Reiner Fuellmich and the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss team interview Brian Gerrish.

Brian Gerrish of www.ukcolumn.org – the UK’s long established alternative to BBC propaganda – appeared on the Corona Ausschuss to inform a German and international audience about the sustained attack on the British people throughout the current Corona crisis by its government using techniques of applied behavioural psychology and Neuro Linguistic Programming. In this wide ranging discussion, Brian makes it very clear that he and his team’s research points to a mass genocide of people, and particularly the elderly, in the UK.

The interview is linked down in the references section.  Here is a transcript.  The linking was provided by the source, Brian Gerrish himself.  The introductory video from Awake Canada is also recommended.  The following interview explains how it is that people have been made to believe the official narrative.

Reiner Füllmich: Brian, I apologise for having kept you waiting for twenty minutes or so.

Brian Gerrish: That’s absolutely fine, and I’d just like to say that I don’t speak German but it was fascinating watching you and listening, and it was wonderful to see you start laughing, because you looked very serious in most of the dialogues that I’ve listened to.

There was one word that I picked up that I found very interesting, and that was Wahnsinn, which came up several times, particularly when [persecuted primary school headmistress] Bianca was speaking.

Reiner Füllmich: You know what it means, right?

Brian Gerrish: Yes, “madness”. And I’m going to say to you: it’s not madness. What we are facing is calculated, and it’s a mistake to call it “madness”, because it’s very precise; it’s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.

Reiner Füllmich: That’s very interesting to hear, because we have come to the conclusion that “the other side”, as we call them, is using two major tools. One is, of course, psychology, psychological operations; and the other, which transports this psychological operation, is the mainstream media.

Can you tell us a little about your background?

Brian Gerrish: Well, my personal background is, professionally, I was military: I was in the Royal Navy for twenty-one years. I then worked in industry, essentially, for a while, but after a few years, I began to understand that things were not good in the UK, and I began to see things and investigate things.

Ultimately, that’s led me, over nearly another twenty years, to team up with a gentleman called Mike Robinson, and for fourteen years now, we’ve been running a media outlet called the UK Column, where I’m delighted to say that we’re expanding, and it’s clear that our viewers and listeners are now not only in the UK; they’re across the world.

Reiner Füllmich: Excellent. And now, of course, you’re busy covering Coronavirus and all the ramifications of what Coronavirus is bringing about.

Brian Gerrish: Well, the key point is that we originally started by looking at some of the issues that you’ve just mentioned. We we were looking at how propaganda had come into the country; we were looking at the use of applied behavioural psychology by the Government; and we were looking at changes which were very serious (or we thought they were very serious) that were particularly affecting the style of democracy, and that were also affecting our constitutional rights.

It was against that background of reporting that we have then encountered, obviously, what’s happened with Coronavirus. So I would say to you that our analysis of what has happened with Coronavirus is seen very much against the background of what was happening politically, and in particular the use of applied behavioural psychology and propaganda.

Viviane Fischer: So what do you think is the “calculated madness”? The [description] “madness” is more our judgement from when we look at what was the normal status of things before. No-one would have thought, had you asked us a year ago, that this could have ever happened; at least not us, I guess.

And also, we were really surprised how the legal system has deteriorated, or at least, how it has become obvious that it is really in bad shape. But we also have the feeling, at the same time, that it’s very orchestrated, what’s happening: that it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. They move this piece and this piece, and then the picture is becoming more and more clear what’s going on. But what are your experiences or your analysis of the situation?

Brian Gerrish: First of all, I’d agree with you that the Coronavirus “pandemic”, if we want to call it that in inverted commas, did catch everybody by surprise. I don’t think we saw that coming, and it happened very quickly. So I’d certainly agree with you on that.

But I’ll come back to the fact that we started to see very, very serious things things happening in the UK. If I just focus immediately on the Government’s use of applied behavioural psychology: back in 2010 and 2011, we as the UK Column were warning that the Government had set up a team which was called the Behavioural Insights Team [UK Column note: whose former homepage address ‘behaviouralinsights.co.uk’ now redirects to the consciously globalist ‘bi.team’]. This was a team of psychologists who were working directly alongside not only the political process, but the policy-forming process within the British Government.

A critical document which we found in 2010 was called Mindspace (you can find it very easily by searching online for it as a PDF document). In that document, the Government admitted that it was using applied behavioural psychology to influence how it designed policy and how it implemented policy.

At one particular point in that document—in fact, it’s at the bottom of page 66, if I remember correctly—the Government boasts that it can change the way people think and behave, and that people will not be aware that this has been done to them. But it adds the caveat that if they do realise that their behaviour is changed, they will not know how it was changed.

We read this document and we were shocked, and we then started to research further. That then led us to discover that, around that time and of course a little bit earlier, the British Government had been conducting meetings with the French, in which we were bringing the political psychology teams together to produce joint plans with the French. The key Frenchman who was present in the meetings was called Olivier Ouillier, and he was working directly at that time for Sarkozy’s private office.

Now, all these meetings were essentially held in secret. We were able to discover that they had taken place, but we were only able to discover that by carefully researching along specific routes which we understood were important. For example, most of these meetings were conducted under the guise that they were part of a charity, the Franco-British Council, which said it was simply set up in order to improve relationships between Britain and France.

So these meetings took place, and it was very clear that there was concerted effort to expand the use of these techniques: not only from Britain and France, but the implication at that time was that these techniques were going to be used across the wider power base of the European Union.

And I’ll just say again that the Mindspace document was boasting that this was the first time the Government would be able to use applied techniques where people would have their behaviour changed—that means their thoughts changed!—and they wouldn’t even be aware that it had occurred.

Reiner Füllmich: For what purpose?

Brian Gerrish: Well, if you want to execute power, then you’re going to try and use normal, democratic politics, or you’re going to try and use force, or you’re going to try and use other means.

And so this comes to me as other means. I have to say that when I saw how cynical this was, how calculated it was, when I was using effectively my military background, I could see that this was the use of raw power.

Now, if I jump forward into events around Covid: very early on in the Covid pandemic (I’ve called it a “pandemic”; of course, I don’t believe that that is what it is, but that’s how it was reported), it came to our attention that the Government scientific advisory group, SAGE, had actually had an internal meeting with elements of the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team.

The key gentleman concerned with this was a man called Dr David Halpern. That meeting was not properly minuted in a proper official sense, but they did put out a briefing sheet from the meeting, and in that document, which I think was dated 22 March 2020, it admitted that the SAGE team and the Government’s policy on Coronavirus was going to use applied psychology in order to ramp up fear in the population, in order to get the population to adhere more closely to the Government’s policy over the response to Coronavirus.

We have the document; we can provide you with a copy of that document.

Reiner Füllmich: Yes, please, because we have the same thing. It’s a leaked paper from the [Federal] Secretary of the Interior, and it is now referred to as the Panic Paper [UK Column note: reported by us on 10 February, commencing at 53:15].

Brian Gerrish: Yes, I’ve heard about the paper in Germany. I haven’t seen it or been able to read it in English. I’m going to suggest to you that that German paper would have come out of the specific talks that I just referred to. When we started to see that the British Government was having these secretive meetings with French applied behavioural psychology experts, it was clear to us that this was going to be rolled out in other European countries. So I was not surprised when I heard about that German document.

Now, in the SAGE document, aside from saying that they were going to ramp up fear, there was something very interesting. It said [UK Column note: in paras. 6–8 on p. 2] that inside [local] communities, community members were going to be used to effectively police each other. So people were going to be used to put pressure on their neighbours, for example, to wear a mask; to adhere to social distancing.

So it was very clear in what they were talking about that they were going to use this covert applied psychology to pressurise citizens to act against one another. And, significantly, they also said that this had to be done with some care, because they believed that it was possible that this situation could get out of control. Clearly, what they meant by that is that instead of having somebody saying to somebody else, “You should wear a mask!”, that requirement could be translated into violence.

Having told you about that document—very clear-cut, very specific—I now come back again to Bianca talking [just before Brian Gerrish], because I could understand a little bit of what she was talking about: she talked about angst, she was talking about stress.

Now, of course, the techniques that are being used on adults—these psychological techniques to induce stress and fear—are also being used on the children. I could only understand a tiny bit of what she was talking about, but I understood enough to grasp—correct me if I’m wrong—that the rules change, so she doesn’t know what the rules are from time to time.

Reiner Füllmich: Exactly, yes. Every week, they changed the rules [for schools], so that she had to sit at her desk over the weekend in order to figure out how to make these things work.

Brian Gerrish: Right. And what that is, the uncertainty and the change in the rules: that is part of the psychological attack. Because the uncertainty immediately is putting people in a position of stress and anxiety and confusion. And if we go back into the professional world of applied psychology, people who are in a distressed, confused state are very susceptible to further messages and instructions. If there’s a fire in a building and people are starting to panic, the first person that starts to give clear commands to the people, those commands will be followed. And that is due to the psychological state.

Now, I’m not professionally trained in psychology; I do know a reasonable amount, which I’ve now learnt as a result of the investigations that I do.

But the other point that I want to bring into this is that many years ago, we started to get very interested in a charity called Common Purpose. Common Purpose, as a charity, said it was there to create “future leaders in society”.

It effectively was like an octopus: it had tentacles, it got into the hospital system, it got into the police, it got into the military, it got into the schools. And once inside these organisations, it was essentially spreading a new philosophy in many areas.

Everything I’m saying to you is fully documented. I have a website which is packed full of documents talking about what this organisation was doing. It particularly went for children. In the earliest days, it was going for children of the age of about 11 to 14, but it also was interested in university students.

Aside from the fact that the people who went on [its] courses were selected, they were also keen to get younger people into their so-called training courses.

When I was investigating this organisation, because I was extremely suspicious about what it was doing (it was a very interesting claim to be “choosing future leaders” who were going to “lead beyond authority”!), [I found that] the training was clearly designed to produce people working in an organisation who were not working in the normal culture of the organisation. Common Purpose had given them a new set of values.

When I took some expert advice on how they were doing this, that was the first time that I was told about the technique of neurolinguistic programming. NLP is actually a form of hypnosis. You can look on the internet and you will find many consultancies providing training in NLP, and you will find many people providing training who say that it has a therapeutic [value], that it can be used to care for people and help people.

In essence, this is true; but what we were interested in is where we started to see the use of neurolinguistics in government policy.

So, [we must] bring these two together:

– It is a fact that the British Government set up a specific applied psychology team.

– It is a fact that that team was promoting ideas to make the population fearful around the pandemic.

But, on a much bigger scale, that team was using—amongst other things—NLP in order to influence virtually every document that the Government was producing.

I don’t know whether any of your team have come across NLP before, but I’ll say that it’s an open secret (you can go and research it, and many professional people teach it) that essentially it’s a form of hypnosis. And this means that you can put across ideas and concepts to people which are not necessarily just going through their conscious mind.

This is fact; this is not fiction.

Now, when you start to see NLP being used for political objectives, of course, the wider public is very, very vulnerable, because unless you have a little bit of training or knowledge of NLP, you won’t even realise that it’s being used on you, and it can be used in a verbal sense but it can also be used in writing.

So, for example, you can have a document in front of you: you many notice a full stop at the end of a sentence; that marker is in the wrong place, and you believe that somebody made a mistake when they were typing.

But this is not what NLP can do, because when you are reading the sentence and you come to the full stop, your conscious mind makes one decision but your subconscious mind makes another one. And it is perfectly possible to be writing documents where it appears that one message is being put across but actually a completely different message is being put to the audience.

If I bring this into the realm of Coronavirus reaction, we are now seeing that every statement made by the Government, every piece of paper that comes out, is invariably very carefully crafted, it’s very carefully put together, and I can see that in much of this documentation, carefully-applied behavioural psychology is being used in the written word.

To back that up, to reinforce that: we also have a government document where they are specifically boasting of being able to use psychology in written documents.

Viviane Fischer: So you think that also the leaked documents that we see [in Germany], like for instance this Panic Paper that was leaked by someone, or at least it was not officially put out—I mean, this created a lot of fear, I guess, also, because some people could see through the whole narrative then, after reading through the paper, but actually even the fact that it came out, and that some people read it or heard about it who were stuck in the fear narrative: maybe it even put them into more fear, just the way that it was designed.

I mean, that you get an outcry, that a lot of people were upset that the Government would use this picture of your Grandma basically being suffocated by you, the child who infects her with Coronavirus; but once this picture is kind of in the official realm, some people hear it and then have these fantasies in their head, and get even more afraid.

Brian Gerrish: Well, that is absolutely correct. We can see here in the UK that particularly the BBC has been using applied psychology in this way: heavily emotive, distressing photographs with very little factual reporting to support the image, the idea given in the photograph.

This is deliberate. It’s calculated. It’s now very easy to see that this is taking place.

So, [with] the background of everything that’s happened with the “pandemic”, we know that every speech that’s made, every document that goes out, is likely to contain a reinforcing psychological message.

But the other thing that I think that is important, from the UK at least; if we go back to 2010, when that Mindspace document was released, within a year we started to see the first exercises which were going to prepare for a pandemic.

So, in 2016 [N.B.: Brian said ‘2011’ by mistake, which was the year of the previous Pandemic Preparedness Paper], we had a thing called Exercise Cygnus, which was the UK influenza pandemic preparedness plan.

That was followed by other official documents talking about a possible future pandemic, and then in 2017, there was a very significant document called Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response [N.B.: Brian generalised the name as “Preparing for the Next Pandemic”].

What was, and what is, interesting in reading these documents is that some of them—not all, but some of them—qualify the document by saying, “Well, we can’t predict that a pandemic will happen: we can look long-term over what’s happened in the world; we can look back to 2018 and the flu pandemic and the damage; but we can’t be certain of when there will be another future pandemic.”

But suddenly, in a very short space of years, we can see in the UK a flurry of papers—and again, we can make these available to you—where, suddenly, people are all talking about “the coming pandemic”.

Now, these are UK political public documents. They are not even on the level of the SPARS Pandemic-type documents, where these big exercises have been run in America and elsewhere, looking at the possibility of a pandemic coming. This is a cluster of papers and supposed research in the UK which is quite extraordinary.

Is it a coincidence that in a few years, you have paper after paper warning that a pandemic is coming? What I can see when I read these papers is very little fact but a lot of emotive language.

And, of course, people who had a job in the public sector, in the lower government system, would have been very susceptible to reading this material and then thinking, “My goodness, we need to make local preparations for this!”

So I look at these documents, and I’m pretty confident that what we are seeing is the seeding of ideas of a coming pandemic.

Of course, those seeds were placed in people’s minds, and then the moment we started to get reports of a pandemic coming—particularly, for us [in Britain], from the BBC—people would have started to become worried, or would have started to think about that material and would have started to react in a way that the Government would want.

So we’ve got the substantive evidence showing that the British Government will and does use applied psychology to get its policies across, that substantive evidence saying that they’re going to go as far as making people fearful.

And I’ll add that if you make people stressed and fearful, you’re also going to give them mental health problems, and we now live in a country where there’s a huge rise in depression and suicides, none of which is being talked about in the mainstream press, because the increase in those adverse mental health effects has been so huge since the lockdown policies have been in place; this is an elephant in the room in the UK.

We have the evidence in documents of this type of calculated, destructive applied psychology; but then you can also see, if you start talking to people in public services, to doctors and nurses in the National Health Service here and the hospital service, they are telling us that they’ve also witnessed the sudden flood of these papers, effectively preparing them for a pandemic that was coming. Yet this was a pandemic that the papers said couldn’t be predicted!

Reiner Füllmich: Brian, at the beginning of today’s session, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and I discussed the fact that a new narrative has been put out into the mainstream media, probably starting out in the United States with Fox News, and they have a host by the name of Tucker Carlson, who explained on one of his news shows that finally, there will be justice, because [Anthony] Fauci has been caught lying to the public about his involvement with the Wuhan virology lab, and how he had conducted gain-of-function experiments there, which was being financed behind the back of the American taxpayer, and against the will of the [US] Government, by US tax dollars.

But the real message wasn’t, “We’re going to get Fauci.” The real message was, “Fauci didn’t tell us that there was a dangerous virus that escaped from the Wuhan lab!” Now, in the meantime, we know that there was probably an accident at the Wuhan lab, but it didn’t cause any real damage. However, those people who seem to have been preparing for this agenda to be rolled out (as you just explained, and as others have explained to us before)—those people took this opportunity and used this as a springboard in order to start rolling out the “pandemic”, which is really a plandemic, and which is really only a PCR test pandemic.

Would you agree with that, that in reality—and this is really important—we do not have a dangerous virus, because the WHO, in accordance with what John Ioannidis says, put the danger of this pandemic at about the level of a common flu: 0.14 or 0.15% infection-fatality rate; so would you agree that this is really not a pandemic but this is a co-ordinated effort?

As you said when you first started talking to us, this is not madness, it is a calculated effort which uses lots of psychology, NLP, in order to keep people in fear, in order to make them do things that they otherwise wouldn’t do?

Brian Gerrish: I certainly do believe that. There’s a number of points there in what you’ve just said to me.

The first important one is: all of the evidence that’s come in through the UK Column, and our analysis, has shown that even the Government’s own statistics have proven that what is happening is effectively a normal flu season. And although they tried extremely hard to manipulate and skew, bend the statistics, the Office for National Statistics in the UK actually did its job: the statistics that that centre pushed out to the public were actually correct, and showed that there was no pandemic. But the Government’s interpretation of it was a blatant twisting of the facts and information.

Reiner Füllmich: The same thing happened here.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, and I can reinforce that statement by saying to you that we now have a stream of people coming to us—doctors and nurses—saying that at the time when the British Government was claiming hospitals were full of Covid patients, they were not full.

Even specialist facilities that were created in hospitals never had a single patient going through them, never mind the big centre set up in London for thousands of patients that ended up, I think, with about 63 patients in a multi-thousand [bed] facility!

In hospitals, we have had hospital consultants [senior treating physicians] telling us that they were responsible for setting up specialist Covid wards, which they did, and when those wards were set up, they never had a single Covid patient in them.

And while that was happening, the British Government sent elderly people, who clearly did have flu—they were in the hospitals and they had flu, they were ill—the Government sent those elderly people in their thousands back into the care and residential homes, where of course, in a closed environment, that infection spread.

Even the wider press—certainly the newspapers in the UK: the Daily Express, I think the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian—all reported at one stage that the evidence was that tens of thousands of elderly people had died unnecessarily. Now, the experts that talk to us at the UK Column say the figure is not tens of thousands; it’s hundreds of thousands.

So, we have the lie over whether it was a pandemic, and one of the tricks that the British Government and the BBC have used is that they talk about the statistics relating to Covid-19 in a cumulative sense. They keep adding the figures together. But, of course, flu is always logged as a seasonal occurrence.

A flu season comes, people catch flu, some people die—that’s always the case—and then, as the weather gets better, flu disappears. And then, next winter, that is a new flu season, and the statistics start again. But with Covid, the statistics have been added across the two seasons.

Now, this is the use of psychology to manipulate people’s minds. It’s absolutely blatant.

You mentioned Fauci. I believe that what you’re seeing at the moment is a smokescreen. Yes, there are questions that need to be asked about what was happening in the Wuhan lab, and certainly we know that it has been standard procedure for many years that if a vaccine is to be created, the pharmaceutical companies will enhance a virus strain as part of their techniques for producing a new virus; so we can imagine that in any laboratory, dangerous enhanced viruses might be created.

So we know that laboratories are doing what is essentially dangerous work on the enhancements of viruses, so it is of course possible that something escaped.

But I think that the timing of the suddenly turning of attention back to Fauci is very interesting, and I believe that this is being done because they know that the wider public is starting to ask the right questions about what has been done as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination policy. So, to try to distract people away from asking the key questions about vaccination, they’re now coming back to Fauci.

And the other man who has suddenly disappeared from the public arena is Bill Gates. Now, why has Bill Gates disappeared? Well, there are a number of interesting questions, but the first problem he faced was that it became known that he had a friendship with Epstein.

So, all of a sudden, Mr Bill Gates has gone from being the squeaky clean, well-behaved entrepreneurial philanthropic businessman to being smeared with the fact that he had a very questionable friendship with [Jeffrey] Epstein. And Melinda Gates has now said that she warned her husband about that relationship many years ago.

So, suddenly, Bill Gates has been exposed in the wider media. That happened first, and now suddenly we’re getting attention focused back on Fauci. My feeling is that the people who are responsible for this despicable plan have now started to think that the public is beginning to look in the right direction, and so they need something to distract them.

And I think we’re going to see a ramping-up of accusations that it was the Chinese who produced a bioweapon, that Fauci was involved. This is all emotive media stuff; this is not proper analysis of what’s been happening. That’s my personal opinion; I could be wrong.

Reiner Füllmich: Actually, I think we agree with that, and everyone who we’ve spoken to agrees with that. It looks as though those who are responsible for this agenda are beginning to throw people under the bus, but—obviously—only for this very purpose: to distract the general public’s attention from what they’re doing. They’re asking the right questions.

So, in a way, I think this shows that they’re losing control, to a degree. They’re not losing complete control, but they’re losing control. What do you think about this?

Brian Gerrish: I agree with that, and if we want to inject some good news into our discussion, the people we are up against, the people we are fighting, are inherent liars. They tell lies; they do not tell the truth. And the problem with that is that eventually, they become caught in their own lies. So I think this is a big part of what’s started to happen.

I can give you another example, from within the UK, of where we see that there has suddenly been some emerging fear in the system. The UK agency which is responsible for the safety and regulation of medication is called the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That is the organisation which has been collecting data on vaccine adverse effects, and for you and anyone who’s ultimately watching or listening, their latest reports are that within the UK, there have been 859,481 adverse reactions …

Reiner Füllmich: Did you say 850,000?!

Brian Gerrish: 859,481. And there have been 1,213 deaths. Now, those statistics are the UK Government’s own statistics; they’ve not come from me, they’ve come from the UK Government, and they come from the MHRA Yellow Card system.

This is supposedly the safety system by which anybody who comes into contact with an adverse vaccine reaction—whether it be something you experienced yourself or you witnessed as a family member or friend, or indeed if you’re somebody in the medical profession—you should log a Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction message, and it is the MHRA that holds that database.

Now, in the MHRA’s own documentation, they stated in 2018 that to their knowledge, for any medication, including vaccines, less than 10% of the serious adverse reactions were ever recorded. Less than 10%! And for more minor vaccine adverse reactions, they said that the figure recorded would be between 2% and 4% [of the actual total].

Now, if we consider that statement against [the record of] 859,000 adverse reactions and 1,213 deaths, we could be looking at 12,000 people who have died.

We as the UK Column have reported a great deal about this data, and on the ukcolumn.org website, my colleague, Mike Robinson, has provided a search engine so that you can search the MHRA’s own data. And this is very interesting, because you cannot search the data on the MHRA’s website; it simply provides it as sheets of data. This is very confusing and misleading for the public.

But the caveat that maybe only 10% of serious effects got recorded is very significant. In the last couple of weeks, the MHRA added a new paragraph in relation to that caveat about the low reporting of adverse effects. They said, “Of course, the figure of 10% and 2–4% does not apply to Yellow Card reports of Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects.”

So, once the UK Column started to draw the public’s attention to the fact that the MHRA already had 859,000 adverse effects recorded and 1,200 deaths, and that this might only be a very small proportion of the total number of adverse reactions, the MHRA attempted to deceive the public by posting a notice saying that this 10% [rule] did not apply to adverse reactions as a result of Covid-19 vaccination.

Viviane Fischer: But did anyone buy this?

Brian Gerrish: Well, some people will inevitably buy it, because members of the public who read this information without having a fuller understanding are still in the psychological position that they believe what the Government tells them. And this is a very big mistake, of course. So some people did believe them, but some didn’t.

Now, we as a media organisation challenged that very strongly, and then something very interesting happened: the MHRA suddenly announced, in the last few days, that it was going to have a special initiative for patient information and safety. And when you look at the documents they produced, there’s words on the paper, but the documents do not actually say what they are going to do to improve patient safety.

The other part of the story in the UK is that the MHRA has overall responsibility for logging vaccine adverse effects, but what they are not doing is then investigating to produce the final conclusion on whether an effect was indeed created by a vaccine or not.

Viviane Fischer: The same here.

Brian Gerrish: And if it’s the same in Germany, then we are starting to see that there’s a pattern emerging. This cannot be an accident; this cannot be a coincidence.

Viviane Fischer: And it’s amazing: we just discussed this earlier on in this session that they’re not doing autopsies. They’re really refusing: it’s either coming from the state prosecutors or it’s somehow being hindered behind the scenes, political decisions, whatever. They’re not doing any autopsies on the people who were registered or declared by their relatives that there might be a causality with regard to the vaccines. They’re not looking at it, and if they do, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection.” Even after doing a minor, cursory inspection, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection; it cannot be.”

Brian Gerrish: Well, that is also happening in the UK, that post mortems are not being conducted. We’ve even seen—this is factual, because we have interviewed the family concerned—[a case] where a family’s father died of a heart attack very shortly after receiving a vaccination, and the hospital did not submit a Yellow Card report, and later, when the family had submitted that report, nothing happened. Six and a half weeks passed.

They then said to the MHRA, “What are you doing to investigate the death?” And the first thing the MHRA asked them was, “Was there a post mortem?” Well, of course, the responsibility to do the post mortem comes from the medical team, who should have taken a decision that it could be linked to the vaccine, [and that] therefore, there was a need for a post mortem. But when it was too late, and the person had been buried, then the MHRA said, “Well, there wasn’t a post mortem.”

And the other thing that happened in the UK, about two years ago, [was a change:] originally, death certificates had to be signed by two doctors, and this, within the “pandemic”, was changed so that there only had to be one signature. Constantly, on the death certificates, “Covid” was recorded when family members said, “But my father, my mother, my brother died of cancer!” But because they had supposedly tested positive for Covid-19, that was actually recorded as the cause of death.

So this is the official falsification of statistics, with a direct impact on the health of the nation. This is calculated. And this is why I come back to the statement that it is not madness; if you analyse very carefully the political decisions, the policies, the documents, what we are looking at is genocide. It’s planned. It’s premeditated.

I’ve even had a senior member of the National Health Service—who has spoken to us as a whistleblower—use that very term. Her words were, “What I have watched unfolding within the health service in the UK is genocide.”

Reiner Füllmich: Was that a member of the medical community?

Brian Gerrish: That was a board member of one of the NHS Boards. And we have nurses telling us this; we have nurses using the term “genocide”. I have some doctors who are also using this term, but they’re not using it lightly, and they’re not using it because they’re aware that that other individual used it. It comes out as a word when you interview them about their experiences and what they have seen.

Viviane Fischer: Do you think the rush to vaccinate the children … The [German] Government has now said that from 7 June on, children are supposed to be vaccinated, and everything is supposed to be over and done before the next school year. So this seems to be pretty outrageous; obviously, a lot of people are very upset about this new thing.

They say it’s not going to be mandatory, but with peer pressure, and with them saying you can only access the schools again with testing or with vaccination, or only with vaccination, of course, there’s pressure; it’s basically mandatory, or it’s going to become mandatory.

I wonder, do you think they are now rushing this through because they see that the side effects of the vaccinations are going to become more and more obvious?

Maybe if they introduced this later in the year, quite a few parents might shy away from the vaccinations, whereas now it’s still in-between, and maybe with the option of going on vacations, it’s maybe a good idea to lure people or nudge people into getting even their children vaccinated now? What’s your take on that?

Brian Gerrish: I totally agree with your analysis there. It is very clear that there is now a massive urgency to vaccinate children, and we can see that in open statements of politicians. One politician, [the former Health Secretary] Jeremy Hunt, stood up in Westminster a couple of days ago and basically said that it was vital that we started to vaccinate schoolchildren.

So we can see open statements, but we can also see other documentation circulating where, again, there is this malicious use of psychology, because schoolteachers are being told that if they encounter parents who are reluctant to have their children vaccinated, those parents are effectively going to be listed as extremists.

So we can again see this psychological wedge coming in, to break people away from their children. Of course, if you get parents away from the children, then the Government can do what they like with the children.

And, as I say this to you, I think it’s reasonable for me to say that many years ago, twenty years ago, I was reading a very informative political book called The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States [by Christopher Story], and in that book there was a table which purported to be a table of the psychological attack on Western nations. It involved a period of demoralisation; it involved a period of destabilisation; and the ultimate five years was that there was going to be complete chaos and collapse.

And as I read that table—and I had not long been out of the military at that stage—my mind said, “Some of this is happening around us. I can think of examples!” And I have given public talks on part of this idea—I will call it an “idea”—that a psychological attack, a demoralising attack, is being unleashed on our respective nations. I believe that that is the case.

And I believe that when you see how the policy for this Covid scam, this lie, is being mirrored in the UK, in France, in Germany, and across all the other countries, then we can see that clearly, the power base that’s injecting this is not democratic in any form. It’s hostile to us.

I’ll just add, because it’s a little thing that I didn’t want to forget, that Bill Gates has supported an organisation called CEPI: the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had put in several hundred million dollars to that organisation.

Well, by a “miracle”, CEPI ended up funding the very biological testing laboratory that the MHRA in the UK was going to use, and is using, to tell us whether the vaccines are safe! So Bill Gates’ money goes into CEPI; and from CEPI, it goes to support the very laboratory that is being used to tell us that vaccines are safe—on the basis that they’ve recorded 860,000 side effects, officially!

But they haven’t done any correlation as to whether there’s causation there with the vaccines themselves. That research has not been done.

So it’s obvious that what you have is a system that has been set up in order to deceive the public about what is truly happening with these vaccines. And I think they want the children because they are now quite scared to see the right questions being asked, and they know that if they want to get the children vaccinated, they’ve got to hurry.

Viviane Fischer: I have one more question. We’re looking at all the measures: the masks, this bizarre testing, now the vaccination, and the social distancing. Do you think these have foremost a psychological aspect, of being that you’re power-struck or that you have to show obedience?

And also, I was wondering: do you think it’s maybe also, in addition, that they’re all technologically, pharmacologically, all elements of the same goal: to get you sick?

Because there’s stuff in the tests, the swabs, we know, that is not good, and the masks are making people get infected more easily with a virus or the flu or whatever. So could it be that it’s also really elegantly orchestrated on a medical basis?

Brian Gerrish: Yes. I think what you are saying is correct. It’s difficult for people [to imagine]. If we say that we are reasonable people—we, the assembled people here today, are not perfect, but we’re reasonable people and we’re concerned about our fellow man and woman; that’s what’s in our heads—when you have that in your head, it’s very difficult for you then to look at somebody who is unleashing an utterly brutal plan on people.

If even [just] tens of thousands of elderly people were deliberately killed in the UK (and I believe the evidence for that is overwhelming), then the people who took the decision to kill the elderly people are also capable of taking the decision to kill off other members of society that they don’t believe are worth anything.

Just to come back to psychology and documents: I have a National Health Service document which is talking about patient safety, and it says “If we did this or that, we could perhaps save the lives of 160 people a year. That would be worth £23 million.”

Every time the NHS document is talking about protecting human beings, it puts a financial value on that. And when I see those sentences, I know that the person who has written that document does not think in the way that I suspect you and we all think.

So, what they’re doing to the children with the masks and the social distancing—and giving them lessons in “how dangerous the virus is”—that is frightening the children. This is all a psychological attack on their minds, and the people are doing it know full well that this is going to result in all sorts of mental health problems in the children.

There’s a very important paper which is called Biderman’s Chart of Coercion. It’s a World Health Organisation-recognised paper about non-physical techniques of torture. Virtually every Covid pandemic measure can be ticked off against one of the entries in Biderman’s chart.

And as I was waiting to come live with you, a very well-informed lady has sent me a document where in the UK, they’re now saying that if a baby is born and there is any suspicion that that child may test positive for Covid, there should be no skin contact.

Viviane Fischer: It’s really getting out of hand. Do you think that the spin for this whole thing is written in England? Do you think that [the UK] is really the spider in the web? Would you discover [that], together with the French people? Is it an American script? It must be centrally organised somehow.

Brian Gerrish: Well, this of course is a very interesting question, because when I talked about the destabilisation chart [in Christopher Story’s book], that allegedly was part of a Communist plan to destabilise the West.

But I think that if we take a more mature view of it at the moment, if we look at the power base (and at the moment, we’re focused on the power base of the pharmaceutical companies), the power base is within the networks of those companies. And, of course, those companies can only function with the people who control their billions of dollars of working capital and profits.

So, for me, it’s very easy to say that if you want to start working out who is doing this, then you have to look at who is actually controlling the sums of money.

And this can be quite emotive, depending on how you put this argument across, but in the UK, the Government—which has not been able to build hospitals, which can’t fill in holes in the road, which can’t run the schools—suddenly announces that we have got £800 billion which has appeared out of thin air in order to fight Covid. Well, this tells us something very important.

The other thing which I think is significant at the moment is: you might have thought a few years ago that if such a pandemic happened, then at this stage, when the economy is so badly hit, we would be hearing the banks complain; we would be hearing the banks saying that “This is disastrous, because the British economy has shrunk by 30% to 40%. The banks can’t function.”

But actually, the banks are silent. And that says to me that the banks are happy. They must be happy, because they’re silent.

Reiner Füllmich: It is, according to what we have learnt by now, the banks. It’s high finance which is profiting from all this, through their investments in the pharmaceutical and the tech industry.

But the bottom line of all this, if this is an agenda (and I have no doubt that it is an agenda; it’s a calculated effort), is that the killing of the middle class, of the small and medium-sized businesses, driving them into bankruptcy, and the actual killing of people, is not collateral damage; it’s the intended damage, right?

Brian Gerrish: It’s intended, and about nine months ago (I can’t substantiate it further, because it’s a whistleblower), a whistleblower who had clearly been within some reasonably high-level meetings within the British Government told us he was shocked that at one stage, they’d discussed the need to destroy small to medium-sized businesses.

He said it was discussed in a way that was so cold that it really disturbed him. When he came out of the meeting, he could not believe what he had just heard.

The previous Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, announced publicly several times that companies that did not adhere to the new “climate change” greening agenda would be punished. They would be put out of business. He said that publicly, and anybody operating a small business really should have paid attention to what that man was talking about.

And, of course, if you stop small businesses from working, you are stopping people from earning a living; and when they can’t pay to live, when they can’t pay to eat, that also increases mental health problems.

The word in English for this is “malevolent”: it’s a poisonous agenda. But it’s deliberate, because it’s being spoken in Parliament and it’s appearing in the documents that are being put out.

Viviane Fischer: What was the pseudo-argument that people from the Government used when they talked about the small and medium-sized businesses needing to be taken out? Climate change?

Brian Gerrish: Well, of course, they’re selling to the wider public that there is a climate change problem, and it’s desperate[ly important] that we take any and every measure to deal with the climate issue; and if that means that a few hundred thousand small businesses are going to be destroyed, well, that’s what’s got to happen.

So the fear factor is the constant thing: the psychology is based on fear and control. We’ve got to be fearful, because the world’s going to end because of climate change. We’ve got to be fearful of a pandemic. We’ve got to be fearful of a war with China and Russia. This is deliberate, calculated psychology.

And, to my mind, this is why, if we want to fight what’s happening with Covid and vaccination, then we have to address this issue as well. When we can prove that our governments are lying and using propaganda, that has to be hit as hard as saying to the public, “We can show you that the vaccines are dangerous, because of these statistics around adverse reactions.” We have to do the two things simultaneously.

One of the ironies is that lockdown has been very good for the UK Column, because many, many more people are coming to us, and every week, we will probably get six, seven, eight e-mails where people say, “We would like to thank you for keeping us sane. Your news, your information, your facts, your analysis has helped keep us sane, because we were getting distressed; we were getting anxious.”

And that is a huge compliment to us. That is something very special that those people are telling us. But, of course, what it also told us was how powerful this effect was on the minds of the public.

Viviane Fischer: I have one last question. We have the impression—and it’s maybe connected to what you said about neurolinguistic programming—that people are under some sort of spell. We’ve discussed this with a lot of psychologists.

Brian Gerrish: Well, we also believe this. This is [the conclusion] we’ve come to. We can say that people are under a spell, and the best description, we believe, is that they’ve been mesmerised.

Viviane Fischer: Yes, mesmerised. But how do you think we can break through this spell? Is there a way?

Reiner Füllmich: Information. We have to get the information out, because knowledge is what kills the illusion. Real knowledge kills the illusion that they’ve created.

Brian Gerrish: This is true, but we also have to be realistic: if you look at what happens when you attempt to hypnotise a group of people, then you get a bell curve distribution. Some people are very susceptible to it and will be extremely hypnotised; some people might be slightly affected; and some people it’s very difficult to hypnotise.

So, across the population, I believe you need to think about it in a bit more of a measured way: you’re going to have some people that I think, probably, we’re not going to get to. They’re gone. They can’t think for themselves. And you’ll have other people—you are clearly some; I hope I am one—who see through what’s happening. It doesn’t matter what they say or “show” us; we can see what the truth is.

So, by exposing it and putting out the correct information ourselves, we are getting through that hypnosis. And, to be positive, I think that is accelerating. The British Government has just announced that it’s spending £1.6 billion to interface with media companies! £1.6 billion. The BBC’s budget is £5 billion on its own.

So a £5 billion BBC [evidently isn’t sufficing], which is the biggest propaganda machine the world has ever seen. It is the most dangerous organisation. You should not believe anything the BBC says without checking it with another source. I could talk to you for an hour about what the BBC really is.

Reiner Füllmich: Yes, well, we have the very same problem with our national public radio and television stations, I believe. It may be worse in Great Britain, however, because I think your history is a lot longer with that kind of propaganda!

Brian Gerrish: I’m sorry, I didn’t answer Viviane’s question fully on whether I thought the seat for this was in the UK. I am very embarrassed to say that I do believe it is in the UK. We are looking at a power base which is a mixture of the monetary power of the City of London, and what is very clear from the documentation is that that monetary power base is now fully working with the wider security services.

This is part of what in the UK they are calling the Fusion Doctrine. That’s another discussion, but essentially, we can see that the monetary power base is now controlling both the intelligence networks, like GCHQ [equivalent of Germany’s BND], but also the secret services. They are acting together.

It is fact, I assure you, because it was announced publicly (but very quietly!) that we now have both Google and GCHQ, the British signals intelligence organisation, working inside the National Health Service. This is outrageous.

Reiner Füllmich: But as the picture emerges, it is becoming ever clearer for more and people to understand: to first see and then ask questions and understand. That’s why they’re pushing so hard, because they understand that something is going off the rails right now.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, they’re understanding that people are waking up, and we are seeing this. I think that there has been a great … Social media has stabilised. I think, in many places on social media, you’re seeing a huge improvement in the quality and the accuracy of information coming out, and I don’t think they ever realised that people would use social media for professional analysis and reporting, as you’re doing today. This frightens them a lot.

Reiner Füllmich: Good.

Brian Gerrish: So I think we’ve got to expose what’s going on. The other thing that we have learnt over ten years is that it’s always better to slightly understate what you’re talking about.

If you tell it reasonably gently, you can always come back and have another go; but if you’re too aggressive, if you’re too forceful, if you scare people, then you lose them. So we’ve tried to always be talking about what’s happening very quietly, in a measured way, and also we don’t cover all of the things that we’re watching.

To take an example, people are talking about magnets sticking to you after an injection. Now, I don’t know whether that’s true or not; I’m interested to follow it, to see; [but] I’m not going to report on it, because until I can prove it, I don’t want to say anything that could undermine what else we’ve talked about.

So I think the [approach] of not being caught up in being too outspoken and aggressive helps people to come to us, to absorb the information.

If you want to end on a really positive note, I decided I would put some greenery behind me today, because I thought a little bit of sunshine and some greenness might lift our spirits a bit. I believe that something very interesting has happened in the last four or five months: professional people are beginning to ask the right questions.

I think that the speed at which this is happening is now causing all of these strange decisions you’re seeing by the establishment: [the sacrificing of] Fauci, the rush to get the children vaccinated even when they haven’t got the rest of the policy through—this, to me, is a sign that they are very frightened people.

The last thing I’d like to say—and I have to smile when I say it—is that there was an activist in Chicago called Saul Alinsky, who wrote an extremely good book which is called Rules for Radicals, and in the book he’s talking essentially about techniques to overthrow government, but one of the things he says is “Always make the argument personal.”

Reiner Füllmich: That’s what we’re doing, yes.

Brian Gerrish: And so it’s not enough to talk about “the BBC”; we’ve got to talk about Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC. It’s not enough for me to talk about “the MHRA”; I’ve got to talk about Dr June Raine, the Chief Executive of the MHRA.

The other little thing, which you can accept or laugh at—I’m very happy either way—is that even in writing to some of these officials, it’s very powerful if you put their picture on the letter or the e-mail that you send to them, because what that does is it takes it from a dry communication to actually putting straight into their minds that you are looking at them as an individual.

And, of course, what am I doing here? I’m using applied psychology, but if the bad people use it on us, I think we can use a little bit of it back on them.

Reiner Füllmich: Well, that’s what we’re doing, actually. We’re making it personal. We’re going after these people personally, not after the institutions. Brian, thank you very, very much.

This was extremely interesting and very important, and I think we’re going to be able to hear more of each other, because we have to stay in touch now that we realise—I mean, we’ve had this suspicion all along, but now we realise that this is an internationally-concerted effort by some very, very evil people.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, and what a wonderful opportunity that is, because whatever else these people do, they are constantly pitting nations against nations. If we get a little bit broader and we look back at the wars and the trouble, it was this type of people that caused it, and I think we’ve got a wonderful opportunity now.

The “pandemic” that’s been thrown at us to make us fearful could actually be the very thing to get people coming back as human beings, no matter what their nationality or religion or colour is. I think we’ve got a very exciting opportunity here.

Reiner Füllmich: We agree. It’s a real pleasure, Brian. Thanks so much. I think we’ll talk more.

Sources:

• 
  May 30, 2021. Reiner Fuellmich with Brian Gerrish. Brian Gerrish on Applied Behavioural Psychology and Neuro Linguistic Programming – May 28 2021. LongXXvids.  Runtime: 1:20:13.
  https://odysee.com/Brian-Gerrish-on-CA–54-28.05.2021:4c8bc6b55be1ea8340e0169ebdc94a76d619a583.
  Video, Key.
• 
  July 6, 2021. David Cheyne. “Reiner Fullmich and Brian Gerrish Interview.” Awake Canada. Runtime of embedded video: 3:53.
  https://awakecanada.org/reiner-fullmich-and-brian-gerrish-interview/.
  Blog, Video.
  This is the source of the transcript.  The introductory video is recommended as well.

Related:

• 
  “‘Subjective’ vs. ‘Objective’: What’s The Difference?” Dictionary.Com.
  https://www.dictionary.com/e/subjective-vs-objective/.
  Reference.
• 
  “What Is Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) Hypnosis Style.” Natural Hypnosis.
  http://www.naturalhypnosis.com/blog/what-is-neuro-linguistic-programming-nlp-hypnosis-style.
  Blog.
• 
  “What Is Ericksonian Hypnosis and What Characterizes It.” Natural Hypnosis.
  http://www.naturalhypnosis.com/blog/what-is-ericksonian-hypnosis-and-how-is-it-used.
  Blog.
• 
  A-Z Quotes | Quotes for All Occasions.
  https://www.azquotes.com.
  Reference.
• 
  Iz Quotes – Famous Quotes, Proverbs, & Sayings.
  https://izquotes.com/.
  Reference.
• 
  “Joseph Goebbels On the ‘Big Lie.’” Jewish Virtual Library.
  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot.
  General Website Link.

See also, on this site:

• Reiner Fuellmich interviews Mattias Desmet
• Reiner Fuellmich summarizes findings to date

20 Things I’ve Learned (Or Had Confirmed) About Humanity During The “Pandemic”

1. Most people would rather be in the majority, than be right.
2. At least 20% of the population has strong authoritarian tendencies, which will emerge under the right conditions.
3. Fear of death is only rivaled by the fear of social disapproval. The latter could be stronger.
4. Propaganda is just as effective in the modern day as it was 100 years ago. Access to limitless information has not made the average person any wiser.
5. Anything and everything can and will be politicized by the media, government, and those who trust them.
6. Many politicians and large corporations will gladly sacrifice human lives if it is conducive to their political and financial aspirations.
7. Most people believe the government acts in the best interests of the people. Even many who are vocal critics of the government.
8. Once they have made up their mind, most people would rather to commit to being wrong, than admit they were wrong.
9. Humans can be trained and conditioned quickly and relatively easily to significantly alter their behaviors — for better or worse.
10. When sufficiently frightened, most people will not only accept authoritarianism, but demand it.
11. People who are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” are often well researched and simply ahead of the mainstream narrative.
12. Most people value safety and security more than freedom and liberty, even if said “safety” is merely an illusion.
13. Hedonic adaptation occurs in both directions, and once inertia sets in, it is difficult to get people back to “normal.”
14. A significant % of people thoroughly enjoy being subjugated.
15. “The Science” has evolved into a secular pseudo-religion for millions of people in the West. This religion has little to do with science itself.
16. Most people care more about looking like they are doing the right thing, rather than actually doing the right thing.
17. Politics, the media, science, and the healthcare industries are all corrupt, to varying degrees. Scientists and doctors can be bought as easily as politicians.
18. If you make people comfortable enough, they will not revolt. You can keep millions docile as you strip their rights, by giving them money, food, and entertainment.
19. Modern people are overly complacent and lack vigilance when it comes to defending their own freedoms from government overreach.
20. It’s easier to fool a person than to convince they have been fooled.

Source:

• 
  Comment by Argantonio on this video: December 7, 2016. Sandra Vranic. Cellular Responses to Graphene Oxide Sheets. TAUVOD.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kAevCpFNW0.
  Video.

Prof. Mattias Desmet explores the causes of mass delusion and cognitive dissonance which have eroded common sense on a mass scale.  It is the result of a type of hypnosis.  This phenomenon of mass formation has implications for politics as well.

According to Prof. Desmet, four things are needed to create mass formation psychosis.

• Isolation and lack of social bonds
• Lack of meaning making or sense making
• Free floating anxiety
• Free floating frustration and aggression

We have had all of these in the run-up to the pandemic.

The cause of cognitive dissonance is wanting to avoid the state of floating anxiety that preceded the state of mass delusion.

Prof. Mattias Desmet believes that science is in a crisis because all science is funded by people that it should not be funded by.  Science yields the results that are sought by those funding it.  Being funded by someone diminishes the capacity to think independently.  This is why funding sources must be mentioned in publications because everyone knows this has an impact on results.  It is not necessarily that scientists are willingly drawing wrong conclusions or willingly manipulating their data.  As Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg of Stiftung Corona Ausschuss interjected,

You can’t see things when your salary is dependent on that you don’t see it.

With regard to the current crisis, Reiner Fuellmich says, based on depositions to date, that the crisis has never been about health.  Something evil is going on.  This is intentional destruction of businesses and human life.  This is apparent in the writings of those who planned it.  Reiner Fuellmich asked what type of people would do this.

Prof Desmet (00:23:07): I think that the most fruitful perspective to take to answer this question is to look at the people who installed the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany. And one thing is sure. They are not common criminals. Because most of these people perfectly know how to behave according to social rules. And so while a classical criminal actually transgresses all kinds of social rules, people in a totalitarian state who commit the crimes are usually characterized by the opposite. They stick to the rules even if the rules are radically criminal in themselves. That’s a major difference. And also a very—

Reiner Fuellmich (00:24:01): —That’s why they stick to the rules because they make these rules.

Prof Desmet (00:24:04): Yeah maybe. Yeah that’s possible. Yes. That’s possible for their own advantage. It’s perfectly possible. Another interesting thing in this context is that people like Gustave Le Bon and Hannah Arendt claim that if there is one difference between mass formation and totalitarianism—because the two are almost identical—on the one hand and a classical hypnosis on the other hand, then it is that while in classical hypnosis, the one who hypnotizes is awake. His field of attention is not narrowed down. In mass formation and in totalitarianism, the field of attention of the leaders of the masses—of the totalitarian leaders—is usually even narrower than the field of attention of the population. Meaning that the totalitarian leaders and the leaders of the masses usually really believe in the ideology, according to which they try to organize society.

(00:25:12): So they are convinced, for instance, of transhumanism. They are convinced of mechanistic, materialism, and so on. They are convinced of the ideology. They are convinced that this ideology will bring people into a kind of artificial paradise because that’s something that is common to all kinds of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism, actually for the first time arose in the beginning of the 20th century. Before it it didn’t exist. Before the 20th century we had classical dictatorships. Starting from the 20th century we had totalitarian regimes which is something radically different. You cannot compare it to each other. But the leaders of the masses and the totalitarian leaders usually—not usually, always said Gustave Le Bon and said Hannah Arendt, they are really, deeply convinced of the ideology that they want and they want to use it. They want to use it to create an artificial paradise.

(00:26:15): We’ve seen this in the Soviet union. We’ve seen this in Nazi Germany. And I think that later on, the ideologies of the Nazis and the Soviet Union were replaced by transhumanism in general. I wrote about this in an article. It’s not translated in English but it will be translated I guess and I can send that to you if you want. So the leaders of the masses are convinced of their ideology and that’s why they have this huge mental impact on the masses. But—and that’s important—they feel that without any problem, they can sacrifice a part of the population to realize this paradise. For instance, Hitler felt that he could, without any problem, sacrifice a part of the population to bring about this rule of the German race over the world. He felt like it was perfectly justified to do that because in the end the whole undertaking would result in a paradise which was the best possible place for everyone. And the same with Stalin.

(00:27:29): So they are convinced of their ideology. And that’s why they feel like almost everything can be sacrificed to make this ideology real. To realize this ideological fiction as Hannah Arendt says. So usually it’s this type of person who leads the masses. Yeah, I try to describe it in a very short time now. But okay. Well,

Reiner Fuellmich (00:27:58): One thing. If I were—what’s his name?—Lauterbach [sp?], I would call myself a psychiatrist because I had one semester of psychiatry when I was in law school at UCLA. Of course that’s a lie. I mean, I did have that one semester but that doesn’t make me a psychiatrist. But if I look at what you’re explaining to us from a legal standpoint, if I were a judge and these people were before me, I would sentence them to jail, at least. I would sentence them to jail. Because it does—none of what you’re saying is a justification for them. And it’s not—there’s no apology either. There’s no excuse. Because what you’re saying is they know precisely what they’re doing except that they believe in their own lies. That’s why they themselves are also hypnotized. But they know that they’re lying because whenever we put them on the spot and ask them concrete questions—we’re just witnessing this in our own, in this new political party right now—same people—same people have infiltrated this party when we put them on the spot they lie. And they know that they’re lying because if you confront them with what is actually happening and with what they’re trying to make it look like, then they squirm and they try to find a way out. But they can’t. So I don’t see any—from a legal standpoint, that is—I don’t see any, of course there’s no justification, but there’s also no excuse. So from a legal standpoint I think they’re liable. They’re guilty.

To do this, among other methods, open discussion must be restored.  The following will likely need to be part of the solution:

Prof Desmet (00:33:00): I think it could be very important to put people with a different opinion and people who choose a different side together and to let them talk with each other. That’s extremely important because I think that actually most people who believe in the mainstream narrative, who even supported publicly even those who present themselves now as experts and virologists, that very often, they actually are not aware of bad intentions in themselves. So I think for these people that really makes sense to put them together with people with a different opinion and to let them talk. I also experience it myself. When I talk to someone who is convinced of the opposite narrative, who has a really different opinion as me, it almost always, if I continue to talk and if I try to really exchange ideas, I will always find out that for me, it opens up my mind a little bit.

(00:34:09): That’s something that Gustave Le Bon says, for instance: that it’s very difficult if mass formation happens at a very large scale in a society, it’s very difficult to wake up the masses. He says that usually you cannot do that. It’s impossible to do. Because the masses only wake up after a lot of destruction usually. But he says that if people who do not agree with the mass narrative, if they continue to talk, they prevent the masses to commence their largest crimes. That’s very important, you can make the hypnosis less deep by continuing to talk. And that’s what we all have to do. The people who have different opinions, the people who know about the different narrative, they have to continue to speak in the public space. That’s extremely, extremely important. I’m convinced that in this way, we will succeed in keeping open a certain part besides the mainstream.

Dr Wodarg (00:35:24): Yes. I think we are just building space for those who don’t follow the narrative, who are in the streets in Paris, who are on the streets in Rome now. If we speak about it, they don’t follow the narrative and they need more space. I think we have to build this space with our theories and with our talks. And I think it’s very important that we take serious all the other peoples who are not on the street. Who are in their offices, who are afraid to lose their job when they say what they really—they don’t get to say it, but there is something in their head that makes them doubt. They see the real numbers but they have to speak differently. So there is a conflict in many people. And I think we have to strengthen them. We had to give them power that they dare. That they don’t feel alone. I think this is our function.

Prof Desmet (00:36:22): And we also have to do it, somewhat paradoxically, for the individuals who are believing in the mainstream narrative and who are grasped in this process of mass formation. Because if we stop speaking the hypnosis will get deeper. That’s, something that’s very interesting from a historical point of view. Around 1930 in the Soviet Union, and around 1935 in Nazi Germany, the opposition was completely extinguished. Then you see something that is fairly typical for a totalitarian state. Then a totalitarian state starts to show its most aggressive face. And it starts to destroy—Hannah Arendt says literally—it starts to devour its own children. It starts to destroy its own children. Stalin extinguished 50% of his Communist Party.

(00:37:19): Totalitarianism and mass formation are intrinsically self-destructive. That’s something, for instance, that is completely different in a dictatorship. Because in a classical dictatorship, once the opposition is overwhelmed, the dictator starts to lessen, to get milder. Because he realizes that he needs the population to be on his side. He needs to make them content with him. And that’s what the totalitarian state does not realize. Because the totalitarian state is really based on a kind of mass hypnosis which makes it unaware of reality and in that respect it reacts in a radically different way. So I think we have to speak for both the people who are in the masses and for the people who refuse to go along with the masses. They need us both I think and I think you guys all do a wonderful job for that.

In other words, the tyranny typically does not end when the opposition is silenced, but it instead will intensify.  The hypnosis of totalitarianism also intensifies when opposition is silences.  We need to continue to keep speaking in the public space.  Prof. Desmet suggested the use of humor.  Mass formation, as with all hypnosis, relies upon the attribution of authority.  Humor delivered in a gentle way is an antidote to mass formation.  Ultimately, even if we do manage to awaken the masses, in order to prevent the occurrence of mass formation again a few years later, we need to work to correct the causes of anxiety, depression, and feelings of isolation.  The mechanistic view of human life exacerbates these problems.

According to Gustave Le Bon in the 19th century, the higher degree of education, the more susceptible the person is to mass formation.  In other words, education including higher education does not encourage thinking for oneself; rather, education more often programs a person to think in a specific way.  Therefore, education does not protect a person from mass formation.  This explains how even highly educated people can fall for the lie that becomes mass formation.

Viviane Fischer (01:08:02): I want to, I think you had the information that we’ve been, I think during our conversation, we have been cut off on YouTube. So we seem to have been spot on. The live stream on YouTube, we had been broadcasting through a variety of channels, but on YouTube, we were cut off during the conversation with you. They deleted the stream. So we must have been spot on.

Sources:

• 
  August 5, 2021. Reiner Fuellmich with Mattias Desmet. Prof. Mattias Desmet | Sitzung 63: Im Auge Des Sturms. Corona Ausschuss.
  https://odysee.com/Mattias-Desmet—sitzung_63_converted_720p:44aa4a8364ac07419be1608bb4763df64ce4b1cc.
  Video, Expert.
• 
  July 30, 2021. “Mass Formation and Totalitarian Thinking in This Time of Global Crisis.” Ratical Earth Journal.
  https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/EyeOfTheStorm-ProfMattiasDesmet.html.
  Blog.
  This page has a full transcript of the interview.  There are additional related references as well.
• 
  September 21, 2021. Dan Astin-Gregory with Matthias Desmet. WHY DO SO MANY STILL BUY INTO THE NARRATIVE? | Professor Matthias Desmet. Pandemic Podcast. Runtime: 1:14:53.
  https://odysee.com/@pandemicpodcast:c.
  Video, Expert.
• 
  January 2, 2022. Mass Formation Psychosis – How They Created Supporters for Medical Tyranny. Amazing Polly. Runtime: 54:23.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/BXPj7bvffTWm/.
  Video.

Related:

• 
  September 8, 2011. Originally published 1951. Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism. 2nd ed. edition. Charleston, SC?, US: Nabu Press.
  https://www.amazon.com/origins-totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt-dp-1179832442/dp/1179832442/.
  Book.
  This title can also be downloaded from Internet Archive at: https://archive.org/details/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism
• 
  January 8, 2002. Gustave Le Bon. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Reprint edition. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
  https://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/0486419568/.
  Book.
  This book can also be downloaded from here: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/mp3s/The-Crowd-A-Study-of-the-Popular-Mind-by-Gustave-Le-Bon.pdf
• 
  March 28, 2023. Sean with Todd Callender and Katherine Watt. K I L L B O X — Todd Callender & Katherine Watt. SGT Report. Runtime: 42:10.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/2u5e0K43aYAv/.
  Video.

annotated hypertext transcript of the following: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/CC-Summary-Of-Findings-Fuellmich.html

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE CORONA INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE

September 15, 2021

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an experienced trial lawyer licensed in Germany and California (USA) and co-founder of the corona-investigative-committee.com, summarizes the Committee‘s findings to date and reviews the current status.

You can watch the video version by following this link: https://t.me/s/ReinerFuellmichEnglish/145

Dear friends,

I’m Reiner Fuellmich and have been working together with the colleagues in my firm as a trial lawyer for 27 years. Today, I am here to tell you what the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee has found out to date. Until Covid emerged, my firm an I exclusively represented consumers and small and medium-sized businesses against global, criminal corporations such as Deutsche Bank, VW and Kühne & Nagel, the world’s largest freight carrier.

