A letter to Gladys

Sometimes, you just can’t take it anymore in these crazy lockdown times, and the anger just has to be vented, at something or someone. We’d like to think that our politicians are in charge – that’s open for debate of course, but they sure like to congratulate themselves when they think they’ve done something wonderful, so when they stuff up big time, they need to hear that too.

And so I sat down earlier this week and wrote an angry email to our state’s leader, Gladys Berejiklian. I know she won’t read it, and even if she did, she wouldn’t care, but it feels good to at least have tried, and I got my frustration off my chest, addressing the person in the driver’s seat in New South Wales.

And it is good to see that I’m not the only one who thinks our leaders have lost their marbles over Covid. Even some in the mainstream media seem to have woken up. Here an article from Steve Waterson from The Australian. But this is what I wrote to our Premier:

17 July 2021

Dear Ms Berejiklian

Until the latest lockdown, I thought you were one of the more reasonable leaders in this country, one of the “moderates”.

You have proven me wrong over the last month.

Keep Reading

Yeah, right…!

Just as I thought the world was slowly coming to its senses, at snail’s pace mind you, the recent G7 Summit in Cornwall proved me completely wrong.

There is simply no end of the Covid madness in sight. On the contrary, the pharmaceutical industry that’s been driving the vaccination agenda from the very beginning of this calamity, has just received some more tailwind from the G7 “leaders.”

Anyone with commonsense would probably think that rushing to bring any kind of medical product to market is quite foolish and potentially dangerous. And it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. The 2009 swine flu vaccine is just one example – lucky back then most countries realised that that particular pandemic was fake, and so the vaccine was not that widely accepted and only a few hundred people, mainly in Sweden, were left with life crippling long term damage (narcolepsy).

This time, things are very different. A well-oiled 24/7 propaganda machine made sure almost the entire world lost its marbles in lockstep, big pharma is ready to cash in on this manufactured crisis, whilst politicians are looking forward to emerge as the heroes who saved their people from certain death. It’s a win-win … for them! Not for you, for them! Because this is not about your health, it’s about saving their bacon and making them even richer and more powerful.

It would stand to reason that developing and producing new vaccines based on new technology never before tested in humans would take a tad over 300 days – say 3,000 days, before you could possibly say that they’re safe to use – if in fact they do turn out to be effective and not have serious and/or long-term adverse effects. Neither has been proved even remotely since the launch of these vaccines, but who really cares? All genuine and well-founded warnings about these rushed-through Covid vaccines have been ignored, downplayed, ridiculed, deemed conspiratorial, censored.

So confident (or self-deluded?) are the great and mighty leaders of the so-called free world, that they now declare that punching out vaccines in 300 days isn’t anywhere near fast enough. They go along with the sage advice of the wise heads of the oh so holy and heroic pharma industry, who reckon that 100 days should be the goal.

And of course, you’ll believe that, won’t you, because you’ve gone along with everything else they’ve thrown at you over the last year and a bit…

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/

Demonstration against vaccine passports

On Saturday 12 June I attended a demonstration in Sydney organized by No Health Passports. In a first for me, I spoke as well and my speech is reproduced below in full. The turnout was still very modest (I counted about 40 people), but it was good to connect with a bunch of people who also care about our democratic rights and freedoms being unreasonably compromised during this time of mass psychosis.

Keep Reading

UPDATE – Swiss vote on Covid, CO2 and anti-terrorist laws

This is the continuation of my previous post. My vote arrived in my home municipality after 10 days of travel – and that via express post!

And the results? About 60% of the population aged 18 and older cared enough about their future to vote on these important issues. That’s a very high turnout.

Well, it was always a long shot. The Covid law has been affirmed by the Swiss people overall. Nevertheless, the results are actually encouraging. Close to 40% of those who voted, over 1.2 million people out of a total population of roughly 7.3 million adults (16%), voted against. That’s more than I would have hoped for. And, what’s more, some of the cantons actually voted against the law (shown in light brown). Health minister Alain Berset sees this as a green light to continue with the introduction of a Covid-19 certificate. But a further referendum against just this measure has already been flagged. Read more here in English.

As for the CO2 law, I was actually on the winning side! Almost 52% of voters were against this nonsense. Read more here in English.

As for the new anti-terror law, just over 43% voted against this unnecessary and almost Orwellian piece of legislation. Read more here in English.

Also, unsurprisingly the Swiss people are apparently ok with the use of synthetic pesticides and the prophylactic use of antibiotics in food production. Read more here in English.

Swiss vote on Covid, CO2 and anti-terrorist laws

On 13 June the Swiss will cast their yes or no vote on three laws against which a significant minority of at least 50,000 people had mounted a referendum.

I have done my bit and voted against all three, the Covid law which gives the federal government powers to do many things which it should be allowed to do, the CO2 law which is based on a wrong assumption anyway, and the anti-terrorist law which would give the police unjustifiably wide and easy to abuse powers.

Interestingly, in the case of the Covid law, the information booklet contains the original text of the law from September 2020, which has since been worsened several times, so three of the most offensives sections are not even in the booklet. The current law is available here.

Need more proof of Covid nonsense?

As we we needed more proof that this entire Covid debacle is based on nothing but nonsense, the US Centre for Disease Control, which has led the official narrative on many fronts, has introduced another layer of deception. I couldn’t explain it any better than this article from the Off-Guardian, so I’m just linking to it here, and I summarise briefly:

Those who have been vaccinated but two weeks after vaccination test positive via PCR test are called ”break-through infections.” Of course it’s not a good look when such break-through infections occur, because that would call into question the effectiveness of the vaccines, so the fewer such break-through infections, the better. So what does the CDC do? They simply change the rules some time in April/May by requesting that labs only submit positive results with a Ct value of equal or less than 28. Of course this guarantees that much fewer positive results will be notified, as the CDC is well aware that labs routinely use much higher Ct values of over 35 and even over 40.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf

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