Naga Pramod via: Reclaim

A German district judge has had his electronic devices confiscated and his residence, car, and private premises were raided by police after he wrote a decision asking two schools in the Weimar district to refrain from enforcing mandatory mask-wearing and social distancing practices.

The Weimar District Court judge Christian Dettmar, after hearing the evidence regarding the scientific accuracy, validity, and necessity of anti-COVID-19 practices such as masks and social distancing, took the decision to prohibit two Weimar schools from enforcing mandatory mouth-nose coverings among students.

It is worth noting that the case marks the first time evidence against commonly prescribed anti-COVID-19 measures was presented in a German court, 2020 reported.

Judge Dettmar, after hearing the evidence against masks and other anti-COVID-19 measures, said that children’s mental, physical, and spiritual well-being was being jeopardized – be it wearing masks during school hours or maintaining distance from one another, children, in Dettmar’s opinion, were being harmed.

He said that the rules imposed by the schools on children with regards to anti-COVID-19 measures violated several children and parent rights, both on national and international levels. Dettmar said that the right to free development of personality and integrity fromArticle 2 and Article 6 of the Basic Law from the German constitution was being violated by mandatory enforcement of anti-COVID-19 measures in schools.

Soon after the decision, there was outrage online.

Almost 20 days after delivering the judgment, Dettmar’s house, office, car, and other private property got thoroughly searched by the police, with even his electronic devices such as his phone were confiscated.

In a statement, police accuse the judge of “misusing the law” to make the ruling. The judge’s lawyer, top defender Gerhard Strate from Hamburg, called the search and seizure “madness.”

The public prosecutor’s office confirmed the seizure when questioned. “Yes, there was a search yesterday morning. Evidence that the accused voluntarily released was secured,” said Chief Public Prosecutor Hannes Grünseisen. “The search was ordered by the investigating judge.” Grünseisen refused to comment on the full details.

Source: Reclaim

————————————————————————

German judge investigated by police after ruling compulsory mask-wearing in schools unconstitutional

On 8 April 2021, the Weimar District Family Court ruled in Amtsgericht Weimar, Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21) that two Weimar schools were prohibited with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially qualified masks such as FFP2 masks), to comply with AHA minimum distances and/or to take part in SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the court ruled that classroom instruction must be maintained.

This is the first time that expert evidence has now been presented before a German court regarding the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the prescribed anti-Corona measures.The expert witnesses were the hygienist Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer were heard. 2020NewsDe has published a summary of the judgment, the salient parts of which are set out in full below (translation by DeepL).

The reason for highlighting this judgment in such detail is because of the consequences of his decision, as reported by the judge to the news website. According to 2020NewsDe, “the judge at the Weimar District Court, Christiaan Dettmar, had his house searched today [26 April 2021]. His office, private premises and car were searched. The judge’s mobile phone was confiscated by the police. The judge had made a sensational decision on 8 April 2021, which was very inconvenient for the government’s policy on the measures.” In a side note on the fringes of proceedings with other parties, continues 2020NewsDe, “the decision in question has been described as unlawful by the Weimar Administrative Court without comprehensible justification.”

The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions.

Proceedings under section 1666 of the Civil Code can be initiated ex officio both at the suggestion of any person or without such a suggestion if the court considers intervention to be necessary for reasons of the best interests of the child (section 1697a of the Civil Code).

After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court concluded that the prohibitive measures represented a present danger to the child’s mental, physical or psychological well-being to such an extent that substantial harm could be foreseen with a high degree of certainty.

The judge stated:

These are the risks. The children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they are also already being harmed. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity under Article 2 of the Basic Law as well as to the upbringing and care by the parents under Article 6 of the Basic Law ….

With his judgement, the judge confirmed the mother’s assessment:

The children are physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged and their rights are violated without any benefit for the children themselves or third parties.

According to the court, the school administrators, teachers and others could not invoke the state law regulations on which the measures are based, because they are unconstitutional and thus null and void, since they violated the principle of proportionality rooted in the rule of law (Articles 20, 28 of the Basic Law).

