Adding two interesting articles that I’ve come across. The first is about Dr. Fuellmich, who some of you may remember started something like Nuremberg II and he and a collection of other lawyers would take it to trial. Even at that time, I said he will never get a court to hear him and the case. Stephen Karganovic recently did an update on Strategic Culture. https://strategic-culture.su/news/2023/08/23/the-education-of-dr-fuellmich/
—
An experienced international trial lawyer, after many attempts on two continents to initiate legal proceedings which would appear as much in the public interest as anything could ever be, has gotten exactly nowhere.
Quite some time ago, in 2021 to be precise, we discussed the remarkable phenomenon of the German-American trial attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and his plans to take the pandemic and its instigators to court. Dr. Fuellmich early on organised a professional investigative committee to gather facts about the galloping pandemic and to elaborate a legal strategy to deal with it in case the evidence convinced the committee that the global upheaval we all experienced was not a natural phenomenon. He was preparing a legal response in case that everything was not on the up and up (in the American meaning of the phrase) as we were being aggressively directed to believe that it was.
At that time, in 2021, we expressed the somewhat sceptical-sounding view that “with all the facts and cogent arguments marshalled and at his disposal, in today’s post-everything normal and decent world, Dr. Fuellmich will also need, as the title [Viel Gluck, Dr. Fuellmich] suggests, a massive amount of luck, much more than any tool from the arsenal of his legal profession.” Perhaps it is time now to review briefly the trajectory of Dr. Fuellmich’s legal case in order to check whether in retrospect our scepticism was warranted.
To start off, two and a half years later, what is the status of the Covid controversy?
To begin with the putative “cure,” the highly touted mRNA vaccines that hundreds of millions of people were relentlessly pressured and in some professional milieux imperatively required to take, their overall harmfulness is now well established. Numerous scientific studies amply confirm it. That proposition seems now to be as close to an open and shut case as anything could be.
One specific scientific study aiming “to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and excess death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis” had a very curious or perhaps more accurately, disturbing, fate once it was published by the respected British scientific journal, “Lancet.” Study authors put a rather bland interpretation of the data in their findings, to the effect that “the consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.”
The very discreet suggestions, couched in thick scientific jargon, that there could be a cause-and-effect relationship between the purported Covid prevention panacea and excess death was tolerated on the “Lancet” site for exactly 24 hours. The subsequent explanation posted by the editors is that the “preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” It must be judged very curious that the editors did not notice such a huge and disqualifying flaw when they initially agreed to publish the findings. Or did they receive subsequently a phone call from some higher authority that brooks no contradiction instructing them to immediately remove the tell-tale findings which shake the narrative to its very foundations?
Be that as it may, the problem is that the totality of the many recent rigorously conducted scientific studies about the nature, origin, and “cure” for the pandemic all point to the existence behind it of an agenda that many influential interests involved in the affair would prefer to maintain under wraps.
Who these interests are and the nature of their agenda may be gleaned from statements made by Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and the world famous “philanthropist” Bill Gates. It is evident that these kind gentlemen and benefactors of mankind are obsessively preoccupied with a single issue, radical population reduction. Can such an objective be achieved in any other way except by killing masses of people?
As private individuals they are certainly entitled to have an opinion on this matter, as Thomas Malthus did also in his time, but there seems to be a very important difference. Excess population and policies required to deal with it was something that Malthus merely theorised upon. These gentlemen, on the other hand, have the resources and the means, and judging by the plain significance of their own words also the motivation, to give such theoretical ramblings practical effect. Considering the quantity of victims publicly contemplated by their genocidal (and incidentally highly profitable) schemes and taking into account the global scope of the carnage they have the means as well as the evident intention to accomplish, the Holocaust and what happened to the Armenians, not to mention Srebrenica, are by comparison mere historical footnotes.
Attorney and life insurance executive Todd Callender minces no words about it: “Intentional homicide in large numbers is genocide.” It is worth reminding that while machinations that generated excess morbidity on a global scale were going on, the therapeutic use of effective treatments was strictly prohibited.
But what to a normal mind would appear to be if not an open and shut legal case then at least a strong indication of egregious criminal malfeasance, sufficient to warrant an urgent and thorough global investigation, is not necessarily so. Just ask Dr. Fuellmich.
Since we last wrote about it, Dr. Fuellmich’s and his able investigative team’s noble efforts have borne much fruit, everywhere in fact but in a court of law. Starting out nearly three years ago with laudable but retrospectively naïve enthusiasm, Dr. Fuellmich and his associates have amassed a vast amount of evidence on every aspect of the pandemic, including what is possibly smoking gun proof of malicious intent. All of that is readily available online, not any longer on YouTube of course, whence he was expelled some time ago like many others who failed to survive the “fact-checking” gauntlet, but certainly on other, more truth-friendly portals where he has since migrated. The only arena where so far Dr. Fuellmich has had nothing to show for his valiant efforts is his own professional milieu, the court of law.
And that is not because his case is afflicted with paucity of evidence. It is for a different reason altogether that should unsettle everyone who still retains a modicum of faith in what ought to have remained as the last bastion of institutional probity in an otherwise unashamedly corrupt world, the system of justice.
There has so far been not a single court in the Western world that was willing to examine the evidence of colossal turpitude that Dr. Fuellmich has painstakingly uncovered and assembled, that would consent to do its professional duty by hearing his arguments or render a legal judgment on the merits of his extraordinary and impeccably documented claims.
Consequently, there remains little of the confidence Dr. Reiner Fuellmich initially exuded that with the cooperation of our diligent judiciary the culprits for the events that continue to ruin an untold number of lives would surely be rounded up, tried in a court of law, and following a spectacular Nuremberg II would be put away to expiate their crimes. The expectation that in the real world anything of the sort could actually occur was in itself a spectacular display of naiveté on his part.
So now, properly educated in the ways of the real world, Dr. Fuellmich has had to drop his ambitious vision of a sequel to the Nuremberg Tribunal, having been obliged to settle for a more modest alternative. He is still holding a trial of sorts, but that has turned out to be a virtual and unofficial exercise carried by the few remaining platforms where truth may still be uttered with impunity. His efforts therefore will be accessible only to the disenfranchised multitudes who might happen to stumble upon these largely unpublicised proceedings and who will be expected to act in the politically irrelevant capacity of a citizen jury. Needless to say, the impressions formed by such an informal jury and the conclusions it draws, based on the evidence heard in Dr. Fuellmich’s virtual courtroom, will be of no practical consequence. They will be contemptuously disregarded by the vile cabal upon whose command the editors of “Lancet” hastened to remove from their journal the pier reviewed findings that could have given the criminal game away.
Arguably, the adamant refusal of the Western judiciaries to investigate the pandemic and render judgment on it after hearing the evidence could roughly be compared to the refusal of Western public agencies to investigate North Stream II. The parallel with North Stream, however, goes only so far, being deficient in one critical respect. The impact of the event in the Baltic Sea was serious but mainly economic. The impact of the pandemic, including most importantly the “therapeutic” treatments allegedly developed to cure the victims, is on the existential level incomparably more profound, particularly in light of the publicly admitted homicidal motives of its principal promoters. That puts the urgency of looking into the pandemic, its origins, and the objectives it may have been designed to serve in an entirely different league.
Yet be it noted that an experienced international trial lawyer, after many attempts on two continents to initiate legal proceedings which would appear as much in the public interest as anything could ever be, has gotten exactly nowhere.
What does that tell us about the condition of the judiciary in that part of the world which freely lectures the rest of the planet about the benefits of the rule of law and the blessings of a “rules based order”?
