Reiner Fuellmich Remains Locked Up in German Prison. Attorney Kidnapped by Authorities After Claiming COVID Shots are a Form of Genocide and Threatening to Sue Governments for Crimes Against Humanity

/

From [HERE] In April 2025, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in jail.  This is in addition to the 18 months he had already spent incarcerated since October 2023 when he was kidnapped from Mexico by the German state.

In the following, Seba Terrilini summarises the torture Dr. Fuellmich was subjected to by the German state, for at least six months, while in prison before and during his trial.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was subjected to a long list of punitive measures that fall under the definition of white torture.

He was placed in solitary confinement from June 2024 to December 2024, in complete violation of the rules established by the United Nations on detention and isolation.

During these six months, he was not allowed any contact with his fellow inmates. The stated reason for this measure was that Fuellmich, in conversing with his fellow inmates, was giving them legal tips, something his incarcerators could not tolerate.

He was forced to eat alone, to spend his daily one-hour outdoors in complete solitude and was not allowed to use the gym.

Even his use of the telephone was restricted, and he was only allowed to make calls when the other inmates had returned to their cells.

Sometimes he had to choose between taking a shower or having his one-hour outdoor activity.

On top of that, he was often denied medical care.

From 10 June 2024, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich was escorted by armed security officers in armoured vehicles from the prison to the court and back.

In addition to handcuffs attached to a belt, he was also put in ankle shackles and asked to wear a bulletproof vest, the latter of which he declined to wear, for which he was forced to sign a liability release.

He was also subjected to a full-body search after each court hearing.

On 2 September 2024, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich received the sad news of his mother’s death. He was aware that it was only a matter of time, and for this reason had asked the prison authorities to be taken to Bremen so that he could say goodbye to her.

The prison would have granted him this request, but only on the condition that he would have to visit her in handcuffs and shackles, accompanied by armed penitentiary guards. Unwilling to subject his mother to additional suffering during their final moments together, Reiner did not accept those terms. Even at the cost of never seeing his mother again, he was not willing to subject her to the further anguish of seeing her son in chains.

He was not even allowed to attend her funeral.

During a long break in the hearings between September and October 2024, Reiner’s detention conditions worsened when a young man with serious mental health issues was moved into the cell next to his.

According to Fuellmich, there were numerous empty cells that could have been assigned to this young man. Probably suffering from schizophrenia, this inmate screamed, cried and talked to himself both day and night. He turned the volume of the radio up loud and often threw objects at the wall dividing the two cells. From that moment on, it became impossible for Reiner to sleep at night and concentrate on his defence during the day.

In conjunction with this very long break, communication between Fuellmich and his lawyers was deliberately made difficult by the prison management.

Remember, Fuellmich never had access to the internet, did not have a computer, and did not have access to his files; all of which did not facilitate his situation in any way and the preparation of his defence was thus intentionally hindered.

The inhumane treatment, which Fuellmich was subjected to – and in part still is – and the manner in which the trial against him has been conducted, casts enormous shadows over the German judicial system and respect for fundamental rights.

We have, without a shadow of a doubt, witnessed the biggest judicial scandal in Germany, a blatant miscarriage of justice, where the intelligence service has constructed and used a “case” against Reiner Fuellmich to silence one of the most important voices of the resistance.

For an overview of Reiner’s case, please read: ‘The Full Story Of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’.

German Court Orders Biotech to Turn Over Injury Data: Plaintiffs say Their COVID Shots Caused heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, heart failure, autoimmune disease, atherosclerosis and more

/

On Tuesday, the lead lawyer for a court case brought by covid vaccine victims against BioNTech published a decision by a German court that reinforced the pharmaceutical company had to produce data concerning vaccine harms.

BioNTech was appealing an earlier court decision which ruled it must produce the injury data.  The company lost its appeal.

From [HERE] BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH must comply with the final partial judgment of the Aurich Regional Court and provide the plaintiff with the disclosure ordered therein.