According to this principle, also referred to as the prohibition of excess, the measures intended to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in the narrower sense – that is to say, when weighing up the advantages against their disadvantages. The measures that are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1(2) IfSG, are already unsuitable to achieve the fundamentally legitimate purpose pursued with them, to avoid overloading the health system or to reduce the incidence of infection with the SARS-CoV- 2 virus. In any case, however, they are disproportionate in the narrower sense, because the considerable disadvantages/collateral damage caused by them are not offset by any recognisable benefit for the children themselves or third parties

The judge clarified that it had to be pointed out that it was not for the parties involved to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but conversely for the Free State of Thuringia to prove the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable to achieve the intended purposes and that they are proportionate, if necessary. So far, this has not been done to any degree.

The judge heard expert evidence from Prof Kappstein on the lack of benefit of wearing masks and observing distance rules for the children themselves and third parties

Prof. Kappstein, after evaluating all the international data on the subject of masks, stated that the effectiveness of masks for healthy people in public is not supported by scientific evidence.

The ruling states:

Plausibility, mathematical estimates and subjective assessments in opinion pieces cannot replace population-based clinical-epidemiological studies. Experimental studies on the filtering performance of masks and mathematical estimates are not suitable to prove effectiveness in real life. While international health authorities advocate the wearing of masks in public spaces, they also say that there is no evidence for this from scientific studies. On the contrary, all currently available scientific evidence suggests that masks have no effect on the incidence of infection. All publications that are cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces do not allow this conclusion. This also applies to the so-called “Jena Study”- like the vast majority of other studies a purely mathematical estimation or modelling study based on theoretical assumptions without real contact tracing with authors from the field of macroeconomics without epidemiological knowledge …the decisive epidemiological circumstance remains unconsidered that the infection values already decreased significantly before the introduction of the mask obligation in Jena on 6 April 2020 (about three weeks later in the whole of Germany) and that there was no longer any relevant infection occurrence in Jena already at the end of March 2020.

The masks are not only useless, they are also dangerous, the judge concluded.

Every mask, as the expert further states, must be worn correctly in order to be effective in principle. Masks can become a contamination risk if they are touched. However, on the one hand they are not worn properly by the population and on the other hand they are very often touched with the hands. This can also be observed with politicians who are seen on television. The population was not taught how to use masks properly, it was not explained how to wash their hands on the way or how to carry out effective hand disinfection. It was also not explained why hand hygiene is important and that one must be careful not to touch one’s eyes, nose and mouth with one’s hands. The population was virtually left alone with the masks. The risk of infection is not only not reduced by wearing the masks, but increased by the incorrect handling of the mask. [The expert sets this out in detail] as well as the fact that it is “unrealistic” to achieve the appropriate handling of masks by the population.

The judgement goes on to say: “The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through ‘aerosols’, i.e. through the air, is not medically plausible and scientifically unproven. It is a hypothesis that is mainly based on aerosol physicists who, according to the expert, are understandably unable to assess medical correlations from their field of expertise. The ‘aerosol’ theory is extremely harmful for human coexistence and leads to the fact that people can no longer feel safe in any indoor space, and some even fear infection by ‘aerosols’ outside buildings. Together with ‘unnoticed’ transmission, the ‘aerosol’ theory leads to seeing an infection risk in every fellow human being.

The changes in the policy on masks, first fabric masks in 2020, then since the beginning of 2021 either OP masks or FFP2 masks, lack any clear line. Even though OP masks [the standard blue masks with filter cloth and three layers of purifying dust] and FFP masks are both medical masks, they have different functions and are therefore not interchangeable. Either the politicians who made these decisions themselves did not understand what which type of mask is basically suitable for, or they do not care about that, but only about the symbolic value of the mask. From the expert’s point of view, the policy-makers’ mask decisions are not comprehensible and, to put it mildly, can be described as implausible.

The expert further points out that there are no scientific studies on spacing outside of medical patient care. In summary, in her opinion and to the conviction of the court, only the following rules can be established:

1. “keeping a distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m) during vis-à-vis contacts when one of the two persons has symptoms of a cold can be described as a sensible measure. However, it is not scientifically proven; it can only be said to be plausible that it is an effective measure to protect against contact with pathogens through droplets of respiratory secretion if the person in contact has signs of a cold. In contrast, an all-round distance is not an effective way to protect oneself if the contact has a cold.
2. keeping an all-round distance or even just a vis-à-vis distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m) if none of the people present has signs of a cold is not supported by scientific data. However, this greatly impairs people living together and especially carefree contact among children, without any recognisable benefit in terms of protection against infection.
3. close contacts, i.e. under 1.5 m (1 – 2 m), among pupils or between teachers and pupils or among colleagues at work etc., however, do not pose a risk even if one of the two contacts has signs of a cold, because the duration of such contacts at school or even among adults somewhere in public is far too short for droplet transmission to occur. This is also shown by studies from households where, despite living in close quarters with numerous skin and mucous membrane contacts, few members of the household become ill when one has a respiratory infection.”

The court also followed Prof Kappstein’s assessment regarding the transmission rates of symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.

Pre-symptomatic transmissions are possible, but not inevitable. In any case they are significantly lower when real contact scenarios are evaluated than when mathematical modelling is used.

From a systematic review with meta-analysis on Corona transmission in households published in December 2020, she contrasts a higher, but still not excessive, transmission rate of 18% for symptomatic index cases with an extremely low transmission of only 0.7% for asymptomatic cases. The possibility that asymptomatic people, formerly known as healthy people, transmit the virus is therefore meaningless.

In summary, the court stated:

There is no evidence that face masks of various types can reduce the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 at all, or even appreciably. This statement applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents, as well as asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic individuals.

On the contrary, there is the possibility that the even more frequent hand-face contact when wearing masks increases the risk of coming into contact with the pathogen oneself or bringing fellow humans into contact with it. For the normal population, there is no risk of infection in either the public or private sphere that could be reduced by wearing face masks (or other measures). There is no evidence that compliance with distance requirements can reduce the risk of infection. This applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents.”

The court relied on the extensive findings of another expert, Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner, in its conclusions that there was “no high-quality scientific evidence to date that the risk of infection can be significantly reduced by wearing face masks.”

The judge continued

In addition, the achievable extent of the reduction in the risk of infection through mask-wearing at schools is in itself very low, because infections occur very rarely at schools even without masks. Accordingly, the absolute risk reduction is so small that a pandemic cannot be combated in a relevant way… According to the expert’s explanations, the currently allegedly rising infection figures among children are very likely to be due to the fact that the number of tests among children has increased significantly in the preceding weeks. Since the risk of infection at schools is very low, even a possible increase in the infection rate of the new virus variant B.1.1.7 in the order of magnitude assumed in studies is not expected to significantly increase the spread of the virus at schools. This small benefit is countered by numerous possible side effects with regard to the physical, psychological and social well-being of children, from which numerous children would have to suffer in order to prevent a single infection. The expert presents these in detail, among other things, on the basis of the side-effect register published in the scientific journal Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.

The Court also relied on the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein on the unsuitability of PCR tests and rapid tests for measuring the incidence of infection

Regarding the PCR test, the Court quoted Dr Kappstein to the effect that the PCR test used can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication.

The expert Prof. Dr. Kämmerer also confirmed in her expert opinion on molecular biology that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.

There is a great deal more of interest on the PCR test from page 120 of the 176 page judgment. According to Prof. Dr. Kämmerer, in order to determine an active infection with SARS-CoV-2, further, and specifically diagnostic methods such as the isolation of replicable viruses must be used.

According to the expert report, the rapid antigen tests used for mass testing cannot provide any information on infectivity, as they can only detect protein components without any connection to an intact, reproducible virus.

Finally, the expert points out that the low specificity of the tests causes a high rate of false positive results, which leads to unnecessary personnel (quarantine) and social consequences (e.g. schools closed, “outbreak reports”)until they turn out to be false alarms. The error effect, i.e. a high number of false positives, is particularly strong in tests on symptomless people.

The judge then turned to the right to informational self-determination, which forms part of the general right of personality in Article 2(1) of the Basic Law. This is the right of individuals to determine for themselves in principle the disclosure and use of their personal data. Such personal data also includes a test result. Furthermore, such a result is a personal health “data” in the sense of the Data Protection Regulation (DSGVO), which in principle is nobody’s business.

This encroachment on fundamental rights is also unconstitutional. This is because, given the concrete procedures of the testing process in schools, it seems unavoidable that numerous other people (fellow pupils, teachers, other parents) would become aware of a “positive” test result, for example.

The judge observed that any compulsory testing of schoolchildren under Land law was not covered by Germany’s Infection Protection Act – irrespective of the fact that this itself is subject to considerable constitutional concerns.

According to § 28 of the Act, the competent authorities can take the necessary protective measures in the manner specified therein if “sick persons, persons suspected of being sick, persons suspected of being infected or excretors” are detected. According to § 29 IfSG, these persons can be subjected to observation and must then also tolerate the necessary examinations.

In its decision of 02.03.2021, ref.: 20 NE 21.353, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal refused to consider employees in nursing homes as sick, suspected of being sick or excretors from the outset. This should also apply to pupils. However, a classification as suspected of being infected is also out of the question.

According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, anyone who has had contact with an infected person with sufficient probability is considered to be suspected of being infected within the meaning of § 2 No. 7 IfSG; mere remote probability is not sufficient. It is necessary that the assumption that the person concerned has ingested pathogens is more probable than the opposite. The decisive factor for a suspicion of infection is exclusively the probability of a past infection process, cf. judgement of 22.03.2012 – 3 C 16/11 – juris marginal no. 31 et seq. The Bavarian Constitutional Court has rejected this for employees in nursing professions. The Weimar judge observed that “Nothing else applies to schoolchildren.”

Regarding the children’s right to education, the judge stated:

Schoolchildren are not only subject to compulsory schooling under Land law, but also have a legal right to education and schooling. This also follows from Articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is applicable law in Germany.

According to this, all contracting states must not only make attendance at primary school compulsory and free of charge for all, but must also promote the development of various forms of secondary education of a general and vocational nature, make them available and accessible to all children and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and the provision of financial support in cases of need. The educational goals from Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are to be adhered to.

The judge summarised his decision as follows:

The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third persons harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psychosocial development, without being counterbalanced by more than at best marginal benefit to the children themselves or to third persons. Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic”.

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are in principle not suitable on their own to detect an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is already clear from the Robert Koch Institute’s own calculations, as explained in the expert reports. According to RKI calculations, as expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner explains, the probability of actually being infected when receiving a positive result in mass testing with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, is only two per cent at an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). This would mean that for every two true-positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test.

A (regular) compulsion to mass-test asymptomatic people, i.e. healthy people, for which there is no medical indication, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take the test puts the children under psychological pressure, because in this way their ability to attend school is constantly put to the test.

Finally, the judge notes:

Based on surveys in Austria, where no masks are worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week throughout the country, the following results according to the explanations of the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner:

100,000 primary school pupils would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing masks for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week.

To call this result merely disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has become distant from the facts to an extent that seems historic.

Source: UK Human Rights Blog

Hungary is one of the few countries using all the main Covid-19 vaccines. A study conducted by Budapest, based on the number of people who’ve been vaccinated and then been infected or died, shows good news for Russia’s Sputnik V

The statistics, showing how many recipients were infected with Covid-19 or died from the virus following vaccination, were released on Sunday by Viktor Orban’s administration. It came as a response to the criticism surrounding the vaccination campaign, which the Orban government has labeled an “anti-vaccination” effort by leftist opponents.

Notably, the data suggested that Sputnik V has so far had the safest record of all the Covid-19 vaccines used in Hungary – the first EU member to begin vaccinating with the Russian vaccine despite the wait for approval from Brussels.

“Leftist political forces continue their anti-vaccination campaign in many ways,” a government statement posted on Facebook claimed. “One form of this is to question the effectiveness of certain vaccine types. This is why the government discloses the infection and death data after vaccinations. This data shows that every vaccine used in Hungary provides effective and strong protection against infection.”

We ask everyone to take advantage of the possibility of vaccination. Vaccination saves lives.

The data, which spanned the Covid-19 inoculations administered in Hungary from last December through April 20, showed that a rate of only 95 per 100,000 people became infected with Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated with Sputnik V. That compared with an average rate of 408 per 100,000, including 555 per 100,000 among those who received Pfizer-BioNTech shots, 700 per 100,000 who were given AstraZeneca’s vaccine, and 177 per 100,000 for those who used doses from Moderna.

The results were encouraging across the board, with just 0.4% of fully vaccinated Hungarians becoming infected with Covid-19, but Sputnik V was seemingly the biggest winner. Just one patient per 100,000 people inoculated with the vaccine caught Covid-19 and died, compared with an average rate of 20 per 100,000 and Pfizer-BioNTech’s rate of 32 per 100,000.

The Sputnik V PR team said the data appeared to back up recent comments by Gergely Gulyas, chief of staff to Prime Minister Orban, indicating that the Russian and Chinese vaccines are outperforming Pfizer-BioNTech, and Sputnik V leads the pack.

However, while the figures are illuminating – especially given that Hungary defied the EU on Sputnik V and Sinopharm, and offered one of the most diverse slates of Covid-19 jabs in the world – it’s not air-tight or conclusive. They don’t account for such variables as how the different vaccines are being administered, including which jabs have been given to a relatively high proportion of high-risk people.

Hungary started using Sputnik V in February. Orban, who has a history of clashing with the EU, was criticized for offering a vaccine without the European Medicines Agency giving its blessing, and for potentially undermining the bloc’s coordinated vaccination efforts. But with the EU vaccination rollout lagging behind those in the UK and the US, he made no apologies for putting the lives of his constituents first.

“My opinion is that what I need, and what the Hungarian people need, is not an explanation but a vaccine, and if it is not coming from Brussels, then it must come from elsewhere,” Orban said in January. “It cannot be that Hungarian people are dying because vaccine procurement in Brussels is slow.”

Nearly 40% of Hungarians have received at least one Covid-19 vaccination shot, the highest rate in the EU. An extrapolation of the efficacy data that was released on Sunday showed that some 212,000 people have been fully vaccinated with Sputnik V, the third most commonly administered of the five shots. Pfizer-BioNTech leads with 549,000, followed by Sinopharm at 490,000.

Jordan Davidson via: The Federalist

Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN last weekend that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to release new guidance suggesting relaxed outdoor mask policies.

“The risk when you’re outdoors – which we have been saying all along – is extremely low,” Fauci, who is notorious for flip-flopping on COVID-19 guidance, said. “And if you are vaccinated, it’s even lower. So you’re going to be hearing about those kinds of recommendations soon.”

While Fauci spent most of the last year drumming up media coverage, TV hits, and other opportunities to stay in the limelight, another health care policy adviser who sat on former President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force for more than 100 days warned that Fauci, the CDC, and others participating the scientific “groupthink” surrounding COVID-19 could be approaching the virus wrong.

Dr. Scott Atlas was one of the first and only voices in the COVID fight who pushed back on masking outdoors and questioned the dominant narrative that conquering the virus required a fear-filled approach.

“Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re riding your bicycle all alone outside? Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re in your own car driving? Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re in the desert all alone?” Atlas told Real Clear Politics in October.

The mouthpieces at the CDC, however, were clearly opposed to Atlas’s thinking. During the 2020 lockdowns and reopening controversies, former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said that “everything [Atlas] says is false.”

Fauci also hinted that while most of the COVID task force seemed to be on the same page, there was an obvious “outlier.” The people lobbing these criticisms, Atlas said, are motivated by the attention they are granted by the media and are “simply used to groupthink and not to informed people who have a critical thought process.”

“The CDC has many fine scientists, I am sure of that, but when the head of the CDC held up a mask and said a mask is better than a vaccine, that is absurd. That is not science. That is contrary to all rational thought,” Atlas noted.

The left’s corporate media mouthpieces also took cues from these critics and repeatedly hammered Atlas for recommending schools and cities reopen amid the pandemic, avoiding masking except for in certain instances, and advocating against silencing scientific dissent. A former Obama official even called for Atlas to lose his medical license.

While Atlas repeatedly pointed to data that signaled “one of the biggest failures of the faces of public health in this country” was extended lockdowns, Big Tech also stepped into the fight to censor him for pointing out that evidence for widespread mask use was shaky and should only be applied in certain situations with high-risk situations individuals.Google-owned YouTube removed an interview with Atlas discussing how government-imposed lockdowns were doing more harm than good for allegedly violating its terms of service.

As the CDC continues to pull back on its recommendations, many of which have been scrutinized for lacking scientific evidence, Atlas’s claims that were once used by politicians, the corporate media, and other grifters to write off science are suddenly making a comeback.

By John Harlow and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research

Flash back to May 2009, the Billionaires held a meeting behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.

This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club”.

Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more.

The Secret Gathering was reported by the Sunday Times. as well as the Guardian.

“The fact that they pulled this off, meeting in the middle of New York City, is just absolutely amazing,” said Niall O’Dowd, an Irish journalist who broke the story on the website irishcentral.com.”

