On Saturday 12 June I attended a demonstration in Sydney organized by No Health Passports. In a first for me, I spoke as well and my speech is reproduced below in full. The turnout was still very modest (I counted about 40 people), but it was good to connect with a bunch of people who also care about our democratic rights and freedoms being unreasonably compromised during this time of mass psychosis.
Browse Category
Think for yourself
UPDATE – Swiss vote on Covid, CO2 and anti-terrorist laws
This is the continuation of my previous post. My vote arrived in my home municipality after 10 days of travel – and that via express post!
And the results? About 60% of the population aged 18 and older cared enough about their future to vote on these important issues. That’s a very high turnout.
Well, it was always a long shot. The Covid law has been affirmed by the Swiss people overall. Nevertheless, the results are actually encouraging. Close to 40% of those who voted, over 1.2 million people out of a total population of roughly 7.3 million adults (16%), voted against. That’s more than I would have hoped for. And, what’s more, some of the cantons actually voted against the law (shown in light brown). Health minister Alain Berset sees this as a green light to continue with the introduction of a Covid-19 certificate. But a further referendum against just this measure has already been flagged. Read more here in English.
As for the CO2 law, I was actually on the winning side! Almost 52% of voters were against this nonsense. Read more here in English.
As for the new anti-terror law, just over 43% voted against this unnecessary and almost Orwellian piece of legislation. Read more here in English.
Also, unsurprisingly the Swiss people are apparently ok with the use of synthetic pesticides and the prophylactic use of antibiotics in food production. Read more here in English.
Swiss vote on Covid, CO2 and anti-terrorist laws
On 13 June the Swiss will cast their yes or no vote on three laws against which a significant minority of at least 50,000 people had mounted a referendum.
I have done my bit and voted against all three, the Covid law which gives the federal government powers to do many things which it should be allowed to do, the CO2 law which is based on a wrong assumption anyway, and the anti-terrorist law which would give the police unjustifiably wide and easy to abuse powers.
Interestingly, in the case of the Covid law, the information booklet contains the original text of the law from September 2020, which has since been worsened several times, so three of the most offensives sections are not even in the booklet. The current law is available here.
Need more proof of Covid nonsense?
As we we needed more proof that this entire Covid debacle is based on nothing but nonsense, the US Centre for Disease Control, which has led the official narrative on many fronts, has introduced another layer of deception. I couldn’t explain it any better than this article from the Off-Guardian, so I’m just linking to it here, and I summarise briefly:
Those who have been vaccinated but two weeks after vaccination test positive via PCR test are called ”break-through infections.” Of course it’s not a good look when such break-through infections occur, because that would call into question the effectiveness of the vaccines, so the fewer such break-through infections, the better. So what does the CDC do? They simply change the rules some time in April/May by requesting that labs only submit positive results with a Ct value of equal or less than 28. Of course this guarantees that much fewer positive results will be notified, as the CDC is well aware that labs routinely use much higher Ct values of over 35 and even over 40.
German Government: no evidence for effectiveness of lockdowns
This is worth noting: Boris Reitschuster, the only (!) German journalist who has the courage to openly challenge the German Government’s ever more extreme Covid-measures, at a press conference on 9 April in Berlin, had the following exchange with Oliver Ewald, the speaker for Health Minister Jens Spahn:
QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: Mr Ewald, Gunnar Schupelius wrote in an article in the „BZ“ [Berlin newspaper], that the Federal Government had no evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns. Hence my question: What scientific studies do you have?
ANSWER EWALD: You know that as a matter of principle we won’t pass judgement on the commentary of journalists. At this point, I would like to keep it that way.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: That’s a misunderstanding, Mr Ewald. I only brought up the quote and then asked an independent question. The question had nothing to do with the quote. I’m happy to repeat my question: What scientific…
ANSWER EWALD: If you read me a sentence from an article and then ask me to comment, without presenting the broader context and the reasons for the context, then I can say nothing about that.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION REITSCHUSTER: Then completely without that sentence, the question for the third time: What scientific studies does the Federal Government have?
ANSWER EWALD [after a pause]: I have now said what I had to say about that.
INTERJECTION REITSCHUSTER: So, nothing!
That, Australian journos, is courage!
Of course one could say the Health Minister sent a hapless idiot to do his bidding for the day, but the least Mr Ewald could have done is to say that he would supply the answer later, something which is quite commonly done at these press conferences when politicians don’t have an answer right away.
You can watch the exchange in the original here on Rumble (YouTube has censored this journalist several times already):
German court decision makes waves
On 8 April 2021, a court in Weimar (Germany) held that teachers from two schools are not allowed to force their students to wear masks, cannot force them to be tested, and cannot force them to apply social distancing rules. The original decision is available here (in German only). A summary is available here (in German). In the German media landscape the decision is of course is portrayed as a questionable.
The decision attacks the unreliability of the rapid testing and the PCR testing regime. The court relied on the written opinions from three medical witnesses. One of the experts, Ulrike Kämmerer, is one of the co-authors of a substantial paper that listed the flaws of the Covid-19 PCR test and called for the withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper, the paper which kickstarted the PCR test pandemic that has been plaguing us for over a year.
The education department, which had ordered schools in the state to require students to wear masks for all ages, said it would ask for a review of the decision following oral argument. The court registry indicated that there are several other similar court cases in the pipeline.
Below a translation* of the summary conclusion of the 178-page judgment:
The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third parties harms the children physically, psychologically, pedagogically and in their psychosocial development, with no more than a marginal benefit at best for the children themselves or third parties.
Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic” event.
The PCR tests and rapid tests used are in principle not suitable for detecting an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
According to the expert opinions, this is based on the Robert Koch Institute’s [RKI, the German equivalent to the US’s CDC] own calculations. As expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner states, the RKI calculates that mass testing with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, the probability of someone actually being infected when receiving a positive result is only two percent, at an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). This would mean that for every two positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested using the PCR method.
A (regular) compulsion to mass test asymptomatic children, i.e. healthy people, for which there is no medical indication, cannot be imposed because it is out of proportion to the effect that can be achieved. At the same time, regular compulsory testing puts children under psychological pressure, because their ability to attend school is constantly put to the test.
Based on surveys in Austria, where no masks are worn in elementary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week throughout the country, the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner states:
100,000 elementary school students would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing masks for a week to prevent just one infection per week.
To call this merely disproportionate would be a wholly inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has become distanced from the facts to an extent that takes on historic proportions.
By mandating such measures the well-being of the children is endangered as described, refer paragraph 1666 BGB [a section of the law which states that the family court can order steps to be taken when the physical or psychological well-being of a child is threatened and the parents are not willing or not capable to counter the threat]. Teachers are therefore not allowed to mandate the measures. They cannot rely on the corresponding state-law ordinances and the general decree cited, as they are unsuitable to achieve the intended effect. But in any case, due to their disproportionality they [the measures] violate the principle proportionality, and are therefore unconstitutional and void.
In addition, children have a legal right to accessible schooling.
*I translated the text using DeepL and then checked and edited the translation manually where necessary.
Another court acknowledges limitations of PCR testing
Another court decision you won’t read about in the mainstream media.
On 24 March 2021 an Austrian administrative court ruled that the Viennese County Police wrongfully prohibited a protest in the country’s capital which was slated for 31 Jan 2021. The demonstration was organised by a political party and was aimed at the Austrian Government’s severe Covid-19 measures. The court acknowledged the limitations of PCR and antigen testing for evaluating the epidemiological situation.
Below I summarise the parts of the reasons for judgment which are particularly interesting.
Do as you’re told or else!
Australian health professionals who are questioning the wisdom of Australia’s Covid-19 vaccination policy have been effectively silenced. A position statement of 9 March 2021 (a short extract below with my margin notes) reads like a thinly veiled threat to either toe the line or, if you do have objections, shut up about it and do as you’re told anyway, or else you face disciplinary action – in other words you risk losing your license to practice.
The Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, or the International Code of Medical Ethics, all thrown out of the window. It’s all about blind obedience – but that has quickly become the norm over the past year.
The next stage: corrupt artists
It was probably only a question of time. Recently, in the German city of Düsseldorf, young artist Leon Löwentraut was given a platform to display his “art” on the city’s landmark tower, the Rheinturm. According to this local news article, his work, a light show projected onto the tower, was explicitly dedicated to the UN’s sustainability goals (aka Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030), and the fight against Covid.
The main slogans on display were: “together against corona” and “vaccination = freedom”.
So this artist allowed himself to be instrumentalised to help turn ultimately anti-human agendas into a dystopian reality. In my view, this is not art, this is pure propaganda disguised as art.
What is particularly ironic about this story is that according to this article, during an anti-lockdown demonstration last May in another German city, Freiburg, someone displayed a placard which caused much outrage at the time. It read “vaccination makes free” (“Impfen macht frei”) written in a manner which was an unmistakable reference to the “work makes free” (“Arbeit macht frei”) slogan displayed over the entrance gate to the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp. The person is still being prosecuted.
So just to get this straight: a display of a slogan which criticises our apparent and dramatic loss of freedoms and our simultaneous enslavement to the dark powers that be, that is considered offensive and criminal, whilst an almost identical slogan which is displayed in the context of support for those same dark forces is widely celebrated and considered art.
The writing is on the wall.