The Aurich Regional Court has ordered BioNTech to provide the plaintiff with disclosure regarding the effects and side effects of batches FE6975 and 1D020A known to the defendant from 21 December 2020, up to the last oral hearing, as well as further findings on the assessment of the tolerability of harmful effects of Comirnaty, insofar as they relate to the complaints presented by the plaintiff (including autoimmune disease, circulatory disorders, vascular occlusions, cardiac arrhythmias, hyperinflammation syndrome, menstrual disorders, nervous system dysfunctions, tinnitus, POTS, PEM, ME/CFS). [MORE]

Anthony Fauci’s Private Diary and Emails Show He Knew Lockdowns Failed. Government Closures Destroyed Businesses, Jobs and Closed Schools for No Valid Reason

/

One of Fauci’s most heinous legacies was the strong push for lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates. Those three policies were and remain significant contributors to many of the negative outcomes resulting from our response to the Covid pandemic.

School closures set back an entire generation of children.

Lockdowns led to governments printing money to allow people to stay home, setting off a spiral of runaway inflation that is still not under control.

And masks permanently damaged millions of people, from schoolchildren forced to wear them, to hospital workers who are now indefinitely required to mask in healthcare settings unnecessarily, or for those who continue to mask out of irrational fear and effective propaganda.

Many of these policies can be traced directly back to Anthony Fauci. And now we have proof of just how inept and incompetent his recommendations were, and how dishonest he was, as it became clear he’d failed.

Here’s one example. In an email to Deborah Birx, another key architect of our failed response, Fauci unwittingly admitted that he was aware lockdowns and closures did not impact the spread of Covid.

“I have been obsessing about the increases in cases that do not seem to be related to openings or closings or massive crowds,” he wrote. “I believe that ultimately we will see increases related to all of the above; however, right now we may be looking for the lost keys under the light of the lamppost. There is something inherent here that we are missing and that is insidiously keeping the outbreak alive in the USA, and that is more concerning than anticipated spikes associated with identifiable events.”

Surely, this email was written in 2021 or 2022, right? After closures and lockdowns became less common?

Nope. June 18, 2020. That’s just a few months after the initial shutdowns. He knew in June 2020 that closures did not lead to decrease in cases, and for quite literally years afterward, he demanded closures and shutdowns continue.

He criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for reopening his state, months later. In September, for example, he said Florida was “asking for trouble” by opening. Three months after he was fully aware, and admitted privately, that closures had no impact on the spread of the virus. Indefensible.

What about masks? Here’s another email from April 15, 2020, less than two weeks after the CDC abandoned science and recommended public masking out of panic. [MORE]

David Martin says Biden's Pardon of Anthony Fauci Doesn't Stop Feds from Charging Him with Domestic Terrorism; Fauci (and Others) Modified Corona Virus to Target Human Heart and Lung Tissue in 2002

/

A Genocidal Betrayal? Instead Of Holding Pfizer Accountable, Trump & Kennedy Partnered With Pfizer

/

More Risk Than Benefit: A Review of Pfizer's Clinical Trials Show the Corporation Knew COVID Injections Did Not Prevent Infection or Transmission and Did Not Even Reduce Overall COVID-19-like Symptoms

/

From [HERE] The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial did not establish that the vaccine’s clinically consequential benefits outweighed its potential harms. Nor did the trial establish that vaccination reduced the overall burden of COVID-19-like symptoms, let alone that it reduced person-to-person transmission. More than five years later, revisiting the evidence is essential if we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes when the next public-health emergency arrives.

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent decision to terminate the COVID-19 emergency use authorization (EUA) declarations invites reconsideration of the evidence that launched this extraordinary regulatory chapter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) first EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine rested on its determination that the known and potential benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outweighed its known and potential risks. Yet the pivotal trial report did not bring those benefits and risks together within a common quantitative framework.

Better late than never: more than five years later, I did — and what I found was startling.

At first glance, the famous 95% efficacy against protocol-defined, laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 — based on eight versus 162 cases in a trial that randomized 43,548 participants — seems highly promising.

But when this finding is considered alongside the broader set of participant-relevant outcomes (dispersed across the trial publication, its Supplementary Appendix, and the contemporaneous FDA review materials), the overall clinical picture looks markedly different.

Depending on the counting period used, the vaccine group had 2-8 fewer cases of severe COVID-19, whereas the safety data showed numerical excesses of 4-101 participants across clinically consequential adverse-event categories. These categories are not directly comparable, and some may overlap.

Even so, the evidence did not establish that the vaccine’s clinically consequential benefits outweighed its potential harms. Nor did the trial establish that vaccination reduced the overall burden of COVID-19-like symptoms, let alone that it reduced person-to-person transmission.

Crucially, this conclusion does not rest on hindsight: the relevant evidence was already before the FDA when it issued the EUA.

The full basis for this conclusion is presented in my comprehensive reassessment of the evidence, currently available as a preprint. That reassessment is necessarily detailed because the relevant data are complex, scattered across multiple documents and subject to important methodological and interpretive qualifications.

The present column is not intended to replace that analysis, but to distill several of its central findings and implications for a broader readership.

1. What did the 95% efficacy figure actually measure?

The gap between the headline figure and the overall clinical picture begins with the narrow endpoint and brief follow-up behind the 95% efficacy estimate. That figure applied only to protocol-defined, laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 over an average of approximately 44 days.

The trial did not assess asymptomatic infection or person-to-person transmission, and the publicly available record allows SARS-CoV-2 testing to be reconstructed for no more than 8.6% of participants.

It therefore could not establish whether vaccination reduced the overall risk of acquiring or transmitting the virus, or how long its protection against symptomatic disease would last.

This gap later attracted considerable public attention. During a hearing in the European Parliament, a Pfizer executive acknowledged that the vaccine had not been tested for its effect on transmission before entering the market, explaining that the company had needed to “move at the speed of science.”

Yet the facts discussed in that exchange had already been documented before the rollout. The trial’s narrow endpoint and brief follow-up were clear from the published record, and the FDA explicitly acknowledged the absence of direct evidence on asymptomatic infection and transmission when it issued the EUA.

These facts had far-reaching implications. At the time, vaccine mandates and passport systems were presented as tools to reduce transmission in public spaces and protect others — especially older and vulnerable people.

Yet those claims could not be grounded in the trial’s central finding, which concerned only short-term protection against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19.

The trial therefore provided no direct basis for using vaccination status as a marker of reduced transmission risk, let alone for treating that status as valid for six months, as some passport systems did.

We should not have been so surprised, then, when it became clear after the EUA that vaccinated people continued to become infected in large numbers and that major waves of transmission persisted even after most adults had been vaccinated. This waning protection against infection was soon documented empirically as well.

For example, a nationwide study from Qatar reported that effectiveness against any documented SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible during the first two weeks, peaked at 77.5% during the first month after the second dose, and then declined progressively.

Unfortunately, the consequences of this evidentiary gap were concrete: vaccine-passport policies restricted individual rights and placed considerable pressure on people to undergo a novel medical intervention, even though the evidence available at authorization had not established that vaccination reduced transmission or protected others.

2. Did vaccination reduce the overall burden of symptoms?

Not only did the trial fail to establish that vaccination prevented infection or transmission; it did not even establish that vaccinated participants experienced fewer COVID-19-like symptoms overall.

That may sound surprising. Let me explain. [MORE]

Young Australians are Dying of Turbo Cancers in the World’s Most COVID ‘Vaccinated’ Country

/

"I Will Never Betray [Big Pharma's] Science:" Black Probot CDC Nominee Survives ‘Kabuki Theatre’ Hearing by Pledging Obedience to Medical Establishment on Vaccines and Autism, Despite Dangers, Death

/

On July 15, Dr. Erica Schwartz appeared before the U.S. Senate HELP Committee to make her case for leading the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

But before the nominee had answered a single question, the terms of her confirmation had already been laid down. HELP Committee chairman Bill Cassidy wasted no time.

“A lot of this conversation for me is going to revolve around vaccines,” he announced. “Vaccines should be settled.”

He blamed “a flurry of misinformation” around immunization, saying some people cast doubt on mRNA vaccines “for no other reason than people don’t understand them.”

Mothers and fathers, he said, had become “confused as to whether vaccines are safe to give their children.”

The result was thousands of measles infections, with children hospitalised or dying from vaccine-preventable diseases.

Then came the ultimatum.

“Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective,” Cassidy declared. “Study after study shows they do not cause autism.”

“Any equivocation on these facts,” he warned Schwartz, “and I shall not be able to support your nomination.”

Only then did the questioning begin. Confirmation hearings are meant to test a nominee’s judgment, independence and fitness to lead. Instead, Cassidy announced the conclusions he expected Schwartz to affirm before she had given a single substantive answer. From the outset, it was clear there was no room for dissent.

Cassidy’s concern was whether Schwartz would publicly defend what he regarded as settled science on vaccines. He pointed to her predecessor, Susan Monarez, Ph.D., saying she had been dismissed after refusing to carry out instructions she believed would harm public health.

Would Schwartz show the same resolve and stand up to political pressure? Schwartz responded as most nominees do. She spoke of integrity, the Hippocratic oath and her commitment to public health.

“I will never compromise on that,” she said.

Cassidy pressed her again on whether she would have the authority to reassign or remove CDC staff who were pursuing an agenda he believed was harmful to public health. Schwartz tried to explain that the health secretary had nominated her to lead the CDC and that she expected to carry out that role. Cassidy cut her off several times.

An oath to orthodoxy

“We need a CDC director that will actually stand up to crazy, stupid things being said that undermine faith in immunization,” Cassidy said. “Are you the person?” Schwartz answered cautiously.

“You have my assurances that I will continue to lead by my integrity. I will never compromise on the science.” Cassidy noted that she had already been through a “murder board.”

That is Washington shorthand for the gruelling mock confirmation hearings in which nominees rehearse difficult questions with advisers before appearing before senators.

He pressed once more, asking whether she would say no to “junk science” and stand up for what was “right and true.”

Schwartz replied, “I have always stood up for what is right and what is true,” adding, “I will never betray the science.”

Cassidy left little doubt that his support was contingent on Schwartz affirming conclusions he regarded as settled.

Gabbard Drops Fauci COVID-19 Receipts On Last Day: He Funded The Research, Cooked The Cover Story, Then Lied To Congress

/

Newly declassified documents released Thursday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard show that a U.S. national laboratory assessed the COVID-19 lab-origin hypothesis as a serious possibility as early as May 2020, as well as evidence of U.S.-funded coronavirus research that included planning for spike-protein modifications, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice in collaboration with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The documents also prove that Anthony Fauci lied under oath. [MORE]

Smoking Gun Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA injections Were Deadly and Injurious

/

From [HERE] In August 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci received a U.S. intelligence report suggesting the COVID-19 virus was developed in Chinese and U.S. labs as a bat vaccine, that it subsequently leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that it contained characteristics that would make it resistant to mRNA vaccines.

The report, authored by Joseph Murphy, a major with the U.S. Marine Corps, and printed on Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) letterhead, was part of a tranche of documents Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Thursday as part of his ongoing congressional investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

The documents show that not only did Fauci receive the DARPA report, but that in an Aug. 25, 2021, email to National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials, he called it “important.” “Let us discuss my going down to the White House to review the report,” Fauci wrote.

The document tranche also contained evidence that Fauci cultivated ties with intelligence agencies at least as early as 2003, the same year he received a CIA report warning of the dangers of genetically manipulating coronaviruses.

Fauci later used these intelligence connections to sway the intelligence community to support the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origin, the documents show. [MORE]

Former Fauci Aide Indicted for Conspiracy to Hide Government Records on COVID Origins - but Don't Expect TrumpStein Administration to Follow Through

/

From [HERE] A federal grand jury today indicted a former senior adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci for allegedly using his personal email account to hide communications about the origins of COVID-19 while shaping the public narrative that the virus emerged from nature instead of from a lab.

Dr. David Morens, 78, who served in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Office of the Director between 2006 and 2022, faces five charges, including conspiracy, destruction of records in federal investigations and concealment of records. Fauci led the NIAID until his departure in December 2022.

Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 5 to 20 years in prison.

According to the indictment, dated April 16 and unsealed Monday in federal court in Maryland, Morens used his personal email account to shield communications from federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The indictment also lists two unidentified co-conspirators who allegedly collaborated with Morens to conceal and destroy federal records.

According to Fox News, the emails between Morens and other government officials allegedly included “discussions about COVID research, efforts to influence funding decisions, and exchanges related to messaging on the virus’s origins.” [MORE]

FDA Knew of Better Method to Detect Sudden Deaths After COVID Injections — But Refused to Use it.

/

New documents obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson reveal that Biden-era federal health officials refused to use a state-of-the-art statistical tool for detecting COVID-19 vaccination signals in VAERS — even though they knew the tool they were using was broken and failed to pick up on safety signals, including sudden cardiac death.

Biden-era health officials rejected a state-of-the-art statistical tool for detecting COVID-19 vaccine safety signals — and instead deliberately continued using a broken method because they didn’t want to “feed in to [sic] anti-vaccination rhetoric,” according to a report released today by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

The report — “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals” — includes emails from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials who told an FDA researcher to “cease and desist” using the updated tool to analyze COVID-19 vaccine injury reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The FDA knew as early as 2020 that the method they were using was inferior and that a better one existed, according to the emails.

Ana Szarfman, M.D., Ph.D., a then-FDA medical officer and safety data mining developer who worked in the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), tried repeatedly to get FDA officials to switch over to the improved tool. [MORE]

Misleading People to Destroy Informed Consent: No, Covid Injections Didn’t Save Millions of Lives, Hospitalizations in United States

/

One of the most pressing issues facing the scientific and medical communities is the catastrophic loss of the public’s trust in accepting their advice and/or recommendations. And it’s overwhelmingly due to their own actions and statements.

There are books’ worth of examples worth of examples. Such as the early part of the pandemic when they flip-flopped on masks, from claiming that they didn’t work to stating that getting 80% of the public to wear them would end the pandemic in a matter of weeks, to their claims that the lab leak was a racist conspiracy theory, and all the way to absurdities such as predicting the Super Bowl in Florida would be a “superspreader event.”

Or the mass panic when states like Mississippi and Texas ended their mask mandates, or when the mandate on airplanes was lifted…and nothing happened afterward.

But certainly nothing may have damaged their trust more than the steadfast assertions that the COVID vaccines were able to stop infection and transmission. And one study and analysis from a heavily credentialed group of experts on the vaccines shows how committed they were to misleading people in order to suit their political and ideological aims. [MORE]

WHO Teams With Singapore Firm Tied to Pfizer, Bill Gates to Roll Out Global Vaccine Passports

/

Five years after digital vaccine passports were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is partnering with an investment firm linked to COVID-19 vaccine maker BioNTech and the Gates Foundation to roll out “interoperable digital health wallets.”

The WHO announced earlier this week that it is partnering with Temasek, a firm owned by the Singapore government that participated in a $250 million investment in BioNTech in June 2020 — a few months before BioNTech released a COVID-19 vaccine in conjunction with Pfizer.

The initiative “builds on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, which demonstrated the urgency of reliable, verifiable digital health documentation,” the WHO said.

The initiative will begin with digital international certificates of vaccination or prophylaxis and will later expand to “broader personal health summaries.” It will be piloted in the 11 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to develop a “replicable model” for potential export to other countries.

The initiative is a result of last year’s amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations(IHR), which called for “globally recognized digital health certificates.” [MORE]