According to media reports, “The Good Club” focus was on the philanthropic mandate of the billionaires, using their money in support of poverty alleviation and “overpopulation”.

It is important to note that the Good Club meeting in NYC was held at the height of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic which turned out to be a scam. No doubt, the H1N1 pandemic was an object of discussion by the “Good Club”.

Barely a few weeks prior to this secret gathering, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London who at the time was advising the WHO, stated with authority that “40 per cent of people in the UK could be infected [with H1N1] within the next six months if the country was hit by a pandemic.”

This is the same Niel Ferguson (generously supported by the Gates Foundation) who designed the coronavirus Lockdown Model which resulted in mass unemployment, poverty and the closure of 190 national economies as a means to combating COVID-19.

The media reports on the May 5, 2009 secret gathering focussed on the commitment of “The Good Club” to “slowing down” the growth of the World’s population.

Was an absolute “reduction” in World population contemplated at this meeting, –i.e. as a means to reducing “Overpopulation”? In this regard, Bill Gates in his February 2010 TED presentation pertaining to vaccination, confirmed the following;

“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.

According to Gates’ statement, this would represent an absolute reduction of the World’s population of the order 680 million to 1.02 billion.

(See quotation on Video starting at 04.21. See also screenshot of Transcript of quotation)

TED Talk at 04:21:

“The Good Club” Then and Now

The same group of billionaires who met at the May 2009 secret venue, have been actively involved from the outset in designing the coronavirus lockdown policies applied Worldwide.

They are also the architects of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”.

Below is the complete text of the Sunday Times article (May 24, 2009) (emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 25, 2021

****

“Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb Overpopulation”

by John Harlow,

Sunday Times, May 24, 2009

***

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points.

“Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

While Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter are chock full of virtue-signaling sheep declaring their double, triple, quadruple masking efforts; their personal sacrifices for the greater good of all mankind (against a virus that leave 99.7% of those infected unharmed); and blindly following the ‘science’ from political operatives who need a crisis to drive their agenda; one Georgia mom has had enough.

Instead of virtue-signaling to the world, Georgia mother Courtney Ann Taylor blasted Gwinnett County Board of Education members for requiring children to wear masks despite evidence that kids are largely safe from COVID-19, demanding, “take these masks off of my child.”

Taylor slammed the board who for months have proclaimed the importance of “social, emotional health” telling them, “if you truly mean that, you would end the mask requirement tonight. Tonight.”

“This is not March 2020 anymore,” the mom of a 6-year-old rage…

“We have three vaccines, every adult in the state of Georgia that wants that vaccine is eligible to get it, right now, and every one of us knows that young children are not affected by this virus.”

“They’re not,” Taylor said, as she began to get emotional, “and that’s a blessing.”

“But as the adults what have we done with that blessing? We’ve shoved it to the side and we’ve said we don’t care, ‘You’re still gonna wear a mask on your face every day, 5 and 6-year-olds, you still can’t play together on the playground like normal children, 7 and 8-year-olds,’” she said.

“We don’t care. We are still going to force you to carry a burden that was never yours to carry. Shame on us,” she said.

“It is April 15, 2021, and it’s time,” Taylor said angrily.

“Take these masks off of my child.”

If you’re a parent of a child in school, we dare you to watch this without becoming enraged… and emotional (perhaps it was allergies)…

Make it stop!

via Sputnik

Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine entered the market in 2020, being advertised as an extremely safe product. However, recent jab-related data from around the world may very well put these statements into question when it comes to both side effects and fatalities.

As the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic hit the planet in early 2020, vaccine manufacturers immediately launched a pursuit of a product, which would thwart the disease quickly and efficiently. An alliance of Pfizer and BioNTech was one of the first to present its “weapon” against the pandemic in the form of a “revolutionary” mRNA vaccine, which received a brand name Comirnaty. The product was developed using a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, which was largely unheard of prior to that, and went into clinical trials in April of the same year. This technology was so new that no safety studies existed and no long-term effects of such vaccines have ever been assessed.

From day one Pfizer’s vaccine has been receiving a lot of praise from American, British and European mainstream media which coincidently didn’t shy away from apparent bias against other vaccine manufacturers.

But after the optimistic rollout came doubts about the product’s safety, as the number of deaths, some of which may have been caused by Pfizer’s jab, surpassed similar data from some other vaccines.

Comirnaty’s Death Count

Official government statistics from 12 countries: US, India, Brazil, Argentina, India, Chile, France, Germany, UK, Austria, Italy, Denmark and Russia, which was collected and analyzed as of April 19, 2021, show that in total there have been 2,485 deaths among Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine recipients. Which in turn corresponds to a simple average death rate across the 12 countries of 39.4 deaths per 1 million doses administrated for Pfizer – some three to five times higher than that for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson jabs.

© SPUTNIK
COVID vaccines review 1

The worst wave of Pfizer deaths was registered in Norway, where the number of fatalities per 1 million administered doses hit 143. In the US 1,134 people lost their lives after receiving a jab of Comirnaty, as per data provided by the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The latter is more than 20 times higher than the numbers for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Data from Mexico’s Ministry of Health also shows significantly more side effects for Pfizer than AstraZeneca or other vaccines (as of April 17, there were 2.08 cases of serious adverse events per 100,000 doses for Pfizer vs 1.56 cases for AstraZeneca, and for cases supposedly attributed to vaccination the difference is even starker – 2.62 vs 0.38 per 1,000 doses).

© SPUTNIK
COVID vaccines review 2

There has not been a clear link yet established between Pfizer deaths and its vaccines.

The Inconvenient Truth

Media outlets around the world reported dozens of deaths connected with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine. But none of these cases appears to have been properly investigated.

In January this year, Norway raised concern over 29 Comirnaty-related deaths with Bloomberg journalists also warning about vaccination risks for sick patients over 80. Last week French reporters added more fuel to the fire, citing a doctor Michael Cohen, who said that “the side effects of Pfizer are more important than the side effects of other vaccines”. The context included mentioning the 386 deaths related to the Pfizer vaccine in France. The UK also became concerned about 314 fatalities related to Comirnaty jabs, but this time it wasn’t the media, but the government that raised the alarm.

© SPUTNIK
COVID vaccines review 3

In the meantime, Oxford University recently released a study showing that the risk of portal vein thrombosis appears to be 30 times higher with mRNA vaccines than with AstraZeneca.

And while some eyebrows have been raised as Pfizer appeared completely unfazed by the revelations – it comes as little surprise, considering the company’s past long track record of aggressive marketing strategies and indiscretions.

The Core of the Problem

Even though the manufacturer does not seem to be eager to go into a lot of detail relating to the death count, recent data shows that high fatality rates may be caused by the flaws of mRNA technology, which hasn’t been widely used before the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early 2021 leaked documents from European Medicines Agency (EMA) servers described in Le Monde article revealed serious problems that Pfizer was facing while switching from lab tests to full-scale commercial production of its vaccine. According to the documents, there was a significant loss of RNA integrity during the process – from 78.1 percent to 59.7 percent, with some batches at 51 percent. In layman’s terms, “low RNA integrity” not only means that Comirnaty has a low concentration of the active substance but also that more than 40 percent of mRNA is unstable and can produce random and harmful instructions in the body. Leaked documents also show that Pfizer tried to overcome the problem by increasing the dosage, which led to a higher percentage of inflammatory cases, thrombophilia, paroxysm, and other adverse events.

© SPUTNIK
COVID vaccines review 4

Despite the fact that EMA acknowledged this problem with the Comirnaty, emails from the regulator’s top officials – namely EMA Deputy Director Noel Wathion, show that they kept pushing the organization hard to accelerate the approval of the vaccine simultaneously with the FDA. If the leaked materials are authentic, one may only wonder why the European Agency would lobby the interests of a vaccine manufacturer despite obvious health risks connected to it.

What the Future Holds

While all of the above may already lead to serious discussions about Pfizer vaccine’s safety record, there is also the long-term effect issue – a factor which is yet to be explored.

By now there have been no studies on the long-term safety of the vaccine, let alone studies about drugs and vaccines based on the new mRNA technology in general. Scientists and doctors have yet to explore the absence of any risks of carcinogenicity or a decline in fertility.

​Just like any other breakthrough technology, mRNA has been received worldwide with cheering, caution or with negative responses. Just like cloning, or any other inventions which dealt with human biology on a very deep level, it may need serious international monitoring and discussions about its safety, as well as about its mass applications. But whether it will be possible for scientists and doctors to fully investigate the effects of the Pfizer vaccine and other mRNA-based products without the enormous pressure and lobbying from the Big Pharma and political establishment, who seem to be involved in covering up rollout-related incidents – remains to be seen.

This is a pre-publication of a chapter that will be finalized in the forthcoming book “Corona Unmasked” by Sucharit Bhakdi and Karina Reiss. – excerpts

Corona_Unmasked_engl

Anyone who has the slightest idea about infections and immune defense also knows that the mechanistic concept for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination which is presented to the public is amateurish and naive from the start. The antibodies induced by the vaccination will circulate for the most part in the bloodstream. For an analogy, readers may imagine that they themselves are such antibodies, sitting together in the living room – which represents a blood vessel of the lungs. Now the virus comes to the house – not bothering to ring the bell, it just grabs the door handle and steps into the hallway: the lung cell. How could you possibly stop it from doing so, while sitting in the living room? You can’t.
Antibodies can basically only help prevent the further spread of an intruder through the bloodstream. But that is not the primary protection against an attack from the air against the lungs. And that is precisely why there is no truly effective vaccine protection against respiratory infections, including influenza.
[…]
All humans have had training rounds with coronaviruses, and thus they have lymphocytes that will recognize SARS-CoV-2 garbage. People without in-depth knowledge might counter that these cross-reactive killer lymphocytes were detected in only 40–70% of old blood samples, and they reacted only weakly against SARS-CoV-2 (27, 28). However, it is known that only a small proportion of all lymphocytes are in the blood at any given time. The others are just taking a break and resting in the lymphoid organs (including the lymph nodes).
Activated and combat-ready T lymphocytes were found in the blood of all people (100%) infected with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the severity of the disease (29).

For context: during an initial confrontation of the immune system with a virus, the lymphocyte response will be sluggish. Rapid, strong reactions such as that documented by the Swedish team reveal that forewarned troops are already at the ready and can be mobilized on short notice. They will swarm out of the lymphoid organs to fight the enemy. Their main task: extermination of the virus factories – death to the body’s own cells that produce the virus particles.

And now back to the new reality: the large-scale experiment on humans. The injected gene packets are taken up locally in muscle cells, but a large part reaches first the local lymph nodes and, after passing through these, the bloodstream. The lymph nodes are where the immune cell team resides. When the viral gene is taken up by any cell there, production of the spike protein gets underway. The corona killer lymphocyte next door wakes up and springs into action – the brotherly battle begins! Lymph node swelling. Pain. The lymphocytes psyche each other up and then emerge from the lymph nodes to seek out more enemies.
Yes – over there – the muscle cells! There they are!!! Attack!!! At the injection site redness, swelling, bad pain.
But now the nightmare.
This is because the substances with small molecules – for example, blood sugar – can easily seep out of the blood into the tissue, whereas large molecules such as proteins cannot. For them, the vessel walls are tight thanks to the lining with a cell layer – the endothelial cells.
What are the gene packages like – large or small?

Right – compared to blood sugar, they certainly are large. Therefore, once they enter the bloodstream, they will remain in the closed network of vascular tubes just like the blood cells. A small part of them is taken up by white blood cells. Presumably, however, most of the virus factories will be established in the endothelial cells, that is, in the innermost cell layer of the blood vessels themselves. This would happen mainly where the blood flows slowly – within the smallest and smallest vessels – because the gene packages can be taken up particularly efficiently by the cells there (30).
The endothelial cells then produce the viral spike protein and place the waste at the door – on the side that faces the bloodstream, where killer lymphocytes are on patrol. This time, the fight is one-sided. The endothelial cells have no defense.
What happens then can only be guessed at. Injury to the vascular lining usually leads to the formation of blood clots. This would likely happen in countless vessels in countless places in the body. If it happens in the placenta, severe damage to the child in the womb could result.

Is there evidence that something like this is taking place? Yes, there is talk of rare blood disorders in which a possible link to vaccination would have to be investigated (31). Strikingly, there are reports of patients in whom a sharp drop in blood platelets (thrombocytes) was observed. This would fit the hypothesis put forward here, because platelets are activated and used up at the sites of blood clot formation.

[…]

Notes:
[…]
(29) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017
(30) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/
adman.201906274
(31) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/health/immu-
ne-thrombocytopenia-covid-vaccine-blood.html

[…]