The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows It also appears that the contamination enters the cell nucleus and integrates with human DNA Rebekah Barnett Regulators and fact checkers claim that plasmid DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid vaccines can’t change your genomic DNA, but new evidence suggests that it actually can. The fact checkers assert that DNA contamination poses no risk to your genomic DNA because your body will naturally destroy any contaminant DNA before it even gets into the cells. Even if the contaminant DNA could get into cells, there’s no way it can enter the cell nucleus, where genomic integration events occur, they say. And even if the contaminant DNA could enter the nucleus, which it can’t, it still couldn’t genomically integrate unless specific enzymes are present, they say. However, results from independent lab testing conducted on ovarian cancer cell lines show that contaminant DNA from Pfizer’s Covid vaccine not only crossed into the cells, but that it survived multiple cell divisions. This is suggestive that the contaminant DNA is able to transfect (enter) the cell nucleus, and that it integrated with the human cell DNA. TLDR 1. Scientists claim that Pfizer vaccine contaminant DNA has been detected in ovarian cancer cell line DNA, but they do not yet know if it’s chromosomal (heritable) or extra-chromosomal DNA (not heritable) 2. This is an in vitro (in a lab dish) finding, and needs to be replicated in vivo (in a human patient) 3. As the finding is specific to cancer cell lines, it is not generalisable, but scientists say it may give an indication of what cancer patients in remission could experience after mRNA Covid vaccination 4. This finding calls into question fact checker claims that mRNA Covid vaccine DNA contamination can't enter cells, can't enter the nucleus, and cannot integrate with human DNA. Last year, Boston-based genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made the shocking discovery that the mRNA Covid vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of plasmid DNA, an artefact of the vaccine production process. McKernan’s findings were soon confirmed by multiple independent labs around the world for both the Pfizer and Moderna mono- and bi-valent vaccines, including lots approved for children, with one Canadian study led by Dr David Speicher concluding that there are “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose.” Scientists including McKernan, University of South Carolina cancer genomics scientist Dr Phillip Buckhaults, and Dr Wafik El-Diery, head of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, expressed concerns that fragments of plasmid DNA contamination could cause adverse events, autoimmune problems and cancers in some patients. But perhaps most significantly, there is also a theoretical risk of the contaminant DNA integrating with patients’ chromosomal DNA and modifying the human genome. This is of particular concern with the Pfizer vaccine, which contains an SV40 enhancer sequence, used in gene therapies “to drive DNA into the nucleus,” explains McKernan. While regulators have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach, independent scientists, including McKernan, have been more proactive, initiating experiments testing for evidence of genomic integration. Now, the first results are in. In an experiment conducted together with German molecular biologist Dr Ulrike Kämmerer, McKernan has detected vaccine contaminant DNA in ovarian cancer cell lines treated with Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. The scientists found a chimeric combination of human ovarian cell line DNA and spike sequence DNA derived from the contaminating plasmid at at least one, and possibly two sites. “If anything, this work has put to bed the question regarding if this contaminant DNA gets into the cell, and the chimeric human and contaminant spike DNA sequences imply it has entered the nucleus,” McKernan says. “The PCR and sequencing data both demonstrate the vaccine is getting into the cell and surviving cell passaging. It is likely bioactive and being partially replicated.” To reach this finding, Dr Kämmerer first treated ovarian cancer cell lines with mRNA Covid vaccines, using cells treated with AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines as controls. The cells were then ‘passaged’, meaning they were left to divide and replicate numerous times. This has the effect of “rinsing away residual vaccine,” explains McKernan. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was then performed, a staining process that Dr Kämmerer used to detect levels of spike protein expression produced by the vaccine modified-RNA. This was to confirm that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrying mod-RNA and plasmid DNA contamination “did their job and delivered the payload,” says McKernan. Measuring how many cells expressed spike protein also allowed the scientists to determine how much of the vaccine to treat the cells with. Immunohistochemistry performed with Pfizer top left, AstraZeneca top right as a control. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack Cell lines were then sent in cold storage to McKernan’s Boston lab, where his team used qPCR to screen which samples to sequence the cell line DNA. “What we found is, [contaminant] DNA that is getting transfected into ovarian cancer cell lines is replicating in the cells,” says McKernan, noting that the ratio of vaccine contaminant DNA to human cell DNA was “higher than we expected.” Chimeric sequences of human and vaccine contaminant DNA were detected at two sites: chromosomes 9 and 12, with the evidence for the latter being the strongest. “But we don't know if it's extra-chromosomal or whether it's chromosomal because of the Illumina (short read) method we used to sequence,” explains McKernan. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack Extra-chromosomal DNA is not part of the chromosome, and is therefore less likely to replicate and to be heritable. Chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is heritable and more likely to be replicated. A third category, mitochondrial DNA, is heritable, but only from the maternal line. You can read a detailed account of methods and findings via McKernan’s Substack article, ‘Vaccine targeted qPCR of Cancer Cell Lines treated with BNT162b2.’ ‘Major advance,’ but clinical implications are limited McKernan emphasises that these findings cannot be generalised, stating that “it is too early to make comments on the clinical implications.” “The study is performed in ovarian cancer cell lines. It is not performed in patient cells, but this is a proxy for what might happen in an ovarian cancer patient who's in remission,” says McKernan, especially as there is evidence that the LNPs go to the ovaries. The risk for patients in this scenario is that integration events with contaminant DNA might cause aberrant cell growth, which poses a risk to immune suppression of new cancer cells. McKernan notes that his experiment only picked up on putative integration events that persisted after multiple cell replications. That is to say, the scientists were not able to detect integration events that may have occurred, but then died off immediately. At the moment, no one knows how many integration events might be occurring, or what effect that would have on patients. “The unknowns are just exponential,” says McKernan. The cancer cell line experiment can be said to be “a microcosm of genome integration of contaminated DNA,” said Japanese molecular oncology scientist Hiroshi Arakawa, in his own analysis of McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s experiment, published to his popular science blog on which he shares critical views on Covid vaccine safety. Akira calls the two possible integrations observed in Dr Kämmerer’s experiment a “major advance” laying the ground for further experimentation. “What happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells, and a wide variety of abnormalities can occur depending on the site of genome integration,” such as “the induction of cancer or malignant transformation,” he wrote (translated from Japanese to English). LNPs deliver contaminant DNA straight to the cells A key assumption underlying claims that mRNA Covid vaccine contamination cannot enter the cell nucleus, and cannot genomically integrate with host DNA, is that the contamination will never make it into dividing cells, which would be required for integration to occur. This is based on the assumption that the LNPs containing both mod-RNA and contaminant DNA mostly stay in the muscle at the injection site. As muscle cells do not divide, there’s no problem, the logic goes. This is misleading, however, as Pfizer’s own biodistribution data shows that the LNPs enter the blood and every major organ system, including the ovaries, as mentioned above. While it is true that muscle cells don’t divide, LNPs distributed around the body can transfect any number of dividing cells in various organ systems. Table 4-2. shows biodistribution of LNPs, Pfizer Nonclinical Evaluation Report, 2021 From there, it’s only a matter of time before the LNP contents get into the cell nucleus, says McKernan. “In any dividing cell, the nucleus dissolves. So, when people say the DNA can get into the cytoplasm [inside the cell membrane] but won't get into the nucleus, well, in any dividing cell, it will end up getting into the nucleus.” It is possible that the dissolution of the cell nucleus during division is the mechanism underlying McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s observed passaging of contaminant DNA, but further research will be required to confirm or disprove this hypothesis. Because of the effectiveness of LNPs in delivering their contents into cells, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and Dr Speicher have questioned the suitability of the current regulatory limits on contaminant DNA in vaccines, which were set prior to the introduction of LNP technology in vaccines. Regulators unconcerned I sent McKernan’s Substack article documenting the new DNA integration findings to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for comment. The TGA did not address the new findings, but a spokesperson from the TGA responded, “The Department of Health and Aged Care has every confidence in the safety, quality and efficacy of the various approved COVID-19 vaccines for use in Australia. The TGA’s assessment of all vaccines is based upon high quality evidence, including studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed scientific and clinical journals.” However, when asked previously to provide evidence for its position that Covid vaccines pose no risk of DNA integration, the TGA provided no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its claims. Instead, the TGA provided links to a Mayo Clinic fact page with no scientific citations, an article by the discredited RMIT FactLab, and a scientific commentary article suggesting that in vitro findings cannot be generalised. Furthermore, TGA has not been forthcoming with the evidence it does hold. When asked to release Covid vaccine batch testing results under Freedom of Information, the regulator provided all 74 pages - fully redacted. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied that contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines can enter the nucleus or pose any threat to patients’ genomic DNA, in a response to concerns raised by Florida Surgeon General, Dr Joseph A. Ladapo in December of last year. Additionally, the FDA misleadingly refuted the presence of SV40 proteins in the vaccines, when in fact Dr Ladapo raised concerns over the presence of an SV40 enchancer sequence in the Pfizer vaccine, as confirmed by Health Canada and numerous independent laboratories. Such ham-fisted mischaracterisation of a gene therapy sequence by the FDA is suggestive of either gross incompetence, or a disinformation play. Both are concerning. Science journalist Maryanne Demasi reported, in November last year, that the FDA shut down her enquiries into the DNA contamination matter, refusing to confirm if it found levels of DNA that exceeded acceptable levels, or if it was investigating further. The presence of contamination has been officially acknowledged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada, with the latter also acknowledging the presence of the SV40 enhancer sequence, though both regulators deny that the amounts exceed regulatory limits, or that the DNA contamination poses any risk. ‘No excuse’ for ignoring ‘screaming hot signal’ Instead of denying excessive DNA levels and deferring to manufacturers’ reported test results, regulators should run their own qPCR testing on batch lots, says McKernan. Then, “they would see what everyone else is seeing, which is that sometimes the CT scores come out as low as 13… that’s a screaming hot signal.” “As a reference, the Covid test would call people positive at 33-35,” McKernan explains. “That’s a million-fold difference (20 CTs). A million-fold less Covid RNA and you're positive and quarantined. But you can inject a million-fold more past your mucosa?” There’s “no excuse” for regulators to not sequence every vaccine lot, says McKernan, when the costs for doing so have dropped dramatically in recent years. “DNA sequencing costs have dropped 100,000 fold in the last decade. They have relaxed the DNA contamination limits 1000-fold in this time frame. It likely only costs $1,000 in reagents for millions-to-billions of dollars worth of product.” Source: National Human Genome Research Institute DNA sequencing by regulatory agencies is important not just for measuring quantities, says McKernan, but also for determining the type of DNA contamination. “Not all DNA is created equal. Some is designed to replicate - when it gets into a cell, it can make more of itself. It's a massive loophole in the regulations that they don't do sequencing. But it's never been cheaper. You can precisely know the nature of the DNA in every single vial.” Scientists pick up regulators’ slack In the absence of any regulatory appetite for investigating the risks of DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid shots, and particularly the risk of genomic integration, independent scientists have taken the baton. “We are writing up our findings and will publish a preprint soon,” says McKernan, who is planning further testing in partnership with Dr Kämmerer. “We’re doing more experiments first. We need to sequence deeper to find out if the integration events are in chromosomal or extra-chromosomal DNA.” Dr Buckhaults is also running his own experiment, calling for de-identified samples of tumours or fresh blood from pathology and hematology labs. These samples will be tested for the presence of plasmid DNA contamination, with whole genome sequencing to then be carried out on positive samples to identify genomic integration sites. In an email outlining his experiment, Dr Buckhaults told me that he intends to report his findings in a peer-reviewed publication, predicting that the work could take “a few months to a year,” depending on how fast samples come in. “I am hopeful to prove my concerns are unwarranted by accumulating a lot of negative data, and of course negative data takes the most time to collect,” he said. McKernan says he is aware of other labs running tests for contaminant plasmid DNA integration, but cannot disclose the details at present. Decentralisation the future of science? McKernan says he has experienced some pushback for publishing his methods and findings in real time via Substack, X, and preprints. But, he believes that making his data available as quickly as possible is a way for the field of science to regain public trust. “Many will criticize our disclosure of preliminary findings but we feel this is an insult to the intelligence of the average person,” says McKernan. “It's a form of scientific elitism that implies people can't handle the truth and will be scared like sheep if given a glimpse of how the true scientific process is performed. Scientists are 90% of the time wrong but only publish the times when they are right. There is no journal of negative results.“ In light of the prospect that most published research findings are false (as famously asserted in a 2005 article by Professor John Ioannidis), McKernan questions the value of peer-review, instead favouring replication or refutation in the real world. Source: X For this reason, McKernan says he has not prioritised peer-reviewed publication for his DNA contamination findings, but is rather focusing on conducting more experiments and releasing the data as he goes - even when it’s incomplete, or requires further experimentation. “We were not expecting to find any integration events at this depth of coverage, but they are evident to anyone who downloads our public reads. To not speak to obvious evidence in such data would be irresponsible even when such evidence doesn't 100% answer a given question,” says McKernan. Dr Buckhaults takes a somewhat different view. After sharing his initial plasmid DNA contamination findings in a South Carolina Senate hearing in September last year, the video recording broke the internet. Believing the hearing to have been private, Dr Buckhaults was alarmed that the widespread distribution of his testimony may have caused “unintended, harmful side effects.” He requested that YouTube take down his testimony video, which is now defunct. Source: X In our correspondence, Dr Buckhaults stressed that while more research is warranted, he is of the opinion that the public “should not overreact to the news of the plasmid DNA contamination. It's serious enough that scientists need to hustle and figure out if it's causing any health problems now or down the road, but it's not cause for the general public to be alarmed.” But, “The reality is that`transfection experiments with contaminated DNA' have been carried out on vast numbers of people around the world in the name of vaccination,” writes Arakawa. Perhaps the experiment participants will be the ones to decide if they should be alarmed, or not. The FDA was contacted for comment about Dr Kämmerer and McKernan’s new findings, but they did not respond by publication deadline. This article will be updated if comment is received. View Kevin McKernan’s write up of his DNA integration experiment (in partnership with Dr Kämmerer) here. Scroll down for links to sequencing data files. Pathology and hematology labs wishing to send samples to Dr Buckhaults are invited to contact him at the University of South Carolina. Update 23 March 2024: This article was edited to add mention of the Dr David Speicher et al. finding of “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose” of the mRNA vaccines, and the scientists’ concerns that regulatory limits on DNA contamination have not taken LNP transfection into account. To support my work, make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account and/or subscribe. Thanks! Follow me on X Follow me on Instagram 1 From an article I wrote for Umbrella News on this topic last year: The TGA maintains that allegations put forward in the case about the potential for mRNA vaccines to alter the recipient’s DNA are unfounded. A spokesperson for the TGA told Umbrella News, “COVID-19 vaccines do not alter a person’s DNA. The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.” “The TGA continues to monitor the scientific literature associated with the SARS – CoV-2 virus and the various COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Australia.” With reference to the specific studies cited in the case materials, the TGA pointed Umbrella News to an RMIT ABC Fact Check post from 2022 purporting to ‘debunk’ claims that mRNA jabs are genotoxic. This is the same site that ‘debunked’ claims that COVID vaccines can cause menstrual disruption, before peer-reviewed scientific studies proved that they can and do (the post has not been corrected). As evidence that it is “well established” that vaccine mRNA and protein do not enter the nucleus, the TGA provided a link to a Mayo Clinic fact page which provides no studies or scientific evidence in support of its claims. The TGA did provide one commentary article published in a scientific journal which pointed out that the in vitro liver cell line study cannot be extrapolated to generalise about in vivo findings (in a human, not a dish) without further research being undertaken. Additionally, RMIT FactLab was suspended by Facebook in August 2023 after an uproar over its blatantly biased and factually dubious ‘fact checking’ of media articles relating to the Voice referendum campaign. It also transpired that RMIT FactLab had falsely represented its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network as current, when it had in fact lapsed. https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/dna-contamination-in-covid-vaccines

Look what they did to Reiner Fuellmich! He’s a political prisoner in Nazi Germany! Update: Reiner Füellmich Speaks Out. His Personal Statement & Press Release From The Defence. Update: Reiner Füellmich Speaks Out. His Personal Statement & Press Release From The Defence. Patricia HarrityDecember 27, 2023 Dr Reiner Füellmich has been imprisoned for almost 11 weeks now. He has written his own personal account, part one of which was read aloud on Bittel TV and translated. He had said “It isn’t over.” The corona pandemic was only the test run to find out what people will go along with when we put them into panic through psycho-terror. We must look behind the panic propaganda, so we can see the truth.” He added “Without justice there is no peace and no returning to a humane world. That also holds for my case.” The English translation of part one can be found here. The official translation for parts 2 and 3 from the Reiner Füellmich team were received by Elsa Scheider from the Truth Summit last week and have been republished below for our readers who have shown a concern and interest in Reiner’s situation Source . This is followed by the press release from the defense team published on 23rd December. “The Truth” – Personal Statement by Dr. Reiner Füellmich’ Part 2: The beginning of the Corona Committee Dear friends, activists, and fellow human beings interested in the truth. This is the 2nd part of my “Personal Statement” to make the events of the last weeks, months and years transparent for all of you. How did it come about that serious allegations of embezzlement were made against me publicly and in a criminal complaint by four former comrades-in-arms in the Corona Committee? Who were the people I trusted when I worked with the Corona Committee? How did it come about that I am now sitting in a high-security prison in Germany – and completely innocent? Above all, I have to reproach myself, because my professional gut feeling clearly betrayed me (or I didn’t listen closely enough), and I simply didn’t attend enough to details in the daily TO-DOs, otherwise I would have noticed the planned coup much earlier. But first things first: My wife Inka and I lived with our dogs on our ranch in Northern California until the beginning of June 2020 and I did my legal work mainly from there. When the plandemic started in 2020, we were both immediately convinced – that something was amiss here. I quickly packed my bags, because I wanted to help shed light on the plandemic in Germany. After all, I had 30 years of experience as a litigator and spent many years studying medical and pharmaceutical law at the University of Göttingen. In addition, I had many contacts from my work in medical law. Dr. WW, whom I trusted at the time, put me in touch with Ms. VF. At the first face-to-face meeting in Berlin, I was bothered by some of her behavior, but I decided to take off my critical glasses, ignore my gut feeling and trust a friend. We agreed to establish the Corona Committee because it was clear in June 2020 that the German Bundestag, which was actually responsible for this, would not start its own investigation, for reasons that were not yet apparent to me at the time. The Corona Committee was to clarify these key questions immediately: 1. How dangerous is the supposedly novel corona virus really? 2. How reliable and suitable is the PCR test for detecting corona infections? 3. How harmful are the Corona measures, i.e. the lockdowns, the mask requirement, social distancing and the threat of so-called vaccinations? Scientists, doctors, economists, lawyers, politicians, etc. should help support us in clarifying the questions. Two German scientists, a professor of finance and an expert in immunology and vaccinations were already part of our circle. Unfortunately, they did not agree with the contracts of VF drawn up by her notary and therefore they left us. I recall that one of them also distrusted VF from the start. We needed replacements quickly. Two years earlier, while working for the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, I had met law professor Martin Schwab and had been friends with him ever since. He, in turn, had introduced me to two lawyers from Hamburg whom he had promoted. Trusting in Prof. Schwab’s expertise, I asked the two of them if they wanted to move up as a replacement for the scientists in the Corona Committee. Today I know that this was the beginning of the end. Both quickly showed that money meant more to them than clarification and enlightenment. The Corona Committee quickly met with completely unexpected success. Since we conducted the expert surveys in German and English via video-stream, our Friday broadcasts quickly became popular worldwide. Many people had been convinced that we would later use the findings from these interviews as evidence in international damages proceedings such as in class action. We were in the right place at the right time with our work. I was and still am convinced of that. Internally, unfortunately, things looked different. I quickly noticed that VF and the others showed little interest in our work in contrast to myself, who concentrated almost completely on this work. In addition to the interviews in the committee, I gave five international interviews at that time, and thereby, endeavored to provide information about our work worldwide and not just in Germany. After I had learned from critical experts that a PCR test could under no circumstances detect an infection, and it had been deliberately abused here, I published a 50-minute video in German and English in September 2020. There I explained that the Corona measures, which had already led to more and more victims and damage at that time, could be qualified as crimes against humanity, and that it would be best to clarify them legally with the means of Anglo-American law. To my surprise, the video was viewed millions of times before it was suddenly deleted by YouTube/Google. On the basis of this video, the American colleague Robert F. Kennedy jr., whom I first met in Berlin in August 2020, founded the “PCR Test working group” on his platform CHD, with the help of its president Mary Holland. I also belong to this group. Since October 2020, respected scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have been meeting there every week to discuss all aspects related to the plandemic. At the same time, I regularly summarized our long interviews at the Corona Committee on Sundays on Roger Bittel’s platform “Bittel.TV”. The enormous popularity of the Corona Committee led to a large number of inquiries as early as August 2020. In particular, small and medium-sized enterprises wanted to know how they could get compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the lockdowns. And fellow lawyers from all over the world wanted to be connected with the experts. At that time, many lawyers still believed that a judicial hearing of evidence with our PCR test experts would quickly bring down the entire panic, based on deception and manipulation. This led to the collection of funds (700 € per person) for a possible class action. The funds are all there, but have been fraudulently diverted to another account. I will report on this in detail elsewhere. Due to my almost 30 years of litigation experience, I was rather sceptical that a solid legal approach would quickly succeed in Germany and also in the rest of the world. Therefore, I advised to conduct damages litigation in an Anglo-American country, where there is the possibility of class actions and a real right of evidence and punitive damages for intentional damages. My international colleagues are working flat out on this. The issue of class action lawsuits is as present as ever and we are convinced that it will ultimately bring success. Part 3 – The end of the Corona Committee – Unfortunate circumstances or a long-planned coup? Dear friends, activists and fellow human beings interested in the truth, in the 3rd part of my personal statement, it will quickly become apparent to you that I was more and more a lone fighter in matters of the Corona Committee and that my co-partners pulled a common string to get rid of me and also to ruin me privately. I share responsibility here. As a human being, but even more so as a lawyer, I should have seen the events coming and prevented them. Back to my account. So, while I was on my way, also with international lawyers, for the CA and putting all my energy into it, strangely enough, the other members didn’t seem to be so aware of the importance of the Corona Committee‘s work. None of them attended the strategy meetings. None of them made any effort to publicize the work of the Committee, especially beyond the borders of Germany. From the end of 2020 onwards, JH and AF in particular were only interested in how they could earn as much money as possible with Corona mandates with their newly founded office community. When, at the end of 2021 / beginning of 2022, together with the group of international lawyers, I conducted the Model Grand Jury investigations with the help of our experts to show that, and how, a legal clarification of the plandemic could work, these lawyers no longer played a role at all. However, the Model Grand Jury Investigation became a success that attracted worldwide attention. The work of the Corona Committee was now so popular that by the end of 2020 we had already received a lot of donations. However, we only needed part of this to pay for our technology, IT, translators and expenses for my office, etc. There was a large amount of money in our donation account. This money was not safe from our point of view. A blocking or seizure of the accounts would have rendered us immediately incapacitated. Therefore, VF and I decided to leave only the amounts directly required for the work of the Corona Committee in the donation account and to keep the funds that were not needed at first safe from possible access. The State Office for Criminal Investigation in Lower Saxony, as I know today, had asked the public prosecutor’s office to investigate VF, RF, AF and JH and a colleague who had temporarily managed the donation account because of suspicious money laundering reports from the banks, which had repeatedly terminated our donation account. These investigations were later discontinued. To make sure that we would not be vulnerable because of the securing of the money, we concluded loan agreements, which were also openly shown in the annual financial statements. Of course, there would have been no point in transferring the loans from one disclosed account to another open account. So we decided to invest them in my German property (as an equivalent value) and in gold as a safe store of value. The house had a value of €1,345,000. We wanted to sell it anyway and look for a new place to live in Germany. Therefore, the money I took out on a loan basis was safe, as I believed at the time. But things turned out differently. I will report on that. In addition, I invested 1.1 million EUR in donations in gold. This was also openly disclosed in the annual financial statements. VF also entered into a contract with Corona Committee to obtain a loan. This withdrawal also served to secure our money. The loan went over € 100,000 which is also reported in the annual financial statements. In July / August 2021, JH and AF suddenly contacted us again to get information about the donations. I suspected that their legal efforts had been unsuccessful. In the meantime, I had learned that they had no structure in their office and, in particular, had not even been able to hire at least one secretary. I hadn’t checked this at the beginning of our collaboration, a mistake on my part in hindsight. Since JH and AF had effectively left the work of the Corona Committee and also because they had recently been working closely with a person who, as I know today, infiltrated the political party “dieBasis” together with a Freemason, we initially refused to provide this information. But in order not to waste energy on avoidable arguments, we finally handed in an overview of income and expenditures. It quickly became clear that they wanted to “hijack” the Corona Committee and at least eliminate me from it. When the attempt failed, JH proposed in a written settlement that he and AF would leave the company if we pay them half of the donations to an account of their mentor, Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab. Of course, VF and I rejected this and asked JH and AF not to show up in the committee anymore. We didn’t hear from them for about a year. At the end of 2021, with my consent and with the help of their notary, VF created a new company for the operation of the Corona Committee. VF and I held a 50 percent stake in this company. This new Corona Committee has its own account, so it no longer has to rely on lawyers’ escrow accounts. All the rights of the old company were also transferred to this new company. I agreed to the contracts submitted to me by VF. At the beginning of 2022, working with VF had become increasingly difficult. That’s why I accepted the offer to participate in the Crimes Against Humanity Tour in the US. This meant that I would spend almost three and a half months traveling through nine U.S. cities and giving lectures with two well-known U.S. scientists, Dr. Judy Mikovits and the economist and expert on technology and transhumanism, Patrick Wood. However, from there I continued all the activities related to the Corona Committee: I continued the interviews via Zoom, gave an average of five interviews per week, participated in the conferences of the PCR Test Working Group and summarised the meetings of the Committee every weekend on Bittel.TV. In addition, I worked with international colleagues to initiate legal proceedings with the aim of large-scale damages lawsuits. At the time, I was on the verge of burnout… After my return from the U.S., I realized that VF’s chaotic incompetence and indifference to our guests, which I had grudgingly accepted until then, had increased even more. That’s why I confronted her in July 2022. I informed her that I would be going back to our ranch in California with my wife and dogs, also to be closer to the relevant legal action, but that I would continue the committee work as usual. Also, I desperately wanted more input from her! Immediately afterwards, as I know today, VF got in touch with JH and AF again, as well as their law firm colleague MT. In August 2022, there was a meeting and a discussion. Following this meeting, the joint public defamation campaign against me started on 9-2-.2022 and criminal charges were filed against me on the same day. I didn’t know anything about that at the time. Due to the coincidence of the date of the “dismissal” and the criminal complaint, it is clear to me today that “the other side” was never interested in resolving the disputes. A week before 9-2-.2022, VF had informed me that there would be no Corona committee broadcast on that day because our TV manager’s wife was going to have her second child. A lie, as I later realized. But I believed that lie and did not appear, VF and WW had – as VF puts it – “a clear shot“ at me. VF appeared in front of the Corona Committee’s camera dramatically dressed in black. She declared, without informing me as her partner, that I was no longer allowed to appear at the Corona Committee. So she decided unilaterally and completely arbitrarily that I was no longer allowed to be present in the Corona Committee that I had shaped until then, in whose company I owned 50 percent then as now! In order to justify her illegal and unlawful actions, she and WW, also in front of the camera, stated that I was to be accused of financial irregularities and that I was otherwise “a loudmouth”. WW was particularly fond of this label. I didn’t want to unnecessarily burden the Corona Committee and its worldwide reputation with internal problems. A vain hope. A short time later, VF, WW, JH, AF and VF’s partner at the time appeared in front of the camera for an hour-long Reiner Fuellmich tribunal. This campaign eventually culminated in several increasingly insane videos from VF claiming that “the children of the committee staff must be starving“ because of me. Apparently completely unhinged, she finally called for a “hunt for me” and crowned this call with a “Halali”, a German hunting call that signals the end of a hunt. Not only I, but also the viewers were shocked, as could be seen from the comments in the chat. The content of the 30-page criminal complaint, which JH also filed on behalf of AF and MT, reads even crazier. JH, AF and MT knew in 2020 that € 700,000 had been secured by me by loan agreement and secured with my property. They also knew that the sale of my house has been planned for a long time and was imminent. Our property was sold on 03/10/2022 for € 1,345,000.00 in our absence through a notary. As mentioned, we have never seen any of this money to this day! How this coup took place, I will explain in the next part. And it gets even worse: After receiving the criminal complaint, I should have been heard, in accordance with the principle audiatur et altera pars. But I was denied this. Today I know the reasons: JH claimed to the prosecution that I was threatening him “with a Winchester”. And because that didn’t seem dangerous enough, he went on to claim that I, as a member of the party “dieBasis”, would radicalize other members and call for violence against him. In addition, I was an anti-Semite and he would feel threatened because of his ethnic origin. Because of these completely fictitious threat scenarios, my wife and I were denied the right to a fair clarification of the situation by the authorities for more than a year. Apparently, the public prosecutor’s office felt pressured by these threat scenarios. JH even told the authorities that the other two plaintiffs would withdraw the criminal complaint if the prosecution granted me a fair hearing. Literally, he writes: “… if Fuellmich or any of the other defendants were given the opportunity to comment before criminal proceedings were initiated, the witnesses (i.e. VF, JH, AF and MT) would refrain from filing the criminal complaint for fear of threats, violence and defamation.” Subsequently, my wife’s private account was seized. When our lawyers asked for my wife to be heard, they were told that they would not receive any information because she was also under investigation. A European arrest warrant was then issued for me on 3-15-2023, of course without me being granted the right to be heard. In the meantime, my wife and I had left for a trip to Peru regarding the class action lawsuit. On the way back we wanted to visit friends in Mexico and fly back to Germany from there. There, we received information from our hometown that the authorities were allegedly looking for me. Unfortunately, the colleagues from my law firm did not receive any information from the authorities about the situation. So we couldn’t really assess the new scenario back home, so we stayed in Mexico for the time being. As a counterpart to the Corona Committee, I now had my own label “ICIC”, with which, as before in the Committee, I interviewed international experts on global crimes against humanity. A small working group from the former Corona Committee had followed me and so we were able to quickly get back to work. Nevertheless, in October 2023, everything plunged into complete chaos again. It ended with the execution of the above-mentioned European arrest warrant against me in Frankfurt, after I had previously been deported from a non-European country (Mexico) under police protection. – A thriller that, as I know today, was anything but a coincidence. I’ll tell you about that in the next episode. As a result, I’ve been sitting in prison for weeks now. The real perpetrators are still free. They also possess the class action lawsuit money and the money from my private home. I can prove that. All documents are safely stored with my legal team. How the “agitators” brought all this to a “successful” conclusion for them, I will report on in the next episode. Source Reiner Füellmich: Press Release From The Defence. Originally published by Elsa at Truth Summit on 23rd December 2023. One could say that the truth is boring – meaning, Reiner said basically the same thing a few days after VF spoke against him as he is saying now, and as is stated in the press release from the defense. There are a couple of further details. They add a tiny bit, but nothing is changed. So here is the press release. On November 17, 2023 the Göttingen public prosecutor’s office brought charges against Dr. Reiner Füellmich on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by former shareholders without the defense having prior access to all volumes of the investigation file or the opportunity to comment. An interrogation of the accused pursuant to Section 163a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) was also not conducted before the indictment was filed. Likewise, the witnesses named predominantly in the indictment were not questioned. On the one hand, the sum of €700,000 is at issue, which is already the subject of the arrest warrant. However, the basis for the payment of the €700,000 were two loan agreements also signed by Viviane Fischer (one dated November 6, 2020 for €200,000 and one dated May 14, 2021 for €500,000). The public prosecutor’s office incorrectly assumed at the time of the indictment that both loan agreements involved inadmissible self-dealing. However, according to the complete founding minutes of July 9, 2020 all four shareholders were appointed as managing directors with sole power of representation, so that Viviane Fischer was able to effectively represent the Corona-Committee-Entrepreneurial-company-in-formation alone in both loan agreements. At the time, rumors were circulating about the seizure of accounts at MWGFD; in fact, accounts were seized from the prominent member Prof. Dr. Hockertz, as well as subsequently from other doctors who were prosecuted under criminal law on the subject of the corona measures, and finally, as the most prominent example, from Michael Ballweg, who was also remanded in custody for 9 months. The donations should therefore be invested in sustainable stores of value, such as gold or real estate. The Corona Committee bought around 1 million worth of gold, which is still stored securely at Degussa. Reiner Füellmich’s property was intended as the equivalent value for the loan amount of € 700,000. At the time of the sale on October 3, 2022, the property was unencumbered and the € 700,000 was to be repaid to the Corona Committee from the purchase price of € 1,345,000. However, this was prevented until today by the entry of a land charge on November 18, 2022, i.e. one and a half months later – in our opinion unlawful – and the payment of an amount of € 1,158,250 in favor of the complainant Marcel Templin. This matter must be clarified, also by the public prosecutor’s office. It is irrelevant whether amounts were spent on redesigning the garden of the property, as this directly benefited the increase in value and thus the achievement of a higher purchase price. The indictment also alleges payments made by the Corona Committee to Reiner Füellmich’s law firm in the amount of €25,000 per month plus VAT in the period from January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022. According to the indictment, these funds were used up for wage and salary payments and social security contributions for the employees of his law firm. The public prosecutor’s office fails to recognize that the employees of Füellmich’s law firm provided a service in return for these monthly payments to the Corona Committee. For two years, they were almost exclusively occupied with answering inquiries to the Corona Committee. Over 300,000 emails were answered, hundreds to thousands of telephone calls were made and thousands of letters were answered. Due to the sheer volume of emails, a new IT system also had to be purchased. This work, which was absolutely essential for the Committee’s continued existence, was not carried out at the Committee’s headquarters in Berlin. Communication with the supporters of the Corona Committee included initial legal advice for those seeking help, the acquisition of interview partners, the selection of scientists and other experts, who ultimately had their say at the weekly meetings. If this communication had not taken place, the Corona Committee could have ceased its work shortly after it was set up. The services provided by the employees of the Füellmich law firm were therefore part of the committee’s corporate purpose. The witnesses named by the public prosecutor in the indictment for this set of crimes were not heard before the indictment was filed, which is unusual. Source Truth Summit Elsa from the Truth Summit adds – PS. To donate for legal and other expenses, here is the link: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2 https://expose-news.com/2023/12/27/update-reiner-fuellmich-speaks-out-his-personal-statement-press-release-from-the-defence/

Just checking after almost a year and the place has continued to die a slow death. On top of that the spammers have added me to every fucking group, so all I see is spam. That feature needs to die before the platform does... #SoMee #someeofficial #groups #slowdeath #incompetence

How pathetic does this even sound???? How can you MISTAKENLY just randomly kill 100s of people cause of incompetence.... A million ways to die and dying like this wouldn't make my list

A SHITTY BUT SAD FACT. A session in an acedemic calendar is supposed to just take 10 months to conclude. My case has never been this direct, I got admitted to study Communication Engineering in 2019 a 5 years course. I have spent almost 4 years and still in level 2 out of 5 not for incompetence or Carry overs but due to how slow and fucked up my country’s academic path is. Now we have just recently concluded 8 months of strike and instead of my school to quickly resume session and save time we have lost they decided to give us an addition 2 3 months to complete the year at home and then we can start the semester slow as ever next year. I honestly REGRET every decision that led to me choosing this University as my place to study ????