Browse Category

Just saying…

German Government: no evidence for effectiveness of lockdowns

This is worth noting: Boris Reitschuster, the only (!) German journalist who has the courage to openly challenge the German Government’s ever more extreme Covid-measures, at a press conference on 9 April in Berlin, had the following exchange with Oliver Ewald, the speaker for Health Minister Jens Spahn:

QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: Mr Ewald, Gunnar Schupelius wrote in an article in the „BZ“ [Berlin newspaper], that the Federal Government had no evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns. Hence my question: What scientific studies do you have?

ANSWER EWALD: You know that as a matter of principle we won’t pass judgement on the commentary of journalists. At this point, I would like to keep it that way.

ADDITIONAL QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: That’s a misunderstanding, Mr Ewald. I only brought up the quote and then asked an independent question. The question had nothing to do with the quote. I’m happy to repeat my question: What scientific…

ANSWER EWALD: If you read me a sentence from an article and then ask me to comment, without presenting the broader context and the reasons for the context, then I can say nothing about that.

ADDITIONAL QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: Then completely without that sentence, the question for the third time: What scientific studies does the Federal Government have?

ANSWER EWALD [after a pause]: I have now said what I had to say about that.

INTERJECTION REITSCHUSTER: So, nothing!

That, Australian journos, is courage!

Of course one could say the Health Minister sent a hapless idiot to do his bidding for the day, but the least Mr Ewald could have done is to say that he would supply the answer later, something which is quite commonly done at these press conferences when politicians don’t have an answer right away.

You can watch the exchange in the original here on Rumble (YouTube has censored this journalist several times already):

German court decision makes waves

On 8 April 2021, a court in Weimar (Germany) held that teachers from two schools are not allowed to force their students to wear masks, cannot force them to be tested, and cannot force them to apply social distancing rules. The original decision is available here (in German only). A summary is available here (in German). In the German media landscape the decision is of course is portrayed as a questionable.

The decision attacks the unreliability of the rapid testing and the PCR testing regime. The court relied on the written opinions from three medical witnesses. One of the experts, Ulrike Kämmerer, is one of the co-authors of a substantial paper that listed the flaws of the Covid-19 PCR test and called for the withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper, the paper which kickstarted the PCR test pandemic that has been plaguing us for over a year.

The education department, which had ordered schools in the state to require students to wear masks for all ages, said it would ask for a review of the decision following oral argument. The court registry indicated that there are several other similar court cases in the pipeline. 

Below a translation* of the summary conclusion of the 178-page judgment:

The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third parties harms the children physically, psychologically, pedagogically and in their psychosocial development, with no more than a marginal benefit at best for the children themselves or third parties.

Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic” event.

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are in principle not suitable for detecting an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

According to the expert opinions, this is based on the Robert Koch Institute’s [RKI, the German equivalent to the US’s CDC] own calculations. As expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner states, the RKI calculates that mass testing with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, the probability of someone actually being infected when receiving a positive result is only two percent, at an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). This would mean that for every two positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested using the PCR method.

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

Based on surveys in Austria, where no masks are worn in elementary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week throughout the country, the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner states:

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

To call this merely disproportionate would be a wholly inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has become distanced from the facts to an extent that takes on historic proportions. 

By mandating such measures the well-being of the children is endangered as described, refer paragraph 1666 BGB [a section of the law which states that the family court can order steps to be taken when the physical or psychological well-being of a child is threatened and the parents are not willing or not capable to counter the threat]. Teachers are therefore not allowed to mandate the measures. They cannot rely on the corresponding state-law ordinances and the general decree cited, as they are unsuitable to achieve the intended effect. But in any case, due to their disproportionality they [the measures] violate the principle proportionality, and are therefore unconstitutional and void. 

In addition, children have a legal right to accessible schooling.

*I translated the text using DeepL and then checked and edited the translation manually where necessary.

Another court acknowledges limitations of PCR testing

Another court decision you won’t read about in the mainstream media.

On 24 March 2021 an Austrian administrative court ruled that the Viennese County Police wrongfully prohibited a protest in the country’s capital which was slated for 31 Jan 2021. The demonstration was organised by a political party and was aimed at the Austrian Government’s severe Covid-19 measures. The court acknowledged the limitations of PCR and antigen testing for evaluating the epidemiological situation.

Below I summarise the parts of the reasons for judgment which are particularly interesting. 

Keep Reading

Do as you’re told or else!

Australian health professionals who are questioning the wisdom of Australia’s Covid-19 vaccination policy have been effectively silenced. A position statement of 9 March 2021 (a short extract below with my margin notes) reads like a thinly veiled threat to either toe the line or, if you do have objections, shut up about it and do as you’re told anyway, or else you face disciplinary action – in other words you risk losing your license to practice.

The Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, or the International Code of Medical Ethics, all thrown out of the window. It’s all about blind obedience – but that has quickly become the norm over the past year.

The next stage: corrupt artists

It was probably only a question of time. Recently, in the German city of Düsseldorf, young artist Leon Löwentraut was given a platform to display his “art” on the city’s landmark tower, the Rheinturm. According to this local news article, his work, a light show projected onto the tower, was explicitly dedicated to the UN’s sustainability goals (aka Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030), and the fight against Covid.

The main slogans on display were: “together against corona” and “vaccination = freedom”. 

So this artist allowed himself to be instrumentalised to help turn ultimately anti-human agendas into a dystopian reality. In my view, this is not art, this is pure propaganda disguised as art.

What is particularly ironic about this story is that according to this article, during an anti-lockdown demonstration last May in another German city, Freiburg, someone displayed a placard which caused much outrage at the time. It read “vaccination makes free” (“Impfen macht frei”) written in a manner which was an unmistakable reference to the “work makes free” (“Arbeit macht frei”) slogan displayed over the entrance gate to the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp. The person is still being prosecuted.

So just to get this straight: a display of a slogan which criticises our apparent and dramatic loss of freedoms and our simultaneous enslavement to the dark powers that be, that is considered offensive and criminal, whilst an almost identical slogan which is displayed in the context of support for those same dark forces is widely celebrated and considered art. 

The writing is on the wall.

Who cares whether Covid vaccines are safe?

Not the government, that’s the short answer.

I was curious to see whether any deaths that occur at least some time soon after the date of vaccination will by default be referred to the coroner in my home state of New South Wales, where vaccinations began just a few days ago.

I did this out of suspicion, because I already found out at the beginning of the Covid-19 scamdemic that coroners throughout Australia were specifically instructed not to examine deaths that were attributed to Covid-19, which of course means that we will never know for sure whether those people who allegedly died of Covid-19 actually did die from Covid-19.

In fact, it was clear to me early on that no government anywhere around the world had any interest whatsoever in finding out the truth about what was sold to us all as an incredibly deadly virus. It seems that no country anywhere mandated deaths be having them properly investigated through autopsies, with very few localised exceptions through personal initiative (eg Hamburg in Germany, and Basel in Switzerland). These did show that all or at least the vast majority of those who allegedly died from Covid-19 had one or several other pre-existing conditions that led to their deaths. Not to forget that it is highly likely that the treatment of so-called Covid-19 patients could also have contributed to the demise of these patients (intubation was quite fashionable early on, and as were ridiculously high doses of Hydroxychloroquine). 

The only chance we have to actually know whether any deaths that occur soon after vaccination were caused by the vaccine is via a thorough investigation by the State coroner. 

From this page of the NSW Health website and from the linked checklist I can only conclude that there is certainly no compulsion to refer any possibly Covid-vaccination related deaths to the coroner.

Given the extraordinary situation we are in, I would have expected such a strict requirement. 

Under point 5 of the checklist, a death following Covid vaccination “should” be reported to the coroner. But guidance note 1 gives the doctor an easy out, as they can simply conclude themselves that the vaccination (the “health related procedure”) did not cause the death. 

Given there is already so much pressure on doctors to push these vaccines on the entire population, it would be all-too human if doctors preferred to simply not rock the boat.

And our governments of course have many more important things to worry about than public health. There are many millions of doses of vaccines to deliver, no matter what.

With commonsense out of the picture for the last 12 months and scientific principles completely sidelined throughout this scamdemic, we can only hope that the biggest ever medical experiment with many millions of human guinea pigs, does not end in a huge catastrophe.

2020 – it’s almost over – or is it?

Phew, 2020 is almost over, I hear you sigh heavily. You think the moment the new year begins, you can make a fresh start, the world will somehow change for the better after a harrowing year.

Of course we can all be forgiven for thinking like that. But I fear we’d be sadly mistaken. 2021 will bring no relief, on the contrary. The coronavirus narrative will need to be kept alive, the population must remain sufficiently scared until we’re all thoroughly vaccinated and, above all, thoroughly brainwashed. 

I hope I’m wrong, I really do, but the signs are not good.

It will begin with a big bash in January 2021. The World Economic Forum under its looney leader Klaus Schwab will map out what our world should look like, just how things are going to change, and they will push and push until they’ve got what they want.

You’ve heard that phrase, right? The Great Reset. It’s been bandied around enough this year, along with other cute and catchy phrases like The New Normal and Building Back Better. What about other phrases like technocracy, transhumanism, smart cities, the Internet of Things, ID2020, Agenda21, Agenda 2030? You see, it’s all connected, but you’ll see it only when you take a more holistic view.

Of course, those pressing the reset button don’t want you to take a holistic view, that’s why they’ve made sure your mind is focusing sharply on the nasty virus that’s so deadly it even exterminated influenza. Yeah right!

But if you’ve swallowed the narrative so far, you’re 99% ready to swallow the rest of it too, so well done, dutiful citizen, you have faithfully watched the mainstream news, followed your government’s every instruction no matter how senseless, contradictory, and idiotic. You may have laughed about it, you may have been shaking your head, but you still did what was asked of you. But somehow it just wasn’t ever quite enough, so you’re going to have to make a few more little sacrifices. They’re going to have to, you know, impose just a little more, cut a few more freedoms here and there, twist your arm a little more, jab you in the arm with a needle, slap you around a little more, but don’t worry, you soon won’t feel the pain anymore, it will soon be normal, quite the new normal, and you will embrace it, wholeheartedly. 

You are now well prepared to put up with just about anything you will be served, just so you can lead some kind of a normal life – a New Normal life of course, not the old normal, that’s old, that’s over. See how quickly that worked? 

You don’t even notice anymore when you’re being conned. It was that simple. It took less than a year to relieve you of any ability you might have had to think critically. And you always wondered how the Germans could possibly fall for a looney like Hitler? Well…

You are now faithfully tagging along with the narrative, ready to follow the narrative behind the narrative, all the way through 2021 and beyond.

My letter to the NSW Government about PCR testing

I know the NSW Government has better things to do, there’s a whole population to keep sufficiently scared, but I thought I’d give it a try. I sent the following to the Premier and the Health Minister.

20 December 2020

Gladys Berejiklian
Premier of NSW

Dear Premier

Re: PCR testing in NSW

I am a concerned citizen with some specific questions regarding PCR testing done in NSW. The data that is publicly available on your website does not answer my questions.

Question 1:
Is the following data in relation to all reported test results collected and collated in the one database along with the personal data of the persons being tested, and is there a requirement that this data is supplied to you by the testing centres and laboratories?

  • The name of the testing station
  • The name of the laboratory
  • The name of all personnel who interacted with the tested persons
  • The name of the testing kit used 
  • The cycle threshold (Ct) value that was applied
  • All the gene sequences tested for each sample (E, N, RdRp)

Question 2:
Do you acknowledge that it is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of PCR tests to collect the data referred to in Question 1, in particular to ensure that we are not dealing with a test pandemic of false positives (given the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community must be very low) or contamination issues?

Question 3:
In the event that samples are only tested for one gene, are laboratories required to test for other genes before they report a positive result?

Question 4:
Why are you referring to people who merely tested positive as “cases”? Do you not think this is a misleading characterisation, given a PCR test does nothing more than indicate that matter with certain gene sequences is present in a person’s body, and a PCR test is not in itself a diagnosis of anything and says nothing about the state of health or infectiousness of a person? I refer to the CDC’s definition of a “case” here: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section5.html

Question 5:
In light of this, do you agree it would be better to refer to positive test results in your publicised statistics as “positive test results” or “people tested positive”?

Question 6:
In light of the above, do you not think it is your duty to inform the public and the media about the nature and limitations of PCR tests?

Question 7:
Are you aware of the following article which fundamentally questions the validity of the WHO-supported Corman/Drosten PCR test protocol? https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Question 8:
Are you aware of the WHO’s own media release of 14 December 2020? https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

Question 9:
Are you aware of the Portuguese court of appeal decision which was highly critical of PCR testing? https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

I look forward to your response

The naked emperor

There was a rare moment of frankness by one of the men who has been absolutely instrumental in making Covid-19 a thing. German virologist Christian Drosten, a revered, God-like figure in his country, who basically invented and then, with the help of the WHO, foisted his dodgy SARS-CoV-2 PCR test onto the world, in a 2 September shindig amongst virologists shows signs of frustration that the people in Germany are loosing faith in the Covid-19 narrative, because… wait for it… “the disease is not existing, it’s not there.” Listen to the relevant part of the conversation in full below: