Medicine as a means of power for population control?
Health or illness as a weapon? Death trap medical treatment?
Florian Machl from Report24 and his guest Dr. Gerd Reuther shed light on the background of
medicine through history in a variety of ways.
But hear for yourself how Dr. Reuther reveals the connections with extensive detailed knowledge, why in his eyes pure
greed for profit seems to fall short as an explanation and what 15-minute cities have in common with this topic...
What's behind it all? Dr. Gerd Reuther analyzes vaccinations, power and control
https://report24.news/was-steckt-dahinter-dr-gerd-reuther-an alysiert-impfungen-macht-und-kontrolle/] Welcome to Report24.
My name is Florian Machl and today we have Dr. Gerd Reuter with us in our studio. A very warm welcome.
Hello.
Dr. Reuther, you wrote a very successful book some time ago, with which you became very
well known in the mainstream, you could say.
Those were very different times, that was before 2020.
Perhaps we will start with this work, what motivated you and what you could learn from it.
Yes, that was "Der betrogene Patient", 2017, at a time when a manuscript like that could still be published by a general
publisher and you could openly criticize the medical system in all directions in order to bring the truth to light.
This has now become increasingly difficult.
And you are hardly in a position to bring this to a large audience anymore because the
information channels have simply become fewer.
But the motivation for this at the time was that I was coming to terms with my 30 years of professional life and
saw that a lot of things in medicine were simply wrong, or should be wrong, it has to be said.
Because although health is written on the top, it is not actually planned, because in medicine it has
unfortunately been the case for several hundred years that illness is the real business and not health.
There's a saying that you can only make money with sick people and not with healthy people,
although there were supposedly other systems in the past.
There are reports from China that it used to be different.
You paid the doctor to keep you healthy, which actually sounds much more appealing.
You are a medical historian, so you have a lot of time to look at the facts, and I have the feeling that it is now increasingly
moving in the direction of social criticism or looking at society as a whole, for which health is of course a very important issue.
And we spoke briefly beforehand, the world is actually facing a not-so-nice situation at the moment.
Yes, it's true that health and my preoccupation with it has become primarily a social consideration.
On the one hand, this is a look at history, which is important for medicine and which is not
possible without taking social conditions into account.
Then my wife is a historian, so that was also an opportunity to come to terms with the historical circumstances.
But this close intertwining of medicine and history has actually always existed and has now come to light on
a massive scale with Covid-19, that a medical campaign is being used to control society.
However, this was not a first, as medicine was actually introduced in the 13th century as academic
university medicine in order to influence social conditions.
At that time, it was mainly the church that made an effort to create this new medical profession.
And why did she need the doctors?
Ultimately, to find out who in society is ill, who has a health problem.
So you found out very quickly from the influential people.
And then it was all about power, perhaps inheritances, so you wanted to be informed at an early stage.
And with the medical measures that were passed off as a treatment concept at the time as the so-called theory of juices,
there was also the possibility of deliberately damaging health.
So it was possible to create diseases. This has not only been possible since our time, but also back then.
For example, certain skin rashes could be caused with ointments containing mercury. And
then it was said that someone had leprosy.
And at the time, leprosy was a diagnosis that led to leprosy in Europe, not in other countries.
So in the Islamic world, a leprosy patient with skin symptoms, where parts of the nose or ear could be
eaten away, could continue to live normally in society.
But in the Christian West, the church has defined it in such a way that the person has to leave
society - with possession of all their possessions.
And this property then had to be redistributed to new owners.
So this was a very practical way of getting rid of disagreeable people.
Leprosy did not even exist before the time when Christianity became the general religion in Europe.
It has always been said that it was brought in with the Crusades.
Perhaps there was also a new disease or two.
But this model about a disease, and a visible disease at that, to exclude someone from society, to get rid of them.
So a Donald Trump, for example, could have been given leprosy today if he had lived at that time.
And then, without a court case, they should have said: Mr. Trump, we are sorry.
Unfortunately, they have to leave the company and now have to live here in a secure suburb and are no longer allowed to perform.
So that's what was introduced at the time, which has also come to the fore again with Covid, that they said, yes, these
are sick people, they have to be isolated for a limited period of time. With leprosy, it was only permanent.
And subsequently it was also a matter of using these radical measures ... - A lot of toxic substances were
administered, which is something you can hardly imagine today: Arsenic, mercury and antimony.
In the right doses, these were all lethal substances.
In other words, any banal illness could be turned into a death trap.
And that suddenly seems familiar again. What was it like again with Covid?
A normal, harmless flu that was called Covid. And with the appropriate medication, I'm only thinking of northern Italy, the
whole thing suddenly became a death trap for many old people.
They then died of an alleged flu, although they died from the treatments.
And the concept was already introduced back then.
And if anyone thinks what I'm saying is exaggerated, there is also a monk, Abraham a Santa Clara, who in
the 18th century, i.e. the 17th/18th century transition, put this down in writing and said:
Yes, the medical profession is a license to kill with impunity.
And he was an insider, so he knew what role medicine played in society.
And we are now seeing it again with all the vaccinations, which is also an agenda that
is not about health, but about the opposite.
And the whole game, in quotation marks "game", this evil game, has been going on in waves since the 13th century and is then
played up as an epidemic disease when there are social problems.
If you need the whole thing, just as you now need Covid with the financial crisis, the first plague started in the 14th century,
in 1347, after a banking crisis in Florence at the time.
In other words, there is always a very close connection between health and social developments, or more
precisely, the social problems that endanger the ruling elite.
And that's where you use health as a weapon.
The background is extremely exciting.
Of course, I believe that there is always a lot of momentum involved.
Speaking of vaccinations, there are billions to be made.
In other words, it doesn't always have to be, in my opinion, I don't have a finalized opinion on this yet, but it doesn't always
have to be malice, it can simply be greed when you develop a "drug" in quotation marks that
doesn't actually do anything, that may even do harm.
And with which you can earn billions and persuade governments to do so: It's so important,
it saves so many lives, everyone must have it.
We could look to America, for example, where over 70 such vaccinations are now mandatory or planned for children.
I don't know how strict the regulations are in every state.
But I am at least familiar with the statistics that, from about 10 so-called vaccinations a few decades
ago, almost 100 are now planned up to the age of 18.
And that is clear, there can only be profit interests behind it, because humans have been around for millions of years and have
managed for a very, very long time without these vaccinations.
But let's take a quick look at America.
So I believe that profit interests still fall short, because if we look at this agenda, which
has led to the emergence of many chronic diseases.
It's wonderful that Robert Kennedy Junior has now made a public video clip pointing out that things used to be
different in the USA - namely that compared to other countries, Americans weren't sicker and didn't live shorter lives.
And the whole thing only developed in the 80s and 90s, parallel to this vaccination agenda and also parallel to
the increase in this highly processed, increasingly synthetic food that we consume in various forms.
These are the key developments as to why health has actually been increasingly destroyed.
And if you see this over time and there is no counter-regulation, then there must be a concept behind it.
Because then you know that this way of somehow making healthy people ill through pointless medication or a wrong
lifestyle only really works for a certain amount of time.
Because then too many people will be ill and it won't work.
And vice versa, we could always do business with healthy people without making them ill, as we have done in recent decades.
So all these preventive screening examinations don't necessarily do any harm, but they've become big business nonetheless.
So that certainly always plays a role with all preparations that are brought onto the market.
But without this damaging agenda, I don't think all the vaccinations can be explained.
In the early days, the focus was on these very, very rare diseases that have never been a social problem.
So now measles, mumps, those were always very low case numbers in every society.
And to compulsively prevent this, with the approach of lowering it to zero, which is completely nonsensical, which is not
possible with any biological process, is a concept that cannot be commercially viable for long, because
it then actually exposes itself in a very short time.
Many people say it's not just the pharmaceutical industry that's behind it now, but population reduction.
And this is also openly stated - Club of Rome, we are supposedly too many people in this world.
Now, of course, it has to be said that these mass vaccinations and other medical interventions mainly affect
countries that don't have very many births, where it is said that their populations are actually shrinking.
Now one would have to assume a counter-argument: Why are such medical experiments, if we want to call
them that, not carried out in Africa, for example?
Or in Asia, we have huge countries there. Well, China's population is shrinking.