That changed after a virus, previously labeled harmless, was suddenly declared the cause of a global pandemic in March 2020, and the world was suppressed with lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates, as well as mass PCR testing and so-called vaccinations for perfectly healthy people.

No coherent explanation was ever given for this sudden change of opinion from “don´t worry, this is a harmless virus” to “this is a very dangerous virus, many people will die”. Instead, the governments and the mainstream media deliberately spread panic. There are several leaked internal papers of the ministries of the interior in various countries that prove this targeted fear mongering. This was done by a worldwide lockstep approach of continuously blasting out the alleged danger of the alleged new virus via the mainstream media. In order to make this horror story credible, it was emphasized with horrific images from Bergamo, Italy and New York, among other places. This was to suggest to everyone that there was every reason to panic – very strange, as one would expect a real government to try and keep the population calm if there was a real emergency. In the meantime we have come to understand that – at least until the beginning of the roll out of the so-called “vaccines” – there was no excess mortality anywhere. The horrific images were partly staged, and partly based on gross medical malpractice.

In the face of this chaotic situation, which occurred literally overnight, as if on command, our colleague Viviane Fischer and I, together with two other lawyers, founded the Corona Investigative Committee in Berlin on July 10, 2020. We did this in order to get answers to the questions to which our federal government, for reasons unknown to us at the time, was not prepared to provide answers. Above all, we wanted to know,

• How dangerous is the virus really?
• How reliable is the PCR test developed by the German Prof. Drosten and recommended worldwide by the WHO for detecting infections? And
• How much damage are the Covid measures causing economically and to people’s health?

A. Summary

First, I’ll summarize the outcome of the Corona Committee‘s work to date:

Since July 10, 2020, we have consulted with about 150 distinguished scientists and experts from around the world and from all areas of science (including health, law, economy, psychology, and psychiatry) on these questions: how dangerous is the virus, how reliable is the PCR test, and how much harm is caused by Covid measures?. Among them are Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president of Pfizer, Prof. Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate from France, Catherine Austin Fitts, investment banker and former deputy minister of the US, and also most recently politicians such as Sue Frost, member of the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County in California.

Now, if someone had told me 1 ½ years ago, what the outcome of the Corona Committee‘s work to date would be, I would have told them to take their pills and see their doctor. But our hearings prove the following results beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The Covid measures were never about health. We don’t have a pandemic; we have a virus circulating that any intact human immune system can fight just as well as the flu. And this is true whether the virus occurred naturally or was created in a lab. Apart from that, there are very good alternative methods of treatment to prevent or treat this disease, such as vitamin C and D, zinc, possibly even Ivermectin and others.
• Our governments, at least almost all European governments as well as that of the US, are not acting in the best interest of their people, but are largely under the control of the backers of the global corporations and NGOs, which are summarized by Catherine Austin Fitts as “Mr. Global”. This is also the term I will be using here when I refer to those who are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

How did we come to this conclusion? Well, before Covid each of us had had their own sometimes strange encounters which made us wonder if something isn´t quite right, but we couldn´t really put our fingers on what it was exactly. Long before Covid came on the scene, my colleagues in my firm and I had a clear sense in our work time and again that something was wrong in the German courts of law. Global corporations such as Deutsche Bank, VW, and Kuehne & Nagel, seemed to be above the law in the German courts because, for example, Deutsche Bank, one of the most criminal organizations in the world is regarded by politicians as “systemically important” and thus de facto given special protection in the courts of law as well. VW gets special protection simply because they are the largest employer in the German state of Lower Saxony. Our suspicion that the German judiciary is so heavily influenced by politics that it is no longer capable of applying the applicable law to such corporations and uncovering their fraudulent activities turned out to have a real basis. The German phrase: “They hang the small fry, but they let the big fish go” because they’re supposedly too big to fail, is reality.

Based on the behavior of the German judiciary in the Covid cases, it is now clear beyond any doubt to us that this is indeed the case: German judges who decide the cases before them not in line with the Covid-panic agenda of the government, but on the basis of the applicable law, are not only put under pressure behind the scenes. Rather, this is now done openly with the arbitrary-brutal methods of an antidemocratic, even totalitarian regime. This is obviously done to send a message to the judiciary as a whole so as to prevent them from applying the applicable law and thus questioning the government line. The dramatic example of a judge in Weimar and the experts he called upon for deciding a case proves this:

He had asked three experts to provide expert opinions in response to a complaint from a mother of two that her children were suffering severe physical and psychological harm in school from being forced to wear masks, to comply with social distancing, and constantly getting PCR tested. All three experts are respected professors at German universities. On April 8, 2021 on the basis of the expert testimony, he ordered that the school and the school principal had to stop all such measures immediately. Based on the testimony of the expert witnesses he had determined that the measures were without any factual basis, because the PCR test invented by the highly controversial German Professor Drosten is not approved for diagnostic purposes, but only for scientific purposes; and contrary to the claims of Prof. Drosten, it can in fact under no circumstances tell us anything about infections. In addition, he had found that these Covid measures caused very serious damage to the health of the children, of which the long-term consequences are incalculable.

A few weeks after the decision, due to political pressure, his house, office and car were searched and his computer and cell phone were seized because he was accused of a crime. The accusation of bending the law is in the air, which is a crime. But the specific accusation was not that his decision was wrong on its merits. In fact, it still stands unchallenged on its merits, and for a very good reason: Both a court of appeal in Portugal and an administrative court in Austria had previously come to the same conclusion: That a PCR test cannot detect infections and therefore cannot be the basis for any anti Corona measures. Instead, the accusation was that, as a family court judge, he did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case. Rather, the criminal – obviously politically driven – case against him states that an administrative court has subject matter jurisdiction over such cases. However, in the meantime, several appellate court decisions in Germany have confirmed that in such cases of endangerment of a child’s welfare (of course) the family courts have jurisdiction and must intervene, not the administrative courts.

Parallel to this, such searches and seizures were also carried out at the homes of the three expert witnesses, the lawyer who had supported the children, and a popular artist who happens to be a friend of the judge. Shortly thereafter, such searches and seizures were also conducted at the home of another respected professor. This professor is one of the world’s best-known experts on vaccinations and vaccines, who had been critical of the safety and efficacy of these injections as they are not backed up by any scientific/medical studies.

How could it have come to this in a country that calls itself a democracy? Specifically: How is it that politics in Germany and in other countries, in gross violation of the Roman-legal principle of audiatur et altera pars (hear also the other side), with the help of mainstream media exclusively spreading government propaganda and denigrating any and all dissenting opinions as “right-wing, right-wing, Nazi, Nazi”, are enforcing Covid measures ever more harshly without any factual basis?

Meanwhile, Mr. Global and his political puppets are calling for permanent lockdowns (first Covid lockdowns, then climate lockdowns) and the continued use of untested alleged vaccines not just once, but regularly recurring every 6 months; in some countries this is already a reality.

I will give you the answer below, based on the Corona Committee‘s expert hearings, by first reporting the facts about the actual dangerousness of the virus and the reliability of the PCR test, and the health and economic damage caused by the measures. Then I’ll explain what plans “Mr. Global” is openly pursuing (as evidenced by the written and oral statements of, for example, World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab and Microsoft founder Bill Gates), while distracting the population from these goals with the help of the Covid pandemic. And finally, I’ll explain how we, the people, can regain not only our sovereignty but also the assets that have been stolen from us by Mr. Global for decades:

B. Covid measures were never about health I. The virus is no more dangerous than a flu virus

There are indications that the original virus, allegedly first detected in Wuhan, was artificially produced in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, by means of so-called gain of function experiments. Such experiments intend to make a virus more dangerous, in particular to cause it to jump from animals to humans. These are, in fact, experiments for the production of bioweapons. Among others, the US immunologist Dr. Fauci and the aforementioned German virologist Prof. Dr. Drosten were significantly involved in such gain of function experiments. There are a lot of things that need to be clarified, but this much is certain: The original virus has long since ceased to exist. Rather, as with every flu virus, various variants/mutations have been documented that may spread more quickly, but are all far less dangerous than the original virus. In addition, however, there are considerable doubts that the virus was ever isolated in a scientifically correct manner. Many scientists assume now that the flu virus, or influenza A or B was merely relabeled by Mr. Global into a corona virus pandemic.

Ultimately, however, none of this matters. For the question of the severity or dangerousness of the virus is easy to answer. In the meantime, even the highly controversial WHO, which is in fact controlled by its largest donors (including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its offshoot GAVI, which together have a stake in almost all vaccine manufacturers in the world), agrees with Prof. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, one of the most cited scientists in the world: the severity of the virus, with a so-called infection fatality rate of 0.14 to 0.15%, corresponds with that of the flu. There was no excess mortality anywhere before the beginning of the so-called vaccinations.

As far as there were isolated increases or spikes in mortality e.g. in Bergamo, Italy and in New York, these are explained with massive medical malpractice: In Bergamo predominantly very old people with pre-existing conditions in nursing homes had died. Their immune systems had previously been weakened by flu vaccinations, and then – in order to keep the hospitals free for the panic-stricken Covid patients – sick people, including influenza patients, were transferred to the elderly care homes. These then infected the weakened people there. In addition, the WHO had installed Rainieri Guerra into the Italian Ministry of Health, who falsified the data of the pandemic exercise plans: Their last pandemic exercise had not taken place in 2016, but in 2006, so that the medical professionals were unprepared. In the meantime, he is not working at the ministry of health anymore, but the Italian public prosecutor’s office is investigating him.

In New York – as every year during flu season – some, but by no means all, hospitals were overcrowded. On the hospital ship Comfort with 1000 beds available no more than 20 to 40 beds were ever occupied. In New York it also affected predominantly older people, with pre-existing morbidities. Without the panic messages in the media, many people, who would have stayed at home and cured themselves under the – correct – assumption that they were ill with a flu or a flu-like illness, stormed some of the hospitals and fell victim to either hospital germs or massive medical malpractice by e.g. intubation instead of receiving oxygen with oxygen masks, or with far too high dosages of Hydroxychloroquine.

Of course, respiratory illnesses including this one, which is now called Covid-19 are, like the flu, dangerous diseases. And, of course, Covid-19, just like the seasonal flu, has individual, severe courses of illness and also deaths. Typically, however, the immune system intercepts the virus and especially the highly toxic spike protein in the mouth and nose. It only becomes dangerous when the immune system is bypassed and the – mind you: highly toxic – spike protein, but also other ingredients such as mRNA and lipids, and other nanoparticles are injected directly into the body.

In any case, as post-mortem examinations carried out in Germany have shown in the meantime, the people who allegedly died with or from Covid before the start of the vaccinations – with few exceptions – had all passed the average human life expectancy and/or suffered from other serious pre-existing diseases. Virtually none of the people who allegedly died of Covid had actually died from Covid. 96% of the people who allegedly died of Covid in New York and Bergamo and 85% of those in Sweden had died from completely different diseases.

II. The Invention of the Corona Pandemic

What was behind this? Based in part on the testimony of two former WHO employees, but also on the testimony of historians and investigative journalists, as well as scientists, we can now trace the following chronology:

1. Concrete planning for the Corona pandemic for at least 10 years is verifiable

The Corona pandemic has been a concretely planned pandemic by Mr. Global for at least 10 years. Previously, in 2009, an attempt by Mr. Global to turn the swine flu into a pandemic failed literally at the very last second, in particular because the German lung specialist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who at the time had political power as a member of the Bundestag and the European Council (which is not to be confused with the Council of Europe or the Council of the European Union, and is not part of the EU), had exposed that pandemic as a mild flu. Back then the WHO had unexpectedly changed the definition of a pandemic overnight, so that today any flu can be declared a pandemic.

Until then, a pandemic was considered to be a worldwide disease event with many severe illnesses and many deaths, and suddenly it was supposed to be simply a worldwide disease event – without the need for many severe illnesses and many deaths. Due to this – completely surprising and never explained – change in definition, it was possible for the WHO, which is closely intertwined with the global pharmaceutical industry, to declare the swine flu a pandemic in 2009. The consequence of this was that expensive vaccines were produced and sold worldwide on the basis of contracts that have been kept secret to this day. These vaccines not only proved to be completely unnecessary because, contrary to all the horrific announcements from the pharmaceutical industry and universities close to it (millions of deaths were allegedly going to happen worldwide, if vaccination was not carried out), the swine flu ultimately turned out to be a mild flu. Furthermore the vaccines led to serious health problems: around 1,300 children in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries, became incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now permanently disabled.

Long before the current Corona pandemic, dozens of patents on the corona virus, including the spike protein, and also on the so-called “vaccines” had already been registered. Even before the outbreak of the alleged Corona pandemic, American scientists were explicitly advertising investments in Corona vaccines to potential investors. In October of 2019, before the Corona pandemic rolled out in March 2020 with lockdowns, social distancing, mask mandates and finally so-called vaccines, a final “exercise” took place in New York under the title “Event 201“. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security were involved. Shortly thereafter, an outbreak of what is now known as Covid 19 allegedly occurred for the first time in Wuhan, China due to an allegedly novel corona virus. A short time later, however, the excitement died down in China and the alleged novel disease had been brought under control.

Mr. Global, however, used the Wuhan incident as a springboard, so to speak, to set in motion his long-planned Corona pandemic.

2. The staging of the pandemic with the help of the Drosten PCR test

While all politicians and physicians worldwide (among them also the virologist Prof. Drosten) as well as the mainstream media were still reassuring the citizens and explaining that the virus from China would, just as a mild flu wave, not be noticed by the vast majority of people, that no special measures had to be taken, in particular that masks were completely unnecessary and pointless, Prof. Dr. Drosten (whose academic background is now highly doubtful) invented a PCR test with which Covid-19 infections could allegedly be detected. This was at the beginning of January of 2020, while he was telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about. In two papers, the contents of which were disseminated worldwide by the WHO, he made two false claims – deliberately false, as has since been established – that were crucial to the pandemic. First, he claimed

• That there are asymptomatic infections, i.e., that everyone should be afraid of every perfectly healthy person showing no symptoms, because he or she could be infected with Covid 19 and be contagious,

And secondly, he claimed

• his PCR test, as the gold standard, could detect concrete, contagious infections with Covid 19.

Asymptomatic infections with respiratory viruses such as Influenza or Corona do not exist, as most recently proven by a study conducted with 10 million subjects in Wuhan in late 2020, and as Drosten also knew when he published this.  And the PCR test invented by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis is neither approved nor suitable for diagnostic purposes. This is because it cannot distinguish between living and dead viral fragments and it also tests positive for fragments of a virus left over from the immune system’s fight against a flu or cold that has long since passed.

In particular, the test cannot determine whether a whole virus (fragments are not enough anyway) has entered cells and is replicating there. Drosten knew all this and had explicitly stated 6 years earlier in a newspaper interview concerning the MERS virus (another Corona virus) that a positive test had no meaning, but that completely healthy people could also test positive.

Virtually overnight, for reasons that have not yet been fully resolved but that suggest an involuntary early start to this pandemic, Mr. Global, through the WHO, politicians, and mainstream media, suddenly changed his mind. Mr. Global put pressure on the WHO to quickly declare a public health emergency of international concern. According to the – freely invented – rules of the WHO, such an international health emergency is the only basis on which completely new untested drugs, in this case so-called “vaccines“, can be used on humans. Usually, the development and approval of a new drug takes at least 8 to 10 years. At the first emergency meeting in February 2020, those present could not agree to declare this PHEIC because there were no cases. Nevertheless, because of the allegedly highly dangerous situation, the group agreed to meet again two weeks later. At that second emergency meeting, the PHEIC was actually declared. What had changed? Nothing. – However, Prof. Drosten had made his PCR test available to the WHO. And with the help of this test the cases needed for the declaration of a PHEIC had been created.

Today it must be assumed that the proclamation of the PHEIC and subsequently all Covid measures were based solely upon completely meaningless false positive test results. First of all, a PCR test per se cannot detect contagious infections under any circumstances, as explained above. Above all, however, Drosten had set up his test in such a way that it was guaranteed to generate false positives. This is because of the so called cycles of amplification which one needs to evaluate the results of the test, i.e. the machine into which the swabs are placed, enlarges the molecules that are otherwise invisible to the human eye in many cycles, so-called cycles of amplification (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.). There is now a consensus that anything over 24 cycles is completely unscientific and therefore useless. Therefore, the Frankfurt Health Department does not take test results of more than 24 cycles into consideration at all. And Dr. Mike Yeadon, formerly of Pfizer, has stated – in agreement with Dr. Fauci, by the way – that more than 35 cycles results in at least 97% false positives. But in the Drosten test (which served as a blueprint for the vast majority of tests subsequently performed worldwide), 45 cycles were used.

This was followed – always accompanied by the panic orchestra of the mainstream media and the vast majority of politicians – in quick succession by the covid measures such as the lockdown, which had been invented shortly before in China, social distancing, mask mandates and finally the so-called “vaccines“. These alleged “vaccines” are in reality gene-therapeutic experiments on unsuspecting humans because there was no valid informed consent. It should be emphasized at this point that every invasive medical intervention is a bodily injury or battery unless the patient explicitly consents. And his consent is invalid if he is not informed correctly and completely (i.e. about the fact that no medical studies had been conducted, and about the numerous very serious side effects that have become known in the meantime). This concept of informed consent is the most important result of the Nuremberg medical trials of 1946.

However, it was precisely these injections, designated by way of deception as “vaccines,” with substances that had not previously been tested in scientific studies for their safety and efficacy, that had been Mr. Global’s goal from the very beginning. The subsequent steps ordered after the proclamation of the PHEIC (lockdown, social distancing, compulsory masking) served only to make the population believe in a danger that did not exist, to unsettle and disorient them, and thus make them so compliant that they would finally consent to the so-called vaccines as the only means of obtaining protection/immunity against the disease.

There is no reason for the use of these “vaccines“. This is because, as stated above, there is no Covid pandemic at all, only a PCR test pandemic. Apart from that, there are highly effective and completely harmless alternative preventive and curative treatments, as outlined above. Even worse, the vaccines are completely ineffective, as the example of Israel shows particularly dramatically: There, 86% of the people treated in hospitals for Covid are double vaccinated. And: The vaccines are highly dangerous: Through a whistleblower it has become known that the numbers of deaths after vaccinations in the US in the VAERS register have been falsified. Conservative estimated now arrive at least 500,000 deaths after vaccination since the beginning of the vaccine roll outs. In addition, there are other severe side effects such as neurological disorders, thrombosis, myocarditis, and more. For the fall, winter and coming spring, experts expect severe problems for those vaccinated when they encounter the so-called wild virus in the form of a cold or flu virus, due to ADE (cytokine storm), autoimmune diseases and more severe cases of thrombosis, among others.

Since these “vaccines” damage the immune system, not only will each subsequent “booster” cause more damage, but precisely the contact with the so-called wild virus will as well.

All the massive “side effects” that have occurred in the meantime were known to the American CDC long before the “vaccine” roll out began. Worse yet, as evidenced by the now-disclosed contents of both the manufacturers’ documents submitted to the EMA and the manufacturers’ secret contracts with nation-states, the manufacturers do not know whether their so-called “vaccine” is effective. Nor do they know if it is dangerous. But they demand immunity from nation-states in the event that claims are made against them for vaccine injuries. And they also explicitly demand that if there are alternative methods of treatment (which do, of course, make vaccines completely unnecessary), their experimental products must still be purchased.

1. The plans of Mr. Global and the controlled politicians and how they can be prevented:

Amazingly, anyone can read what Mr. Global and his puppets, such as Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, or Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and world’s largest vaccine investor, are up to, it is all out in the open:

For many years (following in his father’s footsteps, who was a convinced eugenicist) Bill Gates has been talking about the need to dramatically reduce the world population. For years he has been in the headlines again and again for using alleged vaccines in Africa and India, which in reality led to the sterilization of women and girls. Klaus Schwab goes in the same direction and spells this out for example in his book “The Great Reset” and demands beyond that – supported by the current pope, by the way – a world government under the UN, which has, in the meantime been brought under control by the WEF. This is to be achieved by creating as much worldwide chaos as possible in the form of pandemics, wars, including civil wars and natural disasters, so that the world population becomes convinced that the national governments are overwhelmed and only a world government can help. At the same time, Schwab calls for the shifting of all wealth to Mr. Global, so that in 2030 no one (except, of course, Mr. Global) will still own anything, but will supposedly be happy with it. In addition – and this is a central building block in Mr. Global’s strategy – cash is to be abolished and replaced by a digital currency. This will be allocated to or taken away from every person in the world – who can then also be found anywhere at any time via various tracking systems – by a single central world bank.

Quite obviously therefore – this is in particular the opinion of the psychologists and psychiatrists whom the Corona Committee has heard – when it comes to Mr. Global and his puppets, we are dealing with psychopaths and sociopaths.

And here is another important piece of information: Through the WEF, initiated by Klaus Schwab in 1971, Mr. Global has been training his own puppets since 1992 through the Young Global Leaders program. Angela Merkel and Bill Gates were among the first class to graduate, the class of 1992. Even a large number of current leading politicians – predominantly weak personalities with, however, mostly well-trained rhetorical skills – also come from this program, including Macron in France, Kurz in Austria, Justin Trudeau in Canada, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, but also the German Health Minister Jens Spahn and the EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen.

Against this background, which increasingly more people are recognizing, very large legal disputes have been set in motion, or are now being set in motion, in India, in South Africa, in the USA, in Canada and in France, among others. Their goal is to hold those who are responsible for this plandemic accountable under both civil and criminal law. This also includes that the assets that have been taken away from the world´s population by Mr. Global and the global corporations and NGOs controlled by him (not only since Covid, but already for decades), are returned. In those cases, where there are no clear criminal actions, but where instead contracts are the basis for damages, these should all be void. In particular, Anglo-American law, with its powerful tools of class actions, pre trial discovery and, of course, punitive damages in the event that willful intentional infliction of damage can be shown provides the tools for very effective justice.

In Portugal, Austria and in Germany, excellently written court decisions have stated that the completely unsuitable Drosten PCR test cannot be a basis for any Covid measures. The Berlin Corona Committee already now has extremely incriminating evidence proving that this Corona plandemic never had anything to do with health.

Rather, Mr. Global’s actions are aimed solely at these goals:

• Destruction of regional economies to make the population dependent on Mr. Global’s global supply chains,

• Shifting the wealth of the world’s population from the bottom to the top, to the super-rich, to Mr. Global,
• Population reduction = genocide, as well as Mr. Global gaining total control over the remaining population,
• Installation of a world government under the UN, which is now under control of the WEF.

We are dealing – this must be stressed once again – with megalomaniac psychopaths and sociopaths, which must be stopped and, in fact, should have been stopped a very long time ago. But now the time has come, more and more people worldwide are waking up and realizing who is pursuing which goals with this Plandemic. Even if the mainstream media is hiding it: Hundreds of thousands of people are taking to the streets all over the world, including in London, England, Berlin, Germany, but also in Australia, Brazil, etc. More and more politicians and lawyers, medical doctors as well as public service employees, even police officers refuse to participate in these crimes against humanity.

But in addition to our legal efforts, and our efforts to disclose the facts and bring everything out into the open, there is a third level, namely the spiritual or religious or cosmic – call it what you will – level. And this level is crucial. We can see this in a story a German doctor recently told us. He wanted to draw money at an ATM and went into the lobby of a bank. There stood an elderly woman wearing a mask, who fearfully backed away from him because he was not wearing a mask. She said he had to wear a mask because otherwise she was afraid of infecting herself and then her husband. The doctor told her, “No, she should not be afraid.” And then he went up to her, took off her mask and hugged her. The woman began to cry and said that no one had held her for more than a year.

That’s what it’s all about, humanity versus inhumanity. We are human; we can laugh, cry, sing, dance and hug. The other side, Mr. Global and his puppets can’t do that. They can only fake feelings and have no empathy at all. This is because the other side has no access to the spiritual side.

The US constitution starts with the words, “we, the people”. And when the wall between east and west Berlin came crashing down 33 years ago it was the east German people´s chanting “we are the people” that brought it down. Mr. Global´s house of cards will come crashing down the same way. Without any doubt in my mind, Mr. Global and his puppets will lose this war of good against evil, they will lose their insane war against life and creation itself. There is no other way.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
corona-investigative-committee.com
t.me/s/ReinerFuellmichEnglish

Sources:

• 
  September 16, 2021. Reiner Fuellmich. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an Experienced Trial Lawyer Licensed in Germany and California (USA) and Co-Founder of the Berlin Corona Committee, Summarizes the Committee’s Findings to Date and Takes Stock of the Situation. Corona Investigative Committee.
  https://odysee.com/Reiner-Fuellmich-Introduction-English_BestCut:ef71f74bed4c1a9e26d47e5aeb4478ec1519a1f3.
  Video.
• 
  Reiner Fuellmich. “SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE CORONA INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE.” Ratical Earth Journal.
  https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/mp3s/SUMMARY-OF-FINDINGS-OF-THE-CORONA-INVESTIGATIVE-COMMITTEE-Statement-by-Dr-Reiner-Fuellmich-091521.pdf.
  Blog, PDF.
  This is the source of the transcript.  I suggest exploring this site from its home page as well: https://ratical.org/

Related:

• 
  July 22, 2021. Truthseeker. “The Great Scam: Covid-19.” Deception, Self-Deception, & Defactualization. Multiple embedded videos.
  https://deathship.wordpress.com/2021/07/22/the-great-scam-covid-19/.
  Blog.

See also, on this site:

• Stiftung Corona Ausschuss (Corona Committee Foundation): Conclusions

Deborah Conrad was in a leadership position at her local community hospital.  She was a Hospitalist Physician’s Assistant, Member of Medical Executive Committee Advanced Practice Provider Director.  She was fired because she refused to take the vaccine as mandated by her hospital.  She approached The HighWire to tell her story about her experience reporting adverse events to VAERS.

Deborah Conrad said that reporting to VAERS became a fulltime job for her after she decided to take on the job.  Let’s tease out some numbers.  According to OpenVAERS, there are 798,634 reported adverse events related to COVID in VAERS as of the date of this writing, about a month after this episode aired.  According to the American Hospital Association, there are a total of 6,090 hospitals in the US.  Assuming that hospitals reported all adverse events (and just to be clear, I don’t think that is the case), that is an average of 131 adverse events per hospital.  This much is fact.

The real concern here is that the terms of the EUAs essentially turned medical care providers into research assistants without them realizing what that would mean.  As Deborah Conrad discovered,

Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:

• Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations
• An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

Healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report to VAERS:

• Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether it is or is not clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
• Vaccine administration errors

Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS all adverse events that come to their attention.

Online reporting is strongly encouraged. Please report clinically important adverse events that occur after vaccination of adults and children, even if you are not sure whether the vaccine caused the adverse event.

This last point is made clear in a CDC video.  It is the CDC’s job to determine if the event is related to the vaccine, not the doctor’s.  The doctor’s job is to report anything adverse that falls within a certain time range, and the CDC will decide whether it is relevant to them.

Deborah Conrad did not know about the VAERS system prior to her research, let alone know that healthcare providers are required to report adverse events.

The reportable events for the COVID vaccines is not on the list in the first bullet, so now we must look to the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine.  Here, it says,

SUMMARY OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR COVID-19 VACCINATION PROVIDERS

Vaccination providers enrolled in the federal COVID-19 Vaccination Program must report all vaccine administration errors, all serious adverse events, cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) in adults and children, and cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death following administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

— Page 2

Technically, the responsibility, then, appears to belong to the person who provided the dose, the way this is written.  Practically, it would seem that the attending physician must be the one to do the reporting.  In any case, the CDC needs to make clear to providers the responsibilities for reporting.  To the credit of the CDC, Deborah Conrad’s report shows them to be truly interested in getting the facts.  It is important that the CDC get these reports.  Failure to provide the reports could mean that the CDC may not have the information it needs to consider whether to approve additional boosters or stop the COVID vaccine program altogether.  An order of magnitude underreporting could make a difference between “safe and effective” and something so dangerous that the program needs to be stopped immediately.

Deborah Conrad revealed an additional reason why the fully vaccinated might be reported as unvaccinated.  If the patient went to a pharmacy such as Walgreens or CVS to get their jab, the report of the incident might not have made it into the medical care system’s records.  Deborah Conrad says that patients need to be asked about their vaccine status.

The phone call shown in the video at 39:47 shows a strange conflict between providing care for the patients and promoting the vaccines as the CDC seems to want done.  As background, Deborah Conrad had seen a journal article about thrombosis (blood clots) and thrombocytopenia (low platelets) occurring at the same time following jabs.  She wanted to make sure that physicians properly evaluated and treated the patients for this situation, but the concern created a conflict with other leaders at the hospital that somewhat resembled cognitive dissonance.

Sources:

• 
  September 17, 2021. Del Bigtree with Deborah Conrad. “THESE PATIENTS DESERVE TO BE HEARD” -VAERS WHISTLEBLOWER. The HighWire with Del Bigtree.
  https://rumble.com/vmncez-these-patients-deserve-to-be-heard-vaers-whistleblower.html.
  Video.
• 
  “VAERS – Report an Adverse Event.” Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
  https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html.
  Government.
• 
  US Food & Drug Administration. “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
  https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.
  Food & Drug Administration.
  This is the FDA’s main page for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.  Links to the latest versions of FDA letters, memos, reports, and other documents relating the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine can be found here.
• 
  October 20, 2021. “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech].” US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download.
  Food & Drug Administration.
  This document has instructions for healthcare providers who are administering the vaccines.  This is a bit of a problem because the providers offering the vaccines are not always the same providers that patients suffering from adverse events will report to.
• 
  May 12, 2021. Tom Shimabukuro. “Update: Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) Following COVID-19 Vaccination.” Presentation slides. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/07-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf.
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Presentation, PDF.
• 
  April 13, 2021. “Cases of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia after Receipt of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine.” Health Alert Network (HAN), CDCHAN-00442. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00442.asp.
  Health Alert Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  “This is an official CDC Health Alert.”  This health alert includes special instructions for testing and treating patients with combined thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.
• 
  June 3, 2021. Andreas Greinacher, Thomas Thiele, Theodore E. Warkentin, Karin Weisser, Paul A. Kyrle, and Sabine Eichinger. “Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 NCov-19 Vaccination.” New England Journal of Medicine 384 (22): 2092–2101.
  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840.
  Research Journal.
  This is about an AstraZeneca vaccine.
• 
  June 3, 2021. Nina H. Schultz, Ingvild H. Sørvoll, Annika E. Michelsen, Ludvig A. Munthe, Fridtjof Lund-Johansen, Maria T. Ahlen, Markus Wiedmann, Anne-Hege Aamodt, Thor H. Skattør, Geir E. Tjønnfjord, and Pål A. Holme. “Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 NCoV-19 Vaccination.” New England Journal of Medicine 384 (22): 2124–30.
  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882.
  Research Journal.
• 
  April 6, 2021. “AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine: EMA Finds Possible Link to Very Rare Cases of Unusual Blood Clots with Low Platelets.” European Medicines Agency.
  https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood.
  European Medicines Agency.
• 
  June 22, 2021. Isaac See, John R. Su, Allison Lale, Emily Jane Woo, Alice Y. Guh, Tom T. Shimabukuro, Michael B. Streiff, Agam K. Rao, Allison P. Wheeler, Suzanne F. Beavers, Anna P. Durbin, Kathryn Edwards, Elaine Miller, Theresa A. Harrington, Adamma Mba-Jonas, Narayan Nair, Duong T. Nguyen, Kawsar R. Talaat, Victor C. Urrutia, Shannon C. Walker, C. Buddy Creech, Thomas A. Clark, Frank DeStefano, and Karen R. Broder. “US Case Reports of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia After Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination, March 2 to April 21, 2021.” JAMA 325 (24): 2448–56.
  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.7517.
  Research Journal.
• 
  May 7, 2021. David K. Shay, Julianne Gee, John R. Su, Tanya R. Myers, Paige Marquez, Ruiling Liu, Bicheng Zhang, Charles Licata, Thomas A. Clark, and Tom T. Shimabukuro. “Safety Monitoring of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, March–April 2021.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (May).
  https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7018e2.
  Research Journal, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Related:

• 
  January 2021. “Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals, 2021 | AHA.” American Hospital Association.
  https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals.
  Organization.
• 
  “VAERS COVID Vaccine Data.” OpenVAERS.
  https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data.
  Statistics.
• 
  July 7, 2017. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Website and Ways to Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbCWhcQADFE.
  Video, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

See also, on this site:

• Project Veritas series focuses on COVID-19 jabs
• Brian Gerrish explains the psychological manipulation of the public

Lining up for jabs when you’re already ill is not the answer. … You will die if you keep taking these jabs.

— John O’Looney, funeral director

Meanwhile, a new study out of Israel supports the idea that it is the vaxxed who are getting sick.  Israel also has a high jab rate.

A new Israeli preprint study in MedRxIV titled “Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,” compares natural immunity to injection-induced immunity. Guess which one was stronger? You got it, on the first guess.

The study concludes that:

— Naturally immune have a far lower infection rate than injected.

— Naturally immune have a lower infection rate than Injected then Recovered from subsequent infection.

— Naturally immune then Injected have only a slightly lower (almost imperceptible) infection rate than naturally immune without injection.

For severe cases, the researchers found:

— Naturally immune: 0.5 severe cases per 100K

— Naturally immune + Injected: 0.6

— Injected then Recovered: 1.1

— Injected only: 4.6 — nine times (9X) the naturally immune!!

— Boosted: 0.4 (only for the first 0-2 months, though)

— Jeff Childers

Sources:

• 
  December 7, 2021. John O’Looney. British Funeral Director John O’Looney Update: “Unnatural Large Number of Deaths.” TruthVideos1984. Runtime: 7:06.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/0FyYsSiIKP34/.
  Video.
• 
  December 5, 2021. Yair Goldberg, Micha Mandel, Yinon M. Bar-On, Omri Bodenheimer, Laurence Freedman, Nachman Ash, Sharon Alroy-Preis, Amit Huppert, and Ron Milo. “Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid COVID-19 Immunity.”
  https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114.
  Research Journal.
• 
  December 7, 2021. Jeff Childers. “ Coffee & Covid ☙ Tuesday, December 7, 2021 ☙ 100% UNEMPLOYED .” Coffee & Covid 2021 .
  https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-tuesday-december.
  Law, Blog.
• 
  January 21, 2022. “Funeral Director John O’Looney of the United Kingdom: ‘I’ve Never Seen so Many Deaths….’” Runtime of embedded video: 34:52.
  https://www.kla.tv/21382.
  Video.

See also, on this site:

• Letter in The Lancet claims it is the vaccinated getting sick now
• Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)
• Life insurance company CEO says deaths are up 40% since vaccines introduced
• Tag: Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche