakti’s is up. Maybe we can attend to him.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:29:49
Yes, go ahead Sucharit.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 2:29:55
Oh, okay. Good. Yes I’m here now.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:30:06
Yes you are.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 2:30:07
Dexter, I just wanted to add one thing. As we are at it now, all mRNA vaccines of the future are going to face the same problems that we are experiencing now, we have to demand that these gene based vaccines are never ever allowed to be given emergency use authorization with this warp speed time of preparation. I mean, this is what Mike Yeadon also said, you cannot test the safety of any new vaccine within months. You can not. Now to end. Also the other vaccines of Novavax, which are not “gene” based must never be allowed to be used under emergency use authorization, because there is no reason. There’s no reason since there’s no pandemic at the moment. Secondly, because no one has ever shown the eficacy of these damn other vaccines like Novavax. And third, because their safety health (inaudible) who can (inaudible) anything you want has also never been tested. Okay. People are now trying to move to the non gene based vaccines. And I think it’s very important to say no, no right now. Okay. So if you wanted to ask anything, Dexter, please go ahead.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:32:02
I know, you had your hand up. That’s why he said, he wanted to say

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 2:32:06
Okay, that’s what I wanted to say.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt 2:32:11
Thank you Professor Bhakti.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:32:15
Maybe while Professor Burkhardt is resolving the screenshare issue, we can continue with Antionietta Gatti.

Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti 2:32:30
Okay, thank you very much, I wanted to introduce myself. First, I am a physicist and bio engineer and I face the problem of this pandemic. From my original point of view. It means that I studied the vaccines directly also, because I had an experience. So, over innovative analysis and scanning electromicroscope coupled with an energy dispersive spectroscopy, and I verified the chemical composition and the contamination of 42 standard vaccines. Of course, I applied these new techniques also to new gene therapy products. And, of course, they are completely different from the standard vaccines. I don’t talk to you about spike proteins, because you are really experts, more expert than me. But I wanted to discuss the nanotechnological content of these vaccines, sorry these products, because they are not vaccines at all from my point of view. And probably you know, big pharma develop a new technique of a (inaudible) may be seen in these products and they wanted to introduce mRNA inside the cell.

Every biologist knows all the data. mRNA is recognised by the sensor of the cell membrane and that they are rejected. To vet the user they try and hope It means that they feel nano liposomes with mRNA because these nanoparticles are not recognised by the sensor of the cell membrane. When someone constructed the human bodies probably they didn’t know that there were also nanoparticles. So there are no efficient defence mechanism against nanoparticles. So, they are phagocytes by the (inaudible). And when they are inside, the coating of the epithetical components are degraded and the mRNA is inside. So, no big pharma didn’t release any notes, any knowledge about the mechanism of degradation of the liposomes. I don’t know if these mechanisms is related to the low temperature, the initial low temperature of minus 70 degrees probably was related that to the storage of liposomes we don’t know, but we think there is a correlation. But the problem is that nobody controlled the mechanism and also these nano entities. Nobody (inaudible) no CDC, no FDA, no Eman??, no other national organisations. So, there is no quality control on these products and my investigations reveal the data inside these products at present also something else. Something else means stranger nano entities. They probably are new to nanotechnological process very, very strange. And these nano entities are out of the niche?? of the vaccines and they are a good aggregator of nanoparticles of stainless steel. And we don’t know also why. Surely they are products of nanotechnologies, so intentionally added to this product. Not to all the products, but only I think that they are only in some batches and probably inside the summer safes of Pfizer and Sanofi?? there is the least of the right batches at the wrong batches. If you want I can show you some images so you can understand better what is the, wait a minute, I find it. Oh sorry. And these entities are intentionally added. Sorry, do you see that?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:39:38
Not yet Antionietta.

Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti 2:39:39
Not yet, wait a minute. I try again. I have the same problem. Now?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:39:54
Something is coming up. Yes.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 2:39:55
Okay. Wait a minute, do you see something?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:40:03
Yes we can see it. We can see the picture.

Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti 2:40:06
Perfect. These white particles are not exactly a belonging to the vaccine part, they are metallic debris inserted in the middle of the syringe and they are where the debris of the cold ward finger?? of the middle. But when they inject there is a liquid in the vaccine also where the debris are injected in the body. Do you understand this problem? Can you see there, wait yes sir, you see here some white debris very atomically dense and in this (inaudible) this debris is composed of chromium. There is chromium on the side, probably these softer entities are the agglomeration of liposomes or something else. For instance, graphene for instance, but this is very interesting because that it is a micro needle and it is a nanotechnological product and you see very well from the holes, the periodic holes that are created that is the microneedle and probably this needle is filled with a product and then this product is released when the vaccine is injected in the body.

But, I wanted to skip to these entities. They are a mixture of organic material with a nanoparticles of silica, aluminosilicate and all these particles are thrombogenic, they are not biocompatible. So they can scratch the internal blood vessels, not totally, but they can trigger the coagulation cascade. So some side effects that we see probably can ever these particle as triggering agent. This (inaudible) over seven micron over silica, I don’t know what is the meaning of why it is inside, and there are other small particles over stainless steel. Stainless steel is iron, chromium. But I wanted to show you as small particles that it is very interesting, because that is AstraZeneca and if you have a magnification of this (inaudible), you see an elixir full of nanoparticles, and these nano particles are metallica composed of our iron, chromium, copper nickel, tin but it is a nanotechnological product. But we don’t know what is the mission of these entity inside a vaccine that it is not biocompatible. I found also some particles of the vaccine there, but that it is really interesting that it is Moderna. These stranger entities over 30 micron is full of holes. Probably these also could be filled with something. They are inside say the vaccine and they are added to the vaccine with a special (inaudible) we don’t know. These smaller particle is composed of silicon, lead, cadmium, selenium. Cadmium [and] selenium are nanoparticles very interesting. They are products of nano technologies. They are (inaudible), but we don’t know what is the scope of these further material inside the product.

in other articles composed of stainless steel and that it is an organic compart?? It means that probably liposome RNA glued together with these metallica particles. Probably you saw that many patients had some magnetic effects in their (inaudible) injection. These entities can nature these effects and if there are important magnetic field, these particles can react inside in an electromagnetic field and a stranger particle of aluminium silicon nitride in Janssen, aluminium titanium I found many different things inside and probably there is a problem over quality control not performed by the manufacturer but also by the controller organisations because they are clearly visible under a scanning electron microscope.

So, I think, wait I wanted to interrupt the communication, yes because I want to talk with you especially with Michael Yeadon, because I saw his company nation also in the old vaccines, but in the new ones there are nanotechnological compounds particles inside and the effect in the human body is unknown. I started biomaterials biocompatibility of materials for many years. So, I had an experience because, but it is the first time that I see nanotechnological products inside a fluid. I coordinated a research project of a European commission of nanotoxicity. And I know very well what is the effect of nanoparticles inside the cell and I had beautiful photos images of a direct nano bio interaction of these nanoparticles with DNA also. Mitochondria organisms, but also DNA, so from my point of view these new products are dangerous, and I don’t see the possibility for the body to counteract against these (inaudible). Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:49:51
We will save our questions for the discussion, but Antonietta, do you have any idea if these nanoparticles could have been included in the vials by accident or do you think

Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti 2:50:11
in the last vaccines, I am sure that there was a contamination during the inducer process to develop a vaccine. I think that silver nanoparticles probably they added by mistake, because there was a contamination inside the process of synthesis with other (inaudible), you so, two or three nano entities and they are nanotechnologically developed and they are intentionally added. It is my personal opinion of course, but you know that many other scientists declared that the problem there is a contamination with external electromagnetic fields and I think that probably these entities can be the (inaudible) with electromagnetic field when they are inside they can generate magnetic field, small magnetic fields that can interact in a new way inside the body.

Recently, I published an article about the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and I worked with other collaborators [and] neurologist and analysing the brain of these babies, so we discovered that inside there are contamination particles, also particles of aluminium or aluminium for starter?? and probably some other as a scientist, a presenter, (inaudible) it means so that over the (inaudible) over the standard vaccines where (inaudible) from the mother to the fetus and inside this (inaudible) also to the brain. So, it is a novelty, because we say that there is a risk to give drugs to the mother during the pregnancy. And now it is normal to vaccinate the pregnant ladies. It is wrong because if inside there are some inorganic nanoparticles nano entities and that they can be translocated to the fetus and that they can be disseminated inside all the organs of the fetus –

Reiner Fuellmich 2:54:15
including the brain –

Prof. Dr Antionietta Gatti 2:54:14
– also the brain, of course, but I think that also they can reach the liver the kidneys. Also because they are transported by the blood circulation, not too early, but these particles I showed you they can interact with the proteins over the blood. They can activate the coagulant cascade, but they also then create a organic inorganic compound, not more virus (inaudible). That is the problem also because they cannot trigger the new system. So, these simple images suggest that a new mechanism can be generated, some pathological mechanisms can be generated in the body due to the presence of these entities.

Reiner Fuellmich 2:55:28
Thank you Antonietta. Let us quickly see if Professor Burkhardt is ready to join us again. Hello, Professor Burkhardt.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:55:40
I hope I can get my pictures now. Let me see. You can see now?

Reiner Fuellmich 2:56:02
Not yet. It’s coming up, now we can see several images. You probably yes. Now we can see the first one autopsy and histology study on vaccination?

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 2:56:21
Well, yes this first slide gives you an overview of what we have been doing in the last year. So it was about one year ago that relatives approached me and asked and they had the suspicion that their relatives have not died of natural causes, but of sequences of this vaccination. So at that time, I wrote to the National Pathology Associations and I suggested that a nationwide study should be started to see the consequences of death occurring in the time associated with vaccination. And, well I didn’t get any answer at that time. So I said, well if nobody else would do it, I will do it. And through the months following, there have been many pathologists, physicians, biologists turning to me, and they ask where we see similar cases we have the same observations, and so we actually are now eight pathologists and medicals, and one physicist also joined us just recently.

So the material is 30 autopsies and four biopsies. Actually today, four more cases arrived. So I have 35 cases now. And it’s very time consuming to study these cases. So, practically most of the data that I will give link to 15 initial cases that were analysed by routine methods, and three with advanced methods. So you see here the people that died – seven male, eight females, seven days to six months after the last injection. And the age range was 28 to 95 years. And you see these were the usual vaccinations that are used in Germany, mostly Pfizer and Moderna. So we were asked to do a second opinion. These were autopsies that were carried out elsewhere. Some were in solitary institutes, some in forensic medicine, and at the macroscopic examination of the organs did not result in any suspicion that this was connected with vaccination. All the cases in the forensic medicine were not even examined by histopathology. And [the] only suspicion was a recent when the relatives insisted on [a] second opinion and our second opinion showed that there are certain histological characteristics that are seen in most of the cases. I will show these characteristics in the following slides. But our result was that in five cases, there was a very likely association with the death process, seven likely, two possible, and in one case we did not find any provable cause that connection with the vaccination.

So, very important is the fact that most of the patients that we examined were not treated for a long time in the hospital. This rules out all therapeutic changes in the organs. For example, if a patient has been subdued to artificial respiration, the changes in the lungs are secondary and you cannot see what the vaccination did and what has the respiration done. So, this is very important because most of the autopsies are done in hospitals and most of these patients that are autopsied in the hospitals have been treated for a long time in the hospital, but our corrective really was mostly non treated and they collapsed at home, in the street, in the car, at work and in the retirement home. So, actually, we found lesions in most organs, and at the first place the blood vessels were damaged, the small vessels the endothelial the innermost layer in the vessel walls. In the vessels, we found some unidentified intravascular material, which I will talk later about. Then spleen and lymph nodes and lymphatic organs showed very characteristic changes, and heart, lung, brain also had in most cases inflammatory changes. And finally, we found what we call lymphocyte amok in most organs outside of the lymphatic organs and these were very much reminiscent of autoimmun phenomena observed in autoimmune diseases.

So, what were our methods used? The routine histological preparation, conventional stains and immunohistochemistry and especially immunohistochemistry is a second step that we are right now in. We used the standard markers of lymphocytes of inflammatory cells. And in some cases, the we were able to show the spike protein in these tissue. So to anybody who is not acquainted with microscopy and the way organs look under the microscope, this is a normal liver and you can see there are these dark spots that are the nuclei, and then there’s the cytoplasm which has a little bit granular appearance, mostly these are mitochondria. So we are able to see the nucleus and the cytoplasm and also some changes in the cytoplasm. And one of the most impressing change was a change in the lining of the small vessels and capillaries and you can see the normal in the normal vessels. They are aligned by a very thin layer of endothelial cells. You can only see these spindle shaped cell nuclei, but they are firmly attached to the wall of the vessel, and in the vaccinated patients we saw this phenomenon – it’s the endothelial cells have swollen nuclei they have they are detached from the wall, and they are intermixed with erythrocytes.

So now and then you see this phenomenon also caused by autolysis, which is the decay after death. But we definitely could prove that these small vessels are actually destroyed by lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrates. You still see the elongated swollen, spindle shaped nuclei, and the whole area has infiltrated and they are really destructed. Now, of course, we were thinking about how could this be at, we were interested in showing if the spike protein could be shown in these damaged cells, and just for those who are not familiar with immunohistochemistry. So you can see the sequence here. And finally, we use multiple antibodies, and the last one has some coloration, some colour on it. And so we have brown pigment, and you’ll see here positive reaction in a cell of a soil culture. And actually, before we employ this method on our histological slides of the autopsy persons, we did studies in cell cultures and these are cell cultures as negative controls, and here we have transfection with the vaccine, and this is a larger magnification and you can see theres a strong positive reaction here. And now we have applied it to the tissue that we were seeing and where we saw the image to be vessels. And on the right side, you can see these small capillaries and there’s a definite and very specific staining of these cells, and also in the smaller arterial walls you can see that the inner part the inner layer of the artery is definitely stained. Also you can see inside some (inaudible) cells, and we observe these damages to not only in the small vessels, but also in the large vessels, especially in the aorta and we actually we have two cases now who died of a ruptured aorta. And here you can see one of the specimens here you can see the inside on the right side, the inside where the blood flows. And the one of the aorta is composed of a regular lining of a[n] alternating smooth muscle cells and elastic fibres. And you can see already here in the wall there are some areas where the texture is irregular if there are some small points which are lymphocytes, and more impressive even the inflammatory reaction on the outside of the aorta (inaudible). So these are the so called (inaudible) the vessels of the vessel and to show it in a larger magnification you can see these defects in the arterial wall of the aorta and you can see there is an inflammatory reaction. Again, a proof that this is an intro vital damage to the wall of the aorta . And then we saw the same thing in larger and smaller arteries.

And again, we ask ourselves could this be a toxic effect of the spike protein? Similar changes are known in some genetic defects but also in some poisonings like what they call (inaudible). That is a poison that is in some (inaudible, and I don’t know the English word, but it’s very rare and itleads to a dissection and disruption of our order. So, we knew that this could happen in poisoning and you can see here, we did a demonstration of the spike protein and you can see these very clear marking of the nuclei of these bio fibroblasts which lie in the order and also in the vicinity of the (inaudible) of the smaller vessels in the outer layer of the order are definitely positive reacting.

So, how often did we see this? First of all the damage of the small vessels, the endotheliatisis, as some people call, it the swelling desquamation and lymphocytic infiltration we saw in 11 cases, vasculitis and heavy vasculitis of larger vessels in 10 cases, focal vessel wall necrosis and inflammatory reaction as I have shown in six cases, and inflammation accompanied by thrombosis in two cases. And I may add a rupture of the aorta in two cases. So, we come to another two other organs, we come to the liver and the spleen, you can see these two tissue specimens were in one paraffin block, and they were sectioned and stained in the same matter, and also they were fixed and embedded in the same way. And here you can see the liver and the liver itself is largely negative. But if you look closely you may see some small vessels in there which are positive, and the spleen shows a completely different picture. The spleen itself has a diffuse positive staining, but even at this magnification you can see that the vessels, these round areas here, are definitely strongly positive.

So, first of all, I will show you the liver and you can see that the liver cells are negative, there’s a slight nonspecific reaction that this cannot be ruled positive. And you can see that the endothelial cells in the liver are strongly positive. And in the spleen, we saw as we have already seen in this low magnification, we saw a very diffused and specific staining of the cells that we found and a phenomenon which is known from some autoimmune diseases, which is called this onion skin inflammation of the central arteries of this bleed. And this is for example, seen in lupus erythematosus and also changes that as far as we know, and I think about 50 pathologists have seen looked at it by now, it’s a focal destruction of follicular arteries with prolapse of lymphatic follicular tissue. And here you can see these are the spots where we found changes and here this is the area that is important. That’s the white part?? of the speen and it’s a follicle with central follicular artery. And this is a phenomenon that I refer to, it is the “onion skin” reaction or phenomenon that means that the wall of this small artery is changed and is disorganised.

And finally also in these arteries that show these this phenomenan, we definitely could demonstrate a strong positive reaction for the spike protein. This is a phenomenon that I refer to that as far as I know has never been described. This is a small central artery of the spleen and you can see this is the wall, and here there’s a defect and the lymphatic tissue which is proliferating and exerts some pressure has a prolapse into this artery. And then the other lymphatic organs show activation. You see the lymph nodes, maybe in some cases, very much enlarged. And on the other hand, we saw what is in fact of the central lymph nodes in some cases. This is a normal one just to show you the follicles. And this is a phenomenon described by some Japanese office and maybe associated with vessel changes with changes of the small arteries or capillaries. And now, we come to the other organ lesions. By now, it is internationally accepted that vaccination may cause myocarditis and inflammation of the heart muscle. And you can see a normal specimen, and here you can see the lymphocytes the small dark dots that are infiltrating, and they are not only infiltrating but in some cases, they lead to necrosis of the muscle cells of the heart. And this is very important to differentiate this from burnout?? infaction of the heart tissue, because infaction in a normal infaction, you don’t see many lymphocytes, but predominantly granulocytes. So, we come to the lung, on the right side again along with normal alveoli, which are filled with air and some lymphocytes inside and some macrophages, but here after vaccination and not after artificial respiration, you see this lung tissue has collapsed and there are dense lymphocytic infiltrations. And these are T lymphocytes as we could show by immunochemistry.

And now, we come to changes in the brain and just for those who are not familiar, we have the skin and the skull, and we have a dense connective tissue here, the dura mater, and this loose connective tissue in the arachnoida with some very delicate blood vessels, and then of course we have the brain tissue, and we found changes in all three of these locations. And these are the main findings. Transfaction-associated encephalitis, lymphocytic infiltration and focal destructive of intracerebral and arachnoidal blood vessels. Subarachnoidal bleeding without aneurysma. As you may know, aneurysma of the vessels of the brain are the most common cause of rupture. Then we have focal lymphocytic infiltration in the dura mater and finally, in one case, partial necrosis of the hypophyseal gland. And here you can see the lymphocytic infiltration in the dura mater which is part [of the] membrane that covers the brain and the skull, and you can see this 26 year old male who died after the vaccination you find this infiltration. And in the same case, we also found lymphocytic infiltration in the small vessels of the brain tissue itself.

So, coming to an end with the autopsy cases, I will show you one additional case with the necrotizing encephalitis, [a] 76 year old man with the necrotizing encephalitis, vasculitis of the aorta and coronary artery as I have shown lymphocytic myocarditis. And in this case, here you can see the changes of the brain tissue, there is necrosis and there is (inaudible) and lymplatic inflammatory infiltration. And in this case also we could demonstrate the spike protein mainly in the vessel walls, as you can see here, but also in the neural cells itself as you can see here, this is a typical granular reaction. And this is a demonstration of one recent case that we examined, we come to the last large entity that we observed that is what we call the lymphocytic amok. Accumulation of lymphocytes and some call it lymphocytosis in non lymphatic organs, inflammation and tissue destruction predominantly caused by lymphocytes, as we have seen for example, in the immnocardium, but we see it also in other organs, practically in all tissues it could happen. And this reminds very much of changes that we observe in autoimmune diseases. And this is just the frequency that we have observed is actually these figures have to be interpreted because we only had salivary gland in two of the cases, [and] autopsies in both cases showed salivary gland inflammation in the sense of an autoimmune disease, and the thyroid glands also we only have two cases and both had infiltrations like in Hashimoto thyroiditis. The aorta I have shown you, Skin I will show you later. Liver kidney (inaudible) I already showed you.

Now this is just one example here you can see the lymph node and you can see this is like a small lymph node right in the middle of the lung. It has reaction centres here and this [is] very rare that you observe this and this is the thyroid glands and you can see these dark areas [of] infiltration, small lymphocytic infiltrations, again with germinal centres and the activation like small lymph nodes.

Now, we come to another problem, I mentioned that we observed strange material in the vessels and tissues of, by now five cases. And this is one example we found in the vessel of the screen. First, we thought they just had cells, but they have it an inner structure, then we thought it might be a contrast material but the patient died at home and never was in the hospital in the last year. So, actually, we do not know. We showed it to about 50 pathologists and nobody knows what this material is. We will make further investigations. And our suspicion is that this is material from the injected vaccine material. The nano lipid particles might coalesce when they warm up in the body, and they might circulate and finally accumulate in the vessels. And this is in a similar finding in the dead tissue in one case. And also here we have this strange intra cellular structures that nobody knows what it is. So we just call it unidentified. And in one case has a longer history after vaccination, we found these strange materials and some tissue reaction and fibrosis.

So, I will just show you what the Pfizer?? autopsy case, a case of 40 year old man which was supposed to have died of a natural cause, because he was definitely myocardial infact{ion} that he had died off. And he had a vaccination. And the autopsy just by the macroscopic aspect seemed to ascertain the fact that he died of a heart attack of infaction and he did actually he did die of a heart infaction., and he had pre existing arterial blood sclerosis but there was an addition the lymphocytic myocarditis that I had shown you before and we found and this is a cross section of the coronary artery. Here you see the thrombus, this is a thrombus, which caused the (inaudible) cardio infection and caused the death. But in addition, you find arterial sclerotic changes, and then again, what I showed you in the beginning there are areas in the deeper layer of the vessel here where you can see there are some disturbance of the structure and there’s infiltration by lymphocytes, and the lymphocytic infiltration also is in the vicinity around the vessel. And here you can see these also in the fatty tissue and here lymphocytic infiltration. Now, this is very unusual, and I think I have never seen it in a vessel. So, the logical consequence is this man died of an inflammation of the disturbance of the coronary artery which caused thrombosis and the thrombosis called the heart in fact, and actually he did not die of natural causes, but he died of consequences of the vaccination.

And finally, some examples of surgical bioptic specimens, appendectomy, bronchial biopsy and skin lesion. Here you can see an observation of the other pathologists that I work together with, they found that the specimens of appendectomy did not show much inflammation in the inside of the appendix, but marked inflammation in the vicinity of the appendix. And you can see it here. This is the fat tissue around the appendix. And again, we did the demonstration of the spike protein. And actually it was very clearly expressed by the endothelial cells around the appendix. And here [a] 26 year old man after vaccination, nine months after vaccination, and he had still difficulties with breathing (inaudible), and so they did a bronchoscopy nine months after the vaccination, and the bronchoscopic picture showed the normal mucosa surface no secretion. But in our histology, we had marked inflation of the mucosa with eosinophilia. And we could again demonstrate the spike protein.

Now first of all, to those who are not familiar? Inside the epithelium, they’re often these elongated cells which are not epithelial and we call them dendritic cells, a function in immune detection and immuno surveillance. And here you can see that these dendritic cells within the bronichoepithelial strongly marked with a spike protein, while the epithelial endothelial cells of the small vessels are only very mild demarked. And finally, a skin biopsy here, you can see well what we might call granulomatous reaction under the skin. And this is under further investigation, we did not do the spike protein in this cases. So, when we did these examinations, all cases were seen by two pathologists and other pathologists also have seen all the problematic changes. And again and again, we were asking ourselves, well, are we chasing a phantom? Is this really true? We looked at each other? And said, well, do you see this, too? Do you see this phenomenon? Do you see that this artery as a onionskin phenomenon? And well, we came to the conclusion, no, we’re not chasing a phantom. Further studies are necessary and provocative. Thank you very much.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:31:40
Just one quick question, Professor Burkhardt. When you saw the expression of the spike protein in the organs in the cells, can you exclude the possibility that it entered the body in any other way than through the vaccinations, the inoculations?

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 3:32:02
Well,

Reiner Fuellmich 3:32:04
Is there any possibility that there’s another way?

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt 3:32:07
Well some people had the idea that these people might have had what you call real infection by the Coronavirus, but then first of all, most of these people died suddenly, they just collapsed. And I’ve never heard of any corona infection where people don’t have a longer history of respiratory problems, and so on and so on. But we are right now doing examinations of the nucleo capsid. And we will very soon have the results.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:32:54
Thank you very much. My colleagues, before we enter the discussion and ask more questions, we should listen to our final expert on this topic. Professor Bergholz if that is okay. Professor Bergholz.

Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz 3:33:22
Now, I guess you can hear me?

Reiner Fuellmich 3:33:24
Yes.

Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz 3:33:25
And I have a presentation. Now, listening, it turned out that what I have prepared, in a way, seems to be maybe a good summary of what we’ve heard today. So let’s have a look. So I have to go to share screen first. Here we go. So how much time do I have?

Reiner Fuellmich 3:33:58
We are under a little bit of time pressure.

Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz 3:34:02
Yes. As usual. So now I’m switching to full presentation mode now, if my computer does that, and I hope it works. Do you see the full presentation now?

Reiner Fuellmich 3:34:21
Yes.

Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz 3:34:22
Good. So I’m not a medical person? How come that I am in this group of people? Well, my claim to fame in this group is that I’ve practised quality and risk management for something like 20 years, if not longer, and I’ve also taught it at university. I’ve also researched on it and I have about 17 years of industry experience in production. So what Mike said about scaling up was right up my street and I’ll come back to that later. I’ll skip over that overview. Now, the topic is quality perspective. Now, why is this relevant? I had a close look at the leaked Pfizer contract and somewhere it said that the quality of the product and tests should constantly be tested and Good Manufacturing Practice should be done. So far, so good, nothing unusual. Now, the real beauty comes now. What does it say indemnification. That is if there is any problem, normally the manufacturers are free from all damage claims, but this will not be available in case of a material breach a significant breach of Good Manufacturing Practice.

So, if we find substantial non conformities relative to ISO 9001, which is kind of the gold standard of how you do a quality management system, then it will mean that indemnification is void, which I think is something that we all like to see. So, that is a kind of busy slide. So, that is non conformities in the development process. Our Canadian expert already said there were false expectation raised that it can do any, that it can protect you, this I haven’t even listed that. But what she also said known risks from animal experience on previous attempts to bring those so called vaccinations to market, they have all been ignored, and I would say circumvented. Pfizer gave a statement in October 2020, that they had not done animal experiments. And also the telescoping of phases, which I would have called quality gates in my language. If you do that in parallel, you have an undue increase in risk. I don’t think that needs any further explanation. Then, our Canadian friend already mentioned many of those things that Peter Doshi, the co-editor of the British Medical Journal listed as severe deficiencies in that study. And so, yeah I think even call it fraudulent. Okay, and then what is I think ridiculous, pre mature unblinding and vaccination of large parts of the control group, then the questionable endpoint was mentioned, and that’s a relative risk reduction is absolute irrelevant, and yet we are talking about 1 percent. So, the development process is seriously flawed. And that is the first serious nonconformity which simply cannot be excused by urgency.

Okay. When the papers that were presented to the European Medicine Agency in December 2020 were subject, or the conditional approval was subject to several obligations, I called them, and as Mike pointed out, most of those obligations were related to either poor process or poor materials control, most of which those obligations which should have been dealt with by June 2020 are not even fulfilled by this time. And normally, the only action would have been stop the whole thing until the manufacturers have done their job. Not so here. Okay. Then Mike also pointed that out if you go from such a small quantity that you use for those 40 or 50,000, portions or doses for the studies, if you go to manufacturing billions, you have two problems. You cannot but use lower grade chemicals, and you have to use large scale equipment. And so, in a way, I think Mike said so, and I would agree, you would have to start from scratch again because what you get out of this product is different. Definitely different. The only question is how much from the original product?

So the conclusion, number three is, from this, it seems relatively likely that we will have stable mass production. And the proof is here. What do we see here, we see a sequence in this case of 175 adverse effect reports for 175 lots, I’ve not put the lot numbers themselves, but they were in alphabetical or alphanumerical order. So, this for all we know, was the time sequence that they were made. And this is, by the way, statistical process control how to treat it. Anything that goes, whoops, sorry, that goes above [the] dotted line is out of control, the process should be stopped immediately. And what we can also see, even in between we have quiet periods, and it starts to wobble a little bit. But that is one of the better periods. So it’s getting worse. Here we have a quiet period. And then it starts to wobble again. And the interesting thing, this batch, which I’ve annotated here is the second batch that the 15 year old girl Theyan?? Brown was inoculated or vaccinated with, and from what I remember she died about three weeks or four weeks later. And I’ve checked that also for the first injection. And again, her injection was not one of the worst. These would have been the worst. But again, it was in one of those bumpy ride periods rather than those periods. And what I suspect is, if we would follow up all the people that would be vaccinated by these, then we would find my prediction a lot more dead people. Because the number of cases by the way that have been reported, correlates rather well with the number of deaths and the number of seriously injured. So even worse, what we see here are those super toxic batches that Mike has referred to, but we can see here, I’ll go back in a minute, we see here the maximum scale is 30. And here we are at 3000. Those isolated groups of batches are absolutely out of any thing that can happen statistically. There was something done on purpose. So I think here we have clear evidence there was a[n] intentional thing being done. And what I learned from the website, how bad is my batch? They have analysed that those patches, and that’s also important to know, were sent to all 50 states of the United States, whereas those harmless batches went to anything between two and twelve, if I remember.

So how did the manufacturers know that they had to distribute [to] those 50 states in order to dilute it down? They knew it, so there was intention at least to send them out. No efficacy, already in July 2021 I had found evidence from the Israel data that the efficacy had completely waned by then, and of course then they started the booster and the forced injection. And of course, the result was things got worse and worse. So this is a very recent thing from England and I would like to really show this in person to our Chancellor Olaf Schultz, who is advocating obligatory injections. Red is per 100,000 people, the vaccinated people that were testing positive per 100,000 in January, and blue is the unvaccinated. So I think it’s very clear, if you want to get the risk to be at least positively tested, most likely then also infected after, what we’ve heard how our immune system is rundown if you want to increase the risk get vaccinated. So in oither words, we do have by now the pandemic of the vaccinated, no doubt in my opinion. And this should be given to any of the members of parliament who vote in favour of vaccination, and then we know they have mal-intent.

And coming back to adverse events. We have a problem with the adverse event reporting, that there is always this growth [of] under reporting. Therefore, I have compared that is for Germany alone, the number of deaths per year, for those approximately 17 million vaccinations per year, from the year 2000 to 2019. We are talking about 20 deaths. Those COVID-19 injections have 2255 deaths. Okay, you could say it’s 50 times more deaths per injection, or 100 times deaths per injected person assuming two injections. I mean how can you go over this and ignore this? Time and again the experience when I talk to friends and acquaintances who believe the story the narrative, and I tell them these are the official data?Why don’t we see that on the mainstream media? Sheer amazement, I leave them at that, because maybe that’s the first seed that they start to think about what is going on. So we a dramatic increase in the death rate. It also goes for the other things that we find similar things for other countries.

So coming back to what Antoinietta Gatti told us, I listed what has been found by most (inaudible) microscopy, frequently it has been found that there was graphene oxide strips, they looked like it. And in one case, I know of a Micro-Raman spectometry exactly on one of those trips, there is no doubt that that was graphene oxide, no doubt at all. It’s [a] very characteristic fingerprint. Now then we have metallic objects, which may be debris from the production equipment. And in a very few cases, there have been reported objects which resemble fragments of microchips. I mean, I have a lot of experience since I worked in the chip industry, when you want to analyse a chip, you put that into suitable liquids and it will disintegrate. And you get fragments like that. And this looks absolutely identical to what you would expect, if you disintegrate a microchip. It’s unfortunate that there is no scale bars. And I could even have told you what the minimum feature size is, it’s probably not by far not the latest technology. So where does that stuff come from? Now, the most probable reason for me is not that it has been put there intentionally. But I suspect that this was possibly by censorship?? sets are in the production equipment in which overtime also can disintegrate and nobody cared. And so filtering also seems to be very substandard if all these objects can be found unless that stuff is added intentionally. So I’m almost done.

So, in an absolute series nonconformity, three types of undeclared solid objects in the objection liquid. That is, there is no way and of course, the pathology results, I don’t think I need to say anything about that. Now, what I would like to emphasise what I think Mike mentioned, that or someone else, there is no control of how much of the poisonous spike protein, where, and for how long that is produced. So what happens in our body is absolutely out of control. So every organ and every bodily function can be affected. So what kind of treatment is that? So my conclusion is, and I would love to support the jury in substantiating that, there are so many serious concerns and quality non conformities that according to elementary quality assurance principles, all vaccinations must be halted immediately. What’s also important? I mean, we did the job of [the] Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, so they must be forced to get active. If they don’t, then they’re they’ll have to answer for that in court someday, I think. So in contract terms, regarding quality controls, almost everything has been violated. And thus, in my opinion, indemnification is void. That’s it.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:51:14
Actually, the conclusion that you come to in that final aspect here is the same that a group of Belgian lawyers came to accept, they didn’t even know about the serious defects in quality control. So this confirms what you’re saying. Thank you very much Werner. Thank you very much. Very impressive.

Prof. Dr Werner Bergholz 3:51:40
Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:51:40
Yes, let us, we have two more experts who will try and explain to us why after everything we’ve seen tonight, after all this destruction, deliberate destruction wreaking havoc by the so called vaccine, why do people allow this to happen to them? But before we talk to these experts, let us ask some questions. Because I think there are a few questions that we still need or want to be answered, Anna and Virginie and Dexter.

N. Ana Garner 3:52:19
Thank you. I’ll start then. I’m Ana Garner from the United States. I’m an attorney there. And I’m going to address this question I guess to any of you who can answer it. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the design flaws that have gone into the production and testing rather of these vac, inoculations. We won’t dignify them with the word vaccine. So we have many design flaws. We have the unblinding, after just a couple of months, we had the, let’s see, it was called the immuno bridging that they did by overlapping these studies with the adults and the children, the younger teenagers. We have them misrepresenting the risk rate by using relative risk rates versus absolute risk rates. Is there anything about this that has been done previously in rolling out any other types of inoculations that were ostensibly for public health reasons? Is anyone aware that they have had these kinds of design flaws in previous inoculations that have been rolled out for the public?

Reiner Fuellmich 3:53:46
Maybe this is a good question for Sucharit or Alexandra.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:53:52
Both. The swine flu.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 3:53:55
I don’t have an answer.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:53:57
The swine flu, the swine flu that claimed 1000s of victims, that was propagated and installed without any reason. And I have to say, you know, Wolfgang Wodarg and I stood up, that was I think, 2009, and we wrote about this and said, this is bad. It’s bad. Clear. Of course, you can go back to 2001.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 3:54:42
Sucharit, were they for the flu that Ana Garner was saying?

N. Ana Garner 3:54:48
No, it was for any sort of inoculation, but I’m aware,

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude 3:54:51
– ah that’s different. Then do you mean like if there have been a number of adverse effects for instance, and that they would be halted?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:55:03
No I am talking about the introduction of vaccines that have not been properly tested and that are probably ridiculous. And actually it started with the anthrax, the anthrax 2001, as I recall, which was along the same lines, created by the same people who are behind this right now, and led to deaths.

N. Ana Garner 3:55:37
So Professor Bhakti may I interrupt you for a second now, in those situations, did they have similar types of design flaws and where they also misrepresenting the findings that they had with the anthrax, with the swine flu, as they are with this particular the COVID-19 innoculant?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:55:57
in detail Ana the design flaws with this was similar, not the same of course, but they were there and you have to read about this. I can’t explain it to you now in five minute.

N. Ana Garner 3:56:17
That’s quite alright. There were previous

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:56:17
the anthrax scare and followed by this SARS and the you know, bird virus scare and then topped by this swine flu scare. The swine flu scare has claimed so many existences and was representative of what was going on then in 2000, I think it was 9. And it’s being repeated now but on a scale that is so horrifying, so horrifying, that I cannot understand that people do not rise and say no, this is an absolute no, no go. And I said this before, these so called vaccines, these jabs are in the experimental stage. You are obliged, anyone in the world, before you let these so called vaccines be jabbed into the bodies of people. The moment you see, this is the Nuremberg Code, by the way, the Nuremberg Code that was, of course, existent in 2009 with the swine flu, but now,

N. Ana Garner 3:57:48
so Doctor Bhakti what I’m trying to get at is

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:57:50
Ana, let me tell you one last thing. The thing about this agenda, that deficit from the previous agendas, is that the deadly consequences of vaccination become apparent so quickly. And therefore you can stop the vaccination immediately. We could not have done that 12 years ago with the swine flu, because those vaccines were conventional, and no one could have known what they would have done. But now we know that these vaccines are killing quickly. And in, you know, there’s no discussion, Nuremberg Code, you’ve got to stop them.

N. Ana Garner 3:58:54
Exactly. And they did stop them with the swine flu after only 50 deaths. And the other thing that I wanted to point out is, if they were aware of these design flaws before that caused enough harm, only 50 people died. But that was still enough to stop the vaccines for the swine flu. They knew, Is it reasonable for us to conclude that they knew these manufacturers knew that these design flaws were flaws that would misrepresent to the public the safety and efficacy of their products?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:59:33
I’m sorry, Ana, look,

Reiner Fuellmich 3:59:36
Did they know this –

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:59:38
Let’s not beat about the bush.

Reiner Fuellmich 3:59:38
– or did they not know it? It’s a it’s a simple question, please. Did they know it? Must they have known it? Or could they have not known it?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi 3:59:47
They could not have not known it? And therefore it’s premeditated and therefore they have got to be removed from our world

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Reiner, you were saying at the very beginning, let’s start a law case. And I can say it’s overdue. It is overdue.

Reiner Fuellmich
That’s why we are doing this because we cannot expect this kind of a hearing in a system court. That’s why we’re doing this outside of the system to show and lead the way.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Yes Reiner, but the case is closed. The case is closed. It’s so clear. And it will stand witness for the prosecution for you. All of us.

Reiner Fuellmich
Yes.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude
So the other cases that I’m aware of that [where] they halted the vaccination because the results were terrible, it’s actually as far as I recall for the Nature paper with the RSV, retroviral since issue vaccines in children, and that was in some northern countries, whether Denmark or Sweden, I don’t recall exactly, but I can for sure look it up for you. And the other cases are the dengue fever vaccine. Basically, each time the results was dreadful and therefore they had to halt the vaccination.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Yes, exactly Alexandra. So if they halted then, then they have to halt it now. And now is tomorrow. My God. Now, what has happened now is nothing to be compared with all the horrible things that happened during the Dengue. Now I’m Thai, I know about Dengue, and the anthrax, those were terrible. But what is happening now is a thousand, ten thousand times more terrible, and it is now documented that it is terrible. And Arne Burkhardt has shown pictures that must strike fear in anyone, even the lay, to see how the immune system is now being goaded into killing these people. And I don’t want us to discuss this anymore. I want us to stand up and get these people to jail. They have to stop. I don’t care how and why, you know, we have a little boy. And we’re going to leave this country because the Germans, Alexandra sorry, the French, the Swiss are not much better, the Austrians, are just as bad.

Reiner Fuellmich
Sucharit, we are working on this, we are working on this right now. We’re trying to find out why this is happening and how this is happening –

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
– but we know why it’s happening

Reiner Fuellmich
Sucharit, we are in the process of working on this. Please bear with us.

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude
So when I was at the parliament in the chamber of the deputy in Luxembourg, I did quote the number of deaths that they had to reach which were very scarce, I once again it is very recorded very official because it was on display at the Luxembourg Parliament, and the number was quite low to stop the vaccination.

Reiner Fuellmich
But to come to a conclusion, do we agree that even though similar defective processes have happened in the past? This is totally completely unheard of, because from your Sucharit, and from everybody else’s reaction that is what I gather. This cannot be compared with anything that has ever happened before, as far as faulty processes are concerned.

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
Unprecedented.

Reiner Fuellmich
You’re muted Sucharit. Sucharit, you are muted.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Listen guys, the children and the grandchildren of us are being killed. I don’t know why we are arguing about anything. It’s got to be stopped. It’s got to be, and let me tell you every future mRNA or adenovirus vaccine will carry the same risks. They must be stopped. They must be prohibited. And never ever in the future of mankind may these vaccines, whether they are propagated by Bill Gates, I don’t know Bill Gates, I don’t care about him. But he cannot have the power to have the world (inaudible)

Reiner Fuellmich
Let us, Sucharit we have, we understand your point. Everyone seems to agree on this, but that is the conclusion that we have to draw from the findings that we are trying to make. We’re not quite finished yet.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Why?

Reiner Fuellmich
But I agree with you. Sucharit –

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Why aren’t you finished?

Reiner Fuellmich
Because you don’t walk into a court of law and say, here’s the result. Please give me a decision that fits it. You first go through the different steps in order to gather all the evidence that you need.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
I’m sorry, I don’t know

Reiner Fuellmich
Sucharit it’s okay. I understand

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
But the evidence is there. The evidence is (inaudible)

Reiner Fuellmich
Sucharit, this is not how you

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
– you roll your eyes –

Reiner Fuellmich
Sucharit, maybe doctors do this. Lawyers don’t. Please have patience. Have patience. Or else we will fail because if we move too fast, we will fail. Please understand us. Please understand this.

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
Bye bye, okay. Let’s let 10,000 children die. I don’t want it.

Reiner Fuellmich
No one wants this.

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
I can’t stand it. Virginie, please.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Yes, thank you. I will make my rule to record for the court, the grand jury and the judge I will ask these formally to the experts. Do you think based on your medical and scientific conclusions, that the following rules coming from the Nuremberg Code were respected by the gene therapy producers and international national agency. If you like, you can answer by yes, it’s respected, or no it’s not. The rule number two, [the] experiment must be such that it produces results that are advantageous to the good of society, impossible to obtain by other methods or means of study, and not random or superfluous in nature? Do you think that it has been respected?

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
Of course not. We know all of this.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
And number three, the experiment must be conducted in such a way as to avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. Do you think that it was respected?

Prof Sucharit Bhakti
Of course not. We know all of this.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Number four and I’ll go on to number six. Number four, no experiment should be conducted when there is a prior reason to believe that death or disability will occur. Do we think that it was respected?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Of course not.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Five, the level of phrase to be taken should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. Do you think that it was respected?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Of course not.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
And last one, provision shall be made and means provided to protect the subject from any remote possibility of injury, disability or death. Do you think it was respected?

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Of course not. And we know this.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Thank you. Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich
Well, thank you very much. We know this. We know this, Sucharit, but the jury does not know it yet. This is for some people the very first time they are hearing this. Dexter, you wanted to ask a question?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Yeah. In conclusion, Professor Bhakti, when you gave evidence, you did actually gave evidence to the extent that we are now at phase four. So my question that I want to pose to each and every one of you or whoever actually wants to answer is that when Dina McLeod when she gave evidence, and I don’t know as to whether I’ve actually captured it correctly, but you can assist me in this is that only when one actually conducts phrase three of an medical experiment can one prove efficacy? Is this correct? Or have I missed out anything here? Have I missed out anything? Professor, I can’t hear you Professor Bhakti, you are muted. Professor Bhakti.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Listen, listen, listen, you guys, what is efficacy? This is the thing that has been going through the whole session. It started with Alexandra and ending with us. How do you define efficacy? If you define efficacy by saying, you’re not going to have a cold? I say no. Efficacy has always been defined by the number of severe infections and death. And there we have the answer, the answer has been there all the time. Nothing in this whole scam has been ever shown to be efficacious, because there is no efficacy if you have an infection fatality rate of 0.15.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Professor Bhakti my question, and this is where I want to get to, and I want the jury to understand your evidence that you have given you’ve stated that we are now at phase four. So my question I’m posing to you, or to anyone, is that at what stage can one conclusively actually prove efficacy, because if we are in phase four, I’m not sure as to whether I’ve captured the evidence correctly from a genomic out that you can only test efficacy at phase three. So if you can clarify or anyone can clarify that for the jury, that will be much appreciated.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
Alright, I’m going to just give you my opinion. Efficacy, to test efficacy by numbers, which mean nothing, which is what is going on now, as we have heard today becomes secondary to the Nuremberg Codex, which says that in the moment that you have danger looming with what you are trying to apply, you must stop that trial. And now we know. I don’t care about efficacy, you cannot exchange one life for the other. You cannot say I’m going to kill you in order to maybe protect your grandmother, this is not allowed. And therefore we don’t have to talk about efficacy. The moment any experimental agent is shown to be dangerous, it’s got to be stopped. And the cause of this has to be investigated. If they do not do this, they are defying the Nuremberg Code and have to be taken to court.

Reiner Fuellmich
That’s why we’re, that’s what we’re –

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Thank you Professor Bhakti. Thank you so much.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you, Dexter.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
No further questions from or me. What will basically happen is that when it comes to efficacy, we will actually clarify that as well also based on all the evidence that has been laid up until now, and it will continue to be laid in our closing arguments. But thank you so much, Professor Bhakti.

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi
You are very welcome.

Reiner Fuellmich
Yes thank you. Let us now turn this section, let us close this part of our hearing and go into why is this happening? How is it possible that so many people can be made to agree to these kinds of medical interventions? We have two experts for this. One is Meredith Miller. And the other one is Ariane Bilheran, both of whom know a lot about psychology. Who wants to start? Meredith, I’m sorry to keep you waiting for so long.

Meredith Miller
No worries. Can you hear me alright?

Reiner Fuellmich
Yes, absolutely.

Meredith Miller
Thank you. So for the last two years, we have witnessed around the world the same patterns of abuse dynamics that we see in interpersonal relationships. And I’m speaking in terms of psychological abuse, which is mostly invisible, yet very real, insidious and pervasive in the life of an individual who’s been targeted. So over the years of working with clients who are victims and survivors of abuse, only a small percentage of the people that I’ve worked with experienced physical abuse. Those who experienced physical abuse as well as psychological abuse told me that in the long run the psychological abuse was far more damaging to them in their entire life. This is not to minimise physical abuse. This is to emphasise how damaging psychological abuse can be. So my understanding of psychological abuse comes from a lifetime of immersion experience in these environments, in the family and relationships, and studying and working for 16 years in holistic healing and coaching.

Meredith Miller
So in the last six years, I’ve specialised in a micro niche called narcissistic abuse, which is predominantly psychological abuse. And over working with these people, I’ve had the opportunity even to work with some people with PhDs, some in psychology, and also with some licenced psychotherapist who told me they didn’t see it in their own life. They didn’t see the patterns of the abuse, and that they also didn’t learn how to recognise psychological abuse in their training programmes. So today, I want to talk about the two most important concepts from my perspective to understand in order to understand the individual experience who’s been targeted by abuse in terms of what we’re dealing with when people fall into the narrative, or even when evidence and information and truth is coming out, and people continue to grab on to the narrative. Why would people choose to ingest an experimental substance? But also, why would they comply with the narrative in general. And at the very end, I want to bring up a study from Yale University from 2020 that’s going to bridge what Brian Gerrish was talking about last weekend, he was talking about the applied behavioural psychology, he brought up a study that was done. And he said that it could be used to change the way that people think and feel and behave. And so this Yale University study from 2020, basically gives us the keys to understanding the particular emotional manipulation tactics that they use. Now, they don’t call it emotional manipulation, they call it COVID-19 vaccine messaging. And I’m not going to speak about the science because that’s not my field, my field is recognising the red flags of emotional abuse, and manipulation. So that’s what I’m going to speak on.

Meredith Miller
So the first concept to understand about abuse is the cognitive dissonance. This is a survival mechanism that happens. So let’s say a person has been cultivated to believe in a certain worldview, or perspective, or this narrative that was launched in 2020. And then all of a sudden, you present to them some evidence or information that contradicts everything that they’ve believed up until then, the person is going to be unable to reconcile this conflict in their minds and in their brain. And what’s going to happen is a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety on the nervous system, which triggers the amygdala circuit, and almost a short circuit or hijacking of the brain and the person goes into denial. So they won’t be able to see that evidence. That’s why as the truth more is coming out, people simply can’t look at it, they might get angry at the messenger, they might simply turn away or cut somebody out of their life, because they’re trying to show them some evidence. Some people might be a little more aware of their cognitive dissonance, and when you try to show them the evidence they might even tell you, I can’t look at that because if what you’re saying is true, I can’t exist in a world like that. So this is the nature of cognitive dissonance. And this is what keeps people in this brain fog. And in the brain fog of the cognitive dissonance, that inner conflict, it’s very difficult to think. So people have a very difficult time with cognitive processes with critical thinking. And what they want to do is see the good in the abuser in the perpetrator.

Meredith Miller
So the second survival mechanism that happens is similar to cognitive dissonance, but more complex. Cognitive dissonance, from my perspective, is sort of like a level one. It’s this conflict that happens in the dissonance in the brain. The level two is the Stockholm Syndrome, there are more complex dynamics taking place here. So in interpersonal relationships, we typically call this a trauma bond. But with strangers, we call it Stockholm Syndrome. The same mechanisms are taking place in the human brain and neurological system. So what’s happening with Stockholm Syndrome is there are four parameters and I’m going to explain these in a very clear way that people can understand how this relates to what they’ve experienced and what they’ve witnessed in other people. And I’m going to give some examples too, of how we’ve seen these four parameters show up in real life since 2020.

Meredith Miller
So the very first one is isolation. And this could be either physical and or psychological isolation. The most important key here is that the person is isolated from outside perspective. They can only have the perpetrators narrative. So the perpetrator will make sure that they don’t have access to outside perspectives, because this keeps the person completely subscribed to that narrative. So what scientists have discovered is that after a period of prolonged isolation, what happens is that chronically elevated stress levels begin to change a person’s neurological system, changing then their ability to form social bonds, and even causing irritability, and aggression when they’re given a chance to participate in social situations.

Meredith Miller
So the state that’s caused after the prolonged isolation is disconnection. Disconnection, the polyvagal theory, triggers the sense of unsafe, a person begins to feel unsafe when we’re not socially connected. We are mammals, we rely on social connection in order to feel safe at a neurological level. So how has the isolation played out in the world? There’s been the domestic confinement, for example, where people were told to stay home with minimal social opportunities. And then how were they isolated by the perpetrators narrative was through the technology. So in order to understand the individual experience, we also have to look at the environments in which the individual exists. And that is in a world of increasing technological dependence. So an individual is at home, and they are constantly connected to their cell phone. to the internet, to the TV, they’re listening to mainstream media, they’re going on social media, and they’re constantly bombarded with the repetition of that message. Even on corporations, there’s a coordinated corporate messaging, repeating those same catchphrases that we’re hearing from public officials and through the mainstream media. Even going shopping at a corporate grocery store, you’re walking around the store at Walmart or Kroger and in the background constantly assaulting your subconscious are the loudspeakers telling you those same messages about staying six feet apart and wearing your mask and getting vaccinations. And so in order to control a person’s exposure to outside perspectives, what have we seen, we’ve seen censorship, silencing, propaganda, fact checking, silencing, shaming and smearing anybody providing that outside perspective. So this is this is essentially how the isolation phase took place.

Meredith Miller
So the next phase of the Stockholm Syndrome is the perceived acts of kindness. And this is part of the abuse cycle. So in an abusive relationship, it’s going to go back and forth between idealisation and devaluation, some sort of reward, and then punishment. And so we call this intermittent reinforcement. And it goes back and forth. The perceived act of kindness is the idealisation part. And so what that does is that causes the person to relax their guard, to begin to trust the perpetrator. And then the intermittent reinforcement and the intermittent reward causes the person to work harder to get that reward to invest more in that relationship or that life situation, and to develop an almost obsession with compliance based on the hope of getting that reward. So the state that a person goes into due to this perceived act of kindness, and the key word here is perceived because this isn’t kindness coming from an abuser, it’s a manipulation, but the nervous system and the person perceives it as an act of kindness. So the state that’s caused here is almost an addiction to that hope, an addiction to the hope that this will be the time that they get the reward, or this will be the time that change for good happens. So how has this played out? Well, we’ve gone through phases of lock downs, and then some restoration of some freedoms, some loosening of restrictions, and then lock downs again, and then back and forth. We’ve been through this cycle multiple times since 2020. Currently, the trends around the world in many places, again were coming into this perceived act of kindness we’re hearing some governments are dropping some regulations. So what’s going to happen? people’s hopes are getting up again. They’re going to be hoping that oh, this is finally it we’re going back to normal.

Meredith Miller
And that’s the thing that every victim in an abusive relationship is hoping to get back to the good times. So what we hear in society is people are hoping to get back to normal. Other acts of perceived kindness. We’ve seen so many – the “free” vaccine. We’ve also seen in America lotteries in some states get vaccinated and win $50 $100 up to a million dollars in some states. Other states offering french fries, doughnuts, guns, trucks, you can even get a free lap dance from a stripper in Las Vegas if you get your vaccine at that place. We’ve also seen mortgage and student loan forbearance, you know, allowing people time to put that off. And we’ve heard promises of safety, it’s for your good, it’s because we care. These are perceived acts of kindness. And also, and this is a key, little bits and dosing of truth. So this perceived act of kindness is dosed periodically, almost like a drug through the relationship with a situation. And so when they disclose little bits of truth, and they let little bits of truth leak out what happens we get our hopes up again that finally the truth is coming out, and we’re going to be able to move on and move past this.

Meredith Miller
So then the third parameter of the Stockholm Syndrome is a perceived life threat. So now we’re getting into a more serious state. So the nervous system perceived as again the key word, when the autonomic nervous system perceives a cue of life threat in the environment, the person is automatically locked into an autonomic state of collapse. And this is over a period of time. This doesn’t happen the first time. It happens after bombardment and bombardment and shock trauma of fear messaging repeated over and the imagery that they’ve shown utterly terrifying people. So over a period of time of that terror, what happens is the autonomic nervous system will immediately go into a state of immobilisation. So in this state of the immobilisation a person feels frozen, they may dissociate, they might check out not really be present. So they’re not really paying attention. They’re in sort of an automaton behaviour, which makes compliance and control a lot easier. And so also the brain fog that kicks in and even a metabolic shutdown. So as the nervous system goes into this state of autonomic collapse, they may also go into metabolic shutdown. Now, the interesting thing is this state also leads a person to decrease immunity. And that’s very interesting to notice, because we’re in a pandemic. And when a person is triggered into this state by the autonomic nervous system, endogenous opioids are also released in the body, which cause the person to stay numb. So that’s helpful when a person is going through a lot of pain. But then that becomes maladaptive because that numbness keeps the person locked in this state. So it’s very difficult to do anything to take any action because they are neurologically immobilised. So why are people so afraid? On one side, we’ve seen the messaging of the fear of the virus, and also the fear of other people who they’ve been conditioned to believe are dangerous, and diseased. And on the other side, a lot of people have become very afraid of the tyranny that’s happening.

Meredith Miller
So the fourth and final parameter of the Stockholm Syndrome is a perceived inability to escape. So the person is in this state of collapse for a while, and this goes on and on and on over a period of time, they become exhausted, they have no energy to try anything, to strive for anything. They go into a state what we call learned helplessness, which is also known as debility dependency dread, which causes apathy. And in this state of apathy, debility and dread, a person starts to become hopeless, they feel utterly powerless over their life, they feel like everything is out of control. And what happens is, when they’re locked into this state, this very low state of consciousness, they don’t even have access to the fight or flight system, it takes more energy, they don’t even have the energy to fight or flight here. So they certainly don’t have access to the higher states of consciousness, like critical thinking, the intellectual brain, or even things like imagination. So if a person cannot imagine the way out, how are they ever going to get out. And it’s not that a person has to be locked behind prison doors, most abused victims walk out their door multiple times a day, they go to work, they go to school to pick up their kids, they do life, and they go back home. Right? So it’s the perceived inability to escape. And this person is so terrorised and so debilitated and so dependent on the abuser, that they begin to believe that their survival is dependent on the perpetrator. They also lose complete capability for creativity, and all of the beautiful things that make us human. And so what happens is in this state, it goes on and on and on. And over a period of time this person becomes spiritually bankrupt, they lose all faith. And when all faith is lost, the only thing left is emptiness. And that word emptiness does not do justice for the feeling and the experience that a person has. It is the worst feeling that a human can have because you feel like you were untethered and lost and floating in the universe with no connection, no support, no promise for the future. And I think that a lot of people have been locked into this state.

Meredith Miller
And so what happens is that people will escape into fantasy. So we’ve seen a huge increase in pornography, we’ve seen a huge increase in addictions, in overdoses, and we even see self harm, huge increases in suicide. So why is this even possible? Because a lot of people’s entire sense of reality is coming through the technology. It’s coming through the media, it’s coming through the social media, it’s coming through contact with other people who are in this narrative. So this is a very difficult place when a person is in this place, the mentality is I can’t, it’s just everything is I can’t. So how can they possibly wake up? How can they possibly do anything other than what they’re told by the abuser, and they learned that resistance is painful. So the example is the wife who experiences marital rape. And so she learns over a period of time that it’s futile to resist and that resistance only leads to more pain so just let him get it over with. And I’ve heard so many people say, I just wanted to get it over with, I just got my shot. You know, they’re in this state.

Meredith Miller
So the Stockholm Syndrome really, it explains why people stay in abusive relationships or situations like this narrative. Why people return. Why people cannot see the evidence that’s coming. Why people are irrationally loyal to these abusers and perpetrators and why people even develop empathy for them. So do I have a few more minutes to show that Yale study?

Reiner Fuellmich
Yes.

Meredith Miller
Okay, I’m going to share my screen. Password, I’m so sorry. Oh no, it wants me to quit zoom. I’m so sorry. This is on clinicaltrials.gov. If anybody wants to look this up, clinicaltrials.gov COVID-19 vaccine messaging, NIH US National Library of Medicine. This was done at Yale University in July of 2020. And what they did is they used emotional manipulation messages like personal freedom, economic freedom, self interest, community interest, economic benefit, guilt, embarrassment, anger, trust in science and not bravery. The interesting thing is that they tell us straightaway what their outcome measures are. Their primary outcome measure is intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine. So they want to know what a person’s intention is to get it after three months, or after six months of it becoming available. The secondary outcome measures, number one, vaccine confidence, so they want to know how much trust people can have or how they can influence people’s trust in the vaccine. Number two, persuade others. So they want to know a person’s willingness to persuade others to take the vaccine. Number three, fear of those who have not been vaccinated. Number four, social judgement of those who do not vaccinate, and they give you four items to measure the judgement of this person, their trustworthiness. So if you don’t get it, you’re not trustworthy. Selfishness, if you don’t get it, you’re selfish. Likeableness, if you don’t get it, you’re not likeable. Incompetence, if you don’t get the vaccine, you’re not competent. So they want to get people intended to get the vaccine. They want people’s trust in the vaccine. They want people to persuade others to get it. They want people to be afraid of those who didn’t get it, and they want people to socially judge those who didn’t get the vaccine. And so that seems very clear that they’re manipulating people about this vaccine. When we look at the the messaging that they use, for example, trust in science. The premise here is that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. Vaccination is backed by science. If one doesn’t get vaccinated, that means one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or one who ignores science. The not bravery. For example, the frontline workers like firefighters and doctors are brave, those who choose not to get vaccinated are not brave. Another one of the messaging that they’ve used and this might already be ringing a bell to the jury who’s thinking about the messaging that they’ve been hearing constantly for the last couple years, community interest. So this message is about the dangers of COVID-19, to the health of loved ones, the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risks that one’s loved ones will get sick, society must work together, and I’ll get vaccinated. So as I read through these, what I see is red flags. I even see gaslighting, which is the distortion of the perception of reality. For example, they say COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and people’s economic freedoms. But that’s actually not correct. It is the government regulations and restrictions and policies that are wreaking havoc on people’s personal freedom and economic freedom and the economy. So I would love for any scientist to take a look at this study and see what they may want to say. I just wanted to speak about the red flags of abuse and manipulation. And I think that this study really provides that bridge to what Brian Gerrrish was talking about using the applied behavioural psychology. This is an example in action of how they’ve done that, and how they’ve manipulated people into taking this and not just taking it, but to do their bidding for them and to convince other people to get it.

Reiner Fuellmich
When was this study conducted?

Meredith Miller
July 2020?

Reiner Fuellmich
Can you send us a link to that study?

Meredith Miller
Yes I can.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you

Meredith Miller
I’m gonna send it but you can move on if you.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
I just want to –

Meredith Miller
I’m trying to pull up my thing –

Reiner Fuellmich
Sorry. that’s all right. Go ahead, Dexter.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
I just want to Miss Miller, when it comes to the Yale study, and you’ve actually put quite a lot of emphasis on it, and I’m actually just trying to understand here asto [who] actually gave the instruction for the study to be conducted. Is that known or is it just an academic study that was conducted?

Meredith Miller
I’m going to put the link in the chat, oh, it’s disabled. So I’m going to send y’all the link. I’m not a scientist. So I am a holistic coach, I help people heal after the abuse. I just recognise the red flags of abuse. I would like to see a scientist take a look at the study. All I’ve read is the front page that they’ve openly put out to the public. I’m sure that a scientist could take a look at that and dissect that in a very scientific way that could be helpful to answer your question.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich
Do you want to continue Meredith or are you taking –

Meredith Miller
That’s all that I have, unless you have other questions?

Reiner Fuellmich
We do have questions. But does it make sense to first hear Ariane?

Meredith Miller
Sure.

Reiner Fuellmich
Okay. Please go ahead, Ariane.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Thanks. I will read English but my English is (inaudible). I am Ariane Bilheran from France. I am philosopher, specialised in philosophy of morale and politic. I am clinical psychologist and doctor in psychopathology specialised in the study of manipulation, deviance of power, perversion, paranoia, harassment and to target the totalitarianism. So, I will speak from those two points of view. I have taught for several years at university in France, I have been an auditor and investigator for companies, but also an expert for courts in cases of harassment at work. I have published many books on this subject, some of which have been translated into languages other than French.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
In this situation we are dealing with my expertise allows me to say that we are dealing with a totalitarian drift, and I will describe why I think so. This is a totalitarian drift from the point of view of political philosophy, but also from the point of view of psychopathology, which corresponds to a collective delusion, the paranoia delusion. Paranoia is a contagious psychosis whose masterpiece is harassment and which functions according to the following structure. A visible or invisible imaginary enemy persecutes us, we must go to war against the enemy, and this justifies the use of harassessment and all means are permitted. It is a delusion of persecution that leads to acting out. The intention to harm is nevertheless self graded, which is why I have in the past spoken out on the need from criminal convictions of paranoia profiles, which are in the majority of cases at work in harrassment. In the totalitarian system, the content of the delusion may change. For example, who is the designated enemy, but the structure remains, the same the one I just told you.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
First point my diagnosis. Harrassment used against populations with terrible consequences on the mental health of individuals. In the political crisis we are dealing with typical methods of harassment were used on the people who were victims of repeated moral pressure, in order intended to create and maintain a state of terror in the individual. The consequences are terrible for people’s mental health. The least, we can say is that mental health has not been at all at the heart of the concepts. On the contrary, the damage is considerable. Multiple traumas, depressions, suicides, psychological disorganisation, addictions, mental confusion, psychiatric decompensations, especially of schizophrenic type. Many specialists are alarming us, especially concerning children. For example, in January 2021, the head of the child psychiatry department at Nicaea Hospital in Paris, Dr. Pauline Schildt spoke of an alarming increase in suicide attempts among children and young adolescents in several Parisian hospitals. Mental health disorders are also often factors and triggers of somatic disorders called psychosomatic affecting the health of the individual. Right now, the end justifies the means and the logic is sacrificial, it becomes acceptable to sacrifice individuals in the name of culture quantity, in the name of the greatest number, and the individual is deprived of his human rights.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Moral considerations no longer enter into the discourse except to be used in terms of blackmail and manipulation. It would be for the good of the group that the individual should be sacrificed itself. As an example children’s schooling has been sacrificed in many countries of the world for the last two years with class closures, greater inequalities, those who have access to the internet and those who don’t, (inaudible) class closures installation of children leading to depressive ideas. In France, health care providers were fired because they refused to undergo experimental injections in a so called pandemic context where the health system could not logically afford to suspend its stuff.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Any form of disagreement or even simply questioning encounters censorship and repression in the face of a dogmatic narrative that no one had the right to refute, despite the many paradoxes it contains. The French president has repeatedly called on the French people to sacrifice themselves to make a force against the virus. More globally, poor countries has been locked down unable to deal with the economic lockdown with mllions of people falling into misery. With this sacrificial logic individuals no longer count it can be used as objects of experimentation to the point of genocide. There are no longer any more legal or spiritual limits.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The method used as sectarian method, first terror, the next (inaudible) then shows [the] virus is going to kill us. Two sequestration, lockdown restrictions of freedom of movement and infringement of inalienable fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of expression, etc. Three, exclusion and mistreatment, critical citizens are considered bad even to the point of calling for murder in some political discourses. For example, in Italy, where personalities from journalism, politics and medicine called for the segregation in trains between the vaccinated and the non vaccinated, suggesting a scene around the neck for the non vaccinated with declarations wishing for the re-establishment of the gas chambers. Some people today have lost everything – shops, livlihood, parental rights, etc simply for being an opponent of the policies to have been pursued. For example, the refusal of care as well as the injection practice, without any discernment of individuals with the regard to their diversity, are abusing practice that endanger human life without the State taking responsibility for them. In France, being subjected to anaphylactic shock is not a criterion for not being subjecting to injection.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Four, conflict of loyalty. Forcing individuals to make impossible choices, false choices, for example, between the right to work, to our means of subsistence and the right to dispose of our own body. It’s a false choice.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Five hypnotic suggestions. in particular something called the hypnotic seal, which induces provision of thinking in people through the mass media with the repetition of a deadly accounting discourses and images of panic.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Six censorship and persecutions.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Seven repeated traumatic shocks and overtime sent on the population. For example, orders of closure issued at the last moment, sometimes even orders within orders paradoxical discourse. For example, in France, the government has been known to say everything and it’s opposite, sometimes within weeks of each other without ever justifying what was said before.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Eight generalised anomalies. For example, incentives to professionals traditionally not licensing to perform injections like the nutritionists or the physiotherapist or the psychologist for great profit.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Nine guilt tripping of individual solution, blackmail, intimidation, freeze refresher of care of some category of the population, lack of education for children, disorganisation of spacial (inaudible) benchmark for the entire world population, so variants and transgression of people’s intimate lives, etc. And this is an assymetrical context where people have been subjected to the decisions of their leaders and where innocent people have been designated as guilty. For example, children designated as guilty of killing their grandmother. The citizen is treated like a prisoner on parole. The repeated traumatic shohcks obtained in this way over time provoked both by political discourses and decisions, but also backed by the incessant suggestions in the mass media have led individuals in states of traumatic dissociation. It triggers a defence mechanism called denial in psychology. That is the impossibility of representing the violence of the situation that (inaudible).

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The manipulations of the mass media playing on fear and panic have led to divisions in families, in couples and in friendships splitting society into two camps and causing distrust of all against the all from which it will now be very difficult to emerge in order to establish harmony between citizens. Don’t we say divide and conquer. The mass media have operated a permanent hypnotic suggestion reducing the individual to mathematic called unit a number or a positive or negative positive case negative case. It notices there is the hypnotic seal which is very powerful induction that provokes a radical prohibition on thinking on such and such a subject like a thrower that is sealed in the psyche.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
A sect are killed (inaudible) to religious type of faith, the individual is not asked to analyse, but to believe blindly the execution and censorship as well as intimidation have fallen upon those who wanted to analyse and the belief. The sect or cult always promises the ritual of a lust for paradise?? in the same scene with the totalitarian system. The sect or cult proposes fetish objects. Here the holy grail was the injection supposed to free us from evil. Of course, it was a lie. People who were injected twice today lose their rights in many countries, if they refuse to pursue in this way. And we clearly see that it is to lead us further towards a world of global planetary control and surveillance, where the individual will be reduced to nothing at best to be used as a force of production at worst to be emulated as useless to the capital’s reign.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The totalitarian drift is of a sectarian and prophetic nature. Hannah Arendt said, the scientificity of totalitarian provide on that is characterised by the impasses. It plays almost exclusively on scientific prophecy, as opposed to the more traditional reference to the past. The prophecy took place from the beginning with a completely unrealistic and unrealized prediction of the number of days and I refer to the book I wrote with (inaudible) professor of mathematic (inaudible), which will be published at the beginning of March in France. The totalitarian system places the achievement of the schools in a future that is always distant, a kind of final promise, the region, (inaudible), paradise, the end of the Calvary, the purity of the race, the territory purified of disease, the return to tgheh world before its sitter. It’s a question of uniting the mass against the common enemy. Here, the virus supposedly incarnating the opposition to the achivement of this goal. The enemy, both external and internal will be susceptible to change. Either she gets called scientism and its predictive technique never seem to move. Their chameleon dimension keeps them in power. The discourse is no longer a reflection of the experience, it is the experience that must conform to the discourse.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
We started with predictive models, which we want to impose on reality. Let’s think of various predictions in this case. In science model must always be submitted to reality and not the contrary. French mathematic Professor Emeritus Frans Feron puts in this way, in the booklet (inaudible) so the first postulate was established Ferguson’s models and the calculation that were based on them corresponding to reality. It is precisely from this moment that the collective delusion begins. The delusion of reality was established, and from then on the postulate of the predominance of arbitrary figures resulting from modelling speculation was imposed, instead of the statistical enumeration of the operational science, those that start from the facts and misuse them. There has been a major scientific scene here with tragic consequences for humanity. It’s necessary to understand why totalitarianism works on the populations. It works on the populations because in totalitarianism, there is a promise made. This is a promise that will not be kept, of course, the promise to the people is to take full responsibility of the suffering of their existence and they return to a lost paradise. This is what was set up at the beginning in Western countries with we take care of you completely, stay at home, we pay you, don’t think anymore, we think for you, get vaccinated and everything will go back to the way it was. Don’t think we think for you, etcetera.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
From the point of view of psychology, the profiles that instigate harassment are perverse, and are paranoia profiles, so called narcissistic profiles, but in the case of perversion, the criminal responsibilities engaged because there is no delusion constriction. Why, in the case of paranoia the question in more debatable since it is delusion of persecution. Nevertheless, the paranoiac individual is fully aware of harming. He even justifies it, it clearly intends to harm and the intention is justified by a pseudo edial of the common good, health for all, etc. As we have already seen informal to totalitarian regimes. The paranoid does not necessarily believe in the content of his delusion. It’s rather a way of being of the world, a way of persecuting where the user is seen as an enemy. And we can make the epothesis that the instigators of this tragic development for the peoples have this relation to the world, a relation to the world made of anguish, of persecution, of narcissistic rigidity, in which the peoples are seen as enemies, the world population considered as to be and to be eliminated in some urgentistic (inaudible). Clearly, the totalitarian system functions according to a, pathological structure, which is one of paranoia. Mass psychosis is created by (inaudible). Also, it needs the (inaudible) of different (inaudible) profiles (inaudible), they are the ones who don’t believe in the discourse of persecution, but generally, they get considerably richer from the crisis that says comfortable to trade, for example, for their own profits, and the psychopath (inaudible) of the regime to continue to exist.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The paranoid delusion persecutes in the name of what it professes, and what it professes it simply makes it happen. There will be a lot of deaths, it says And in fact, by repeatedly preventing treatments that to patients and making populations more great carriers these days are coming. Moreover the ideology no type narrative justifies the persecutions by self defence. With paranoia, it’s a lot to kill because it wasn’t self defence. in paranoia delusion their ideas of delusion (inaudible), and this is what leads to mass Munchausen syndrome, which is the innapropriate over medicalization of a common viral disease, which would deserve proper and early care, denying the temporarance warnings and experience of experts and creating more problem and suffering than it solves.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
In the dated delusion (inaudible) of paranoia. The disease is everywhere, experiences as dangerous daily. The enemy of the living. The sick is opposed to the healthy as the impure to the pure. Orders are given to eliminate the power of the social body designated as impure. The superiors impurity is to be hunted down by terror and radical methods. The end justifies the means. This is the reason why Hannah Arendt said terror is constitutive of the totalitarian political body, just as legality is for the Republican political body. The whole picture is a totalitarian drift. For political philosophy, particularly according to the work of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, it is a matter of normalising a state of exception in which human rights are suspended. The past prevents freedom of movemen. It is a safe bet that the nature of these parties?? and at controlling the movements of citizens which will be reinventing in the name of others emergencies. Ecology have terrorism, manufacturing in the name of the state of exception.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Let us recall the political creature here of totalitarianism which cannot be reduced to a dictatorship, despotism or tyranny, monopoly or the mass media and the police force, central management of the economy, persecution of opponents and of any criticism, system of surveillance of individuals, encouragement of denunciations. (inaudible) show logic of history on terror, clean slate policing, moving idealology?? built on the divisions between good citizens and bad citizens on the enemy, visible or invisible and purity. So totalitarian system is sustained by an illusion that means a delusion belief which has no longer any links with logical truth, or with the reality of experience, and which constantly needs to renew itself in its content, in order to maintain an illegitimate power.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The key instrument for the establishment of totalitarian power is first of all, the harassment of minds, which must become permeable to the idealology. The major propaganda must obtain the division of the collective of the traditional clans, families, such as classes political plans, according to the paranoia cleavage, between the good and the bad. Line of designation can evolve according to the common idealology (inaudible) nation of the enemy. Here at the beginning, the enemy is an alpha virus that intends to disseminate the human species and against which we are at war, then the enemies become disobedient, who don’t want to respect these so called sanitary measures imposed by the political field propaganda, often masked behind subtle manipulations. It’s for your own good, takes pleasure in creating collective traumatic shocks, for example, a counting?? of death repeated daily, which will then allow it to extend its control of the system and terrorise population, which under the effect of the paradoxical injunctions and the wear and tear we call the torturing power as a saviour, anywhere for its greatest misfortune, that is so called severe is at the same time the persecutor.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
So totalitarianism is international in its organisation, universal in its idealogic aim, and planetary in its political aspirations. It pursues the experiment of total domination said Anna Hunt. In front of this generalised violence and induced despair, the psyches are waking. Many people fall into this so we see that act perversions of madness, individuals will behave in a respectful way of the fundamental prohibitions can infavour of a totalitarian idealogy regress and in particular on perverse mode. The deployment of the totalitarian system therefore leads to the occurrence of numerous abuses of power and sadistic acts committed by little chiefs who rivel with themselves. And one wonders then how is this good family man usually so pleasant and now for so long became capable of so many atrocities.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
In conclusion, (inaudible) noted in his diary in the west world ghetto?? will get to there was a certain rise in typhus, but measures were taken to not let them out of the ghetto. After all, Jews have always been carriers of contagious disease, they must either be herded into ghetto and left on their own, or they must be eliminated. Otherwise, they will always contaminate the Haisley?? population of civilised states, it’s important to mention that we have already had to deal with a sanitary idealolgy of an epidemiological type in the not so distant past with the typhus epidemic, which the Nazi claimed to be fighting and eradicating. It is indeed the deployment of this herd for the typhus epidemic that designating a category of the population as being carriers of it, and treat them as epidemic propagating parasites.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The typhus epidemic was spreading because all the conditions were there for it, distribution of bedbug infested blankets, crowding in unsanitary ghettos, etc. In an article into entertain??, the germs of a fascist International, why everyone is claiming victory and never again, Hannah Arendt (inaudible) smuggling ashes of the war immediately announces the tensures of tomorrow in the (inaudible) of an entity International, which would affect?? the post war institutions in the manner of an ocusect within the after war institutions and may come back even through the creation of Europe. That is to say that at the very moment when European populations (inaudible) they had gotten rid of the alphabet the philosopher wants it could happen again, and much worse. In the totalitarian system, the living is the enemy, the individual is reduced at best to a number, the language is corrupted so that individuals can no longer think about what happens to them. For example, the asymptomatic sick people, this expression means nothing, or the addition of a new vocabulary in the media no less than 16 new words or expressions.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The goal is no longer alienation, but the annihilation of the human subject and for that it’s necessary to break old (inaudible). Totalitarianism is by essence genocidal. It does not need the human anymore, or rather, it pretends to create in again from scratch the new men, to whom it’s necessary to suppress the freedom to make rain the tyranical and earnestly ideal of purity. Transhumanism, which is a modern form of the nazi superman is a pure and simple negation of human rights. The term transhumanism was invented in the 1940s by Aldous Huxley’s brother to replace eugenics. The upper chi?? of the powerful body of the will of the power of the transhumanised nazi superman, supers is the elimination of the superly useless of the sick and suffering bodies. Totalitarian regimes always use science, or we should rather stay scientism, to establish a sudden legitimacy for the existence and demand kind of religious fervour around this scientism.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The Quran?? praises it’s the reign of the gods of mathematic. Hannah Arendt said that profound propaganda is no longer an objective problem about which people can have an opinion that has become in their lives an element as real and intangible as the rules of arithmetic. However, I must remind you that it is impossible to apply mathematical statistical biological concepts to the human politic moral and spiritual experience. If we accept that mathematics that says statistics run our human existence, we are reduced to numbers to positive, to negative, positive case, negative case, and we can therefore be eliminated without any remorse. The discipline that thinks about human political morale and spiritual experience is philosophy, especially moral and political philosophy and metaphysics.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
The human being is such, human life is such. In other words, it’s impossible to apply scientific concepts coming from the so called house?? science, which it should be remembered are science of dead matter, to the human political, moral and spiritual experience. The scientific approach carried by its limits, becomes inhuman and is then used to try to justify approaches that are in reality, neither scientific nor human. Let us put the the writer (inaudible) testifies to the matters of recruitment of the totalitarian experience that he himself lived in his book, Darkness (inaudible). There are only two conceptions of human morality, and there are opposite goals. One is Christian and humanitarian, declaring the individual such and asserting that the rules of arithmetic should not apply to human units, which in our equation represent either zero or infinity. The other conception starts from the fundamental principle that a collective end justifies all means, and not only allows, but recries?? that the individual be in any case super (inaudible) and sacrificed to the community, which can dispose of him, either as a guinea pig to be used in an experiment or as a lamb to be of sacrifice. I thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you, Ariane. Dexter. Do we have questions? I think we do. Ana? I have a question or I have a couple of question[s], if you allow me this. Both of you seem to agree that this is not just happening, but this is something that other people have invented, and this is now a concerted, a worldwide concerted effort going on? Is that correct? What kind of people do this? I know I’ve asked this question before but how can anyone go beyond what we would consider empathy, for example, and humanity and believe in sacrificing individuals for the greater good? What kind of people are we dealing with? Are we dealing with psychopaths who are still capable of understanding what they’re doing and controlling what they’re doing?

Meredith Miller
I think that a psychopath understands very well the difference between right and wrong, but they have a spiritual problem of the conscience. The conscience is what makes us human. And they can tell the difference between right and wrong. They’re not crazy at all. But their conscience doesn’t feel the weight of the guilt that the rest of us would feel, those of us who are capable of feeling empathy. Over the years sometimes psychopaths have commented on my videos and they have openly said that they feel superior to other people because they’re not bothered by that empathy and sense of guilt.

Reiner Fuellmich
So there is a certain megalomania involved?

Meredith Miller
Grandiosity.

Reiner Fuellmich
They think they’re much better than anyone else. And that’s why they can do whatever they want with individuals?

Meredith Miller
The grandiosity and the entitlement that they should get away with it.

Reiner Fuellmich
Yeah. That is what criminals who commit very gruesome deeds usually have in common, don’t they?

Meredith Miller
You know the interesting thing though is that the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry describes the narcissistic personality disorder and the antisocial personality disorder as the overt types, the obvious types, the criminals who get caught and go to jail. They don’t describe in the scientific literature the covert types who are very sophisticated and in my opinion, far more dangerous because of how hidden they are and how far they can go in society because of that.

Reiner Fuellmich
Does that mean that those who are pulling the strings are no more dangerous than those who are helping them? The ones who whose strings are being pulled?

Meredith Miller
So those would be the enablers and the thing about an abusive system. So you can even look at a family unit or society in general, but any abusive system is formed of abusers and enablers and it’s actually the enablers that keep that system functioning. The abusers need the enablers to do that bidding for them.

Translator
I will speak in French.

Meredith Miller
No, I can’t do that.

Dr Ariane Bilheran
Yeah

Translator
I cannot. Can you hear me?

Reiner Fuellmich
Yeah.

Translator
I’m sorry. I was muted so I couldn’t translate, I’m going to translate what Werner was asking? Okay, so it seems that both of you, Ariana.. Not everybody’s looking for power. But essentially paranoiac and pervert. it is a narcissistic trouble a serious one. And that they have not developed in the psychic development, togetherness, maturity or togetherness.

Reiner Fuellmich
How do we get out of this? In my view, it is important for the people to understand what’s going on, to see the whole picture. Is there any other way because to me that is the only way to make people see what is really going on and only if they can see and understand what is going on, can they stand up and fight this?

Translator
So Ariane said t totalitarianism stop when the max is taught to believe blindly, basically, you know, so it’s when enough people start to see the truth. If the society the people in the society don’t participate, there is no totalitarianism.

Viviane Fischer
Yeah, but for this they also have to know and that’s maybe why we see this intense efforts of censorship right now, because it’s becoming a little bit dangerous the amount of people speaking out now and meeting on the streets, and that’s what you think also?

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Yes, I think also there is more and more censorship, and the majors have made so much work that’s really difficult for us to manage to give the truth. Yeah. So it’s, I think it’s a main problem we have now.

Translator
And the mainstream media is the main issue and the censorship. Well, there is a blockages because they have a really a difficult time to conceive that some other people wants to harm them.

Meredith Miller
I think one of the biggest challenges is the cognitive dissonance because even if the censorship didn’t exist to control the information to control the reality, even if people had access to that information, it’s so difficult for them to even face the truth in that state. And something really important that Adriane mentioned earlier was the deprivation of human rights and how human rights are suspended. And the trick that all abusers do and what keeps people in the abuse is that they want to destroy your self worth, they have to flatten your self worth. They have to make you believe that you are not worthy of your basic human rights. And what is at assault here, it’s not just the vaccine, it is compliance, they want to violate our consent. And that is going to be the theme that’s going to continue in the next pandemic and the next crisis that they manufacture or take advantage of all the way to the great reset. So the self worth is so important for the individual to rebuild, otherwise they’re not going to believe that they’re worthy of those basic human rights.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Thank you so much.

Reiner Fuellmich
I’m sorry, Dexter?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
No, thank you Reiner. I think you’ve mentioned something very, very important, and there is, Miss Miller, you were mentioning consent. I mean, when we look at the Nuremberg Code, we look at the Helsinki declaration, we look at natural law, whatever, it all comes down to consent. So for me, it seems to me that they are, actually this is definitely a psychological hole. But it’s a psychological hole where the main emphasis to actually get voluntary consent from the populace, and what it will then ultimately come to, and I can already foresee that this can be a possible defence, when we actually pursue this further, and that is to say, no we just gave them the information and with that information they’ve actually given consent, but from a psychological point of view when it comes now to get consent, and that was definitely grand on the basis of the psychological warfare that was conducted on the populace, will you not agree?

Meredith Miller
That’s correct. And that’s what every abuser does in a relationship. They tell you without telling you what they’re doing. So then they can say, well, I told you and you knew all along because they don’t accept any accountability for their actions. The more sophisticated the more covert the abuser is, the more they need your voluntary consent, but as I think it was, they actually need that mentioned earlier today, it’s not real consent, because when people are not provided with the true information, they don’t realise deception is taking place. They’re not giving real consent. That was a trick. That was a ruse to get them to consent to something that was the deception all along.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
So obviously, the mass media is playing a massive role when it comes to getting people to a point to consent then, to put them in that mind space?

Meredith Miller
Yeah, so that’s the whole thing is the abusers equation is problem reaction solution. And so this is a bit what Brian Gerrish was talking about last weekend with the applied behavioural psychology where they provoke, first there’s a problem, so they either manufacture a problem or crisis, or they take advantage of one that’s already happening. And then they provoke your emotion, whether it’s fear, for example, and then by provoking that emotion, they can almost predict what your behavioural response is going to be, so they can drive you to a predetermined solution. And the most sophisticated abusers will make you beg for that solution and think that it was your idea all along.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
That just basically brings me to follow the science. Because when you listen to all of these talking heads, they will, and even the medical doctors like Dr. Fauci, one of the defendants, they will always repetitively actually mention, follow the science. And that’s then to put the populace in a specific mindset to say, you can trust me, I know what I am doing, and I will do no harm to you. But obviously, that’s not the case.

Meredith Miller
And that was one, if we take a look at that Yale study, that was one of the emotional manipulation tactics, they used is trust in science. And so when you hear Fauci say, I am science and if you don’t believe me, you don’t believe in science. Those catchphrases, it’s like a whole download of information that triggers an emotional reaction and then a behavioural response.

Meredith Miller
Thank you.

N. Ana Garner
I had one question, just a very brief one. And Meredith, you mentioned something, an excellent presentation by both of you by the way. It was very nice how it dovetailed together and really enhanced one another. But Meredith, you mentioned something about in the Stockholm Syndrome, the perceived life threat. And then you gave an example of people who are either fearing the virus or other people. And at the opposite end of that spectrum, were people who were fearing tyranny. And that made me think that maybe none of us really, as much as we think we know what might be going on, none of us has escaped some of this psychological terrorism that has been going on across the globe. Is that a fair statement?

Meredith Miller
For sure, I will admit, I’ve also been in the state periodically throughout the time that’s gone on, and I think that we all have experienced moments of that. Perhaps some people spend more time in that state than others. And some of us are able to get back up into those higher states of consciousness, because of working on healing our own traumas in our life. But otherwise, it’s very difficult to get out of that state. And really, no one is completely immune to that. But the self worth is really the greatest immunity to abuse and manipulation, because it really makes you question what people are trying to get you to do, and what is their intention.

N. Ana Garner
That’s a great key, oh I’m sorry, you probably need to translate, but that’s a great key, the self worth. And that’s where we need to maybe empower people. That’s one of the things I think we’re doing by empowering them with knowledge and the self worth, that they are worthy humans to have human rights.

Meredith Miller
I think a big part of the self worth, how can people find self worth, is setting boundaries. So then the knowledge is not going to change their self worth knowing that they’re human and that they have inalienable rights, the God given rights from birthright to human rights. This means nothing to a person who is caught in that state. So the only way to start rebuilding self worth is to evaluate what most matters to you, take inventory of your values, and then set boundaries to protect those. And every time you set a boundary like NO and NO is a complete sentence. And only manipulators keep pushing and pushing once you’ve said no. Right. So when a person sets that boundary, they start rebuilding their self worth naturally.

Translator
I’m sorry to interrupt you, but Ariane would like to talk and for some reason she has been muted. So if there is something that can be done, so she can also answer. Oh, okay, here you are, Ariane. They were talking about, I think it was Reiner or Dexter, I think it was Dexter that talked about the emphasis on consent, that’s what you said Dexter?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
That’s correct, yeah from a psychological point of view and I think for you, if you can bring it from a totalitarian point of view that will be awesome. Thank you.

Translator
The (inaudible) look for submission of his victim, so it cannot be an opposition. It’s counterproductive. They must push the victim to do something that it will not have done if it wasn’t harassed. that’s why there’s manipulation. Stockholm Syndrome is a time that the victim cannot escape to the harasser. The victim is trapped, there is a mechanism of survival so therefore the victim is gonna anticipate what his perpetrator wants to try to survive. So it’s like the victim is gonna be in the brain, yes in their brain, at the same time when the victim is gonna meet the suffering of his perpetrator and counter the suffering of the perpetrator.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
Sorry, can I ask a question, Ariane? Is it for this reason that sometimes we see people suppressing what is expected. For example, masks in the car, masks everywhere, even if it’s not mandatory. It’s for this reason?

Translator
It’s a mechanism of survival survival, if we please the perpetrator maybe we’re gonna be safe, we’re gonna be, yeah we’re gonna be safe. And then there’s another mechanism we always erase, forget what wasn’t pleasant., and therefore the victim keep only the empathy for a perpetrator and it’s much easier, it’s much more easier because the perpetrator used paradoxical discourse, it’s for your own good. I love you. It’s pretty powerful.

Reiner Fuellmich
So what we have here, if we talk about a solution, we have to not just understand rationally what is going on. And that’s probably what we have to do to show the whole picture so that people see what’s going on. But it’s not enough to see this rationally. We also need to overcome what one of you called I think it was you Meredith, spiritual bankruptcy. We have to understand that there’s something out there that’s worthwhile fighting fo,r either a loved one, or spirituality or religion, whatever. But it takes not just rational understanding of what’s going on, but it’s also important to overcome this spiritual bankruptcy. That’s a great term.

Viviane Fischer
Yeah, like you said,

Translator
I’m sorry, so what Reiner said it’s not (inaudible).

Meredith Miller
Reiner, you mentioned how sometimes if people thought of their children or their grandchildren or their Creator, or something beyond themselves –

Reiner Fuellmich
exactly –

Meredith Miller
that is often a very helpful motivation, because what gets the person off the floor? You know, humanity is on the floor right now, for the most part, and that is the victim in an abusive relationship. Nobody can lift that person up. You can pick them up and they’re gonna fall right back down. They have to find it within themselves. But like you said, that spark for them what reignites their soul and their spirit after this kind of abuse is something beyond themselves that motivates them to get up because they don’t believe they’re worth it. But is there something else that’s worth it?

Reiner Fuellmich
That’s very well put. That’s easy to understand now. Thank you.

Translator
So what is complicated here? It’s usually in a relationship with harasser and a victim. Usually the solution is to cut the bond with the harasser, but here it’s not possible. But people can do it a little bit. First turn it off the media, the TV. So what we need to do is name, what you said, and its name things. And what else, so what we need is we need to hear other discourses that name things and offer other ways.

Reiner Fuellmich
Virginie.

Virginie De Araujo Recchia
I have a question on this point. It’s about the philanthropic Bill Gates we heard at the beginning of the session. And you say that there’ll be a room that paranoia profile is a word that is harming. And he has the intention of harming because there’s no delusion construction. When Bill Gates says that is sad because he is not successful in vaccinating all world, what do you think he knows that he is harming people, by financing everything, for example?

Translator
I’ll translate that, so you said complicated, you would like to talk about Bill Gates. So, can you repeat just because I got confused if you’re in this kind of aautology of it’s go beyond good and bad. That’s what he says, Ariane? Okay, so if we were talking about paranoiac profile, which is the case here, they don’t have access to the notion of right and wrong. The imagination is confused with a reality. The person thinks one thing one day, and will do the opposite [the] next day. That the connection with the world is still a connection of persecution. So we still have this dilemma between ecology and right, and in psychology we can explain everything and we set limits, and all the progress of harassing profile all pervert all paranoiac, and the capacity to respect others the others, and capacity to control the urges, the [com]pulsion urges, an incapacity to clearly define the wrong and the right, the good and the bad, evil or good.

Reiner Fuellmich
I like to take solace or even courage in the recognition that it doesn’t take 80 percent or 70 percent or even 50 percent of the people to turn this thing around. Rather, I tend to believe that only a few good men and women under these circumstances are capable of turning this thing around. You don’t need the masses. The reason why I’m saying this is because the masses who seem to be under the influence of of mass formation are not capable of any real activitie, they can only react to what they’re being told. We, on the other hand, we who are in this group right now, and probably most of the people who are watching this, most of our jury,, we have already asked questions. We have already come to the conclusion that there’s something wrong here. That’s why I think that it is not important to get the masses behind us, but only a few good men and women, maybe 5 percent, maybe 10 percent. Is that a correct assumption?

Meredith Miller
The Critical Mass I think is what you’re saying? What is that critical mass and I think there’s going to be some people that will never wake up. I think some people will take this to their grave. And I think that it’s actually okay that we don’t have to try to convert everyone or wake everybody up. In fact, it’s even disrespectful to try to confront somebody who doesn’t want to listen to what we’re saying. But I do think you’re right that at a certain point, I don’t know what the number is that critical mass will create some kind of shift and also invite some kind of intervention from beyond perhaps that will assist us in this process.

Reiner Fuellmich
Thank you.

Translator
What you said in social psychology, it’s rather around one person, it’s one person that is capable of resisting, one person, based on the Milgram experience.

Reiner Fuellmich
No, more than 1 percent.

Viviane Fischer
No, it’s much more than that, because the party, the (inaudible) has already they almost gained almost 800,000 votes. And these are clearly like anti measures people and then there’s much much more anti measures people who have never heard of this party, for instance, or like just didn’t vote for them. So I think in Germany at least the situation has reached much more than this 1 percent.

Translator
Well, this is just at the beginning of the experience that was made on the submission of authority. At that point, they found out it was just one person could resist you know, so it was based on the Milgram study,

Viviane Fischer
But resistance is also infectious.

Meredith Miller
Yeah.

Reiner Fuellmich
More than the virus.

Meredith Miller
Correct.

Reiner Fuellmich
Well, thank you very much. I don’t want to cut anyone off, Ana or Dexter? I was thinking that –

N. Ana Garner
I have no further questions

Reiner Fuellmich
I was thinking that that was encouraging. So why not end on that note for today?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt
Yes. No further questions.

Reiner Fuellmich
Well, thank you very much for all you have done for us tonight. This was real encouragement, ultimately. Thank you for staying with us for so long. Thank you, Virginie. Thank you, Meredith. Thank you, Ana. Thank you, Ariane. Thank you, Vanna. Thank you Judge Rui E Castro. And thank you, Dexter. And thank you everyone for staying with us for listening and hopefully standing up.

N. Ana Garner
Thank you. Thank you, Reiner.

Reiner Fuellmich
We’ll see you all tomorrow then. Bye. Bye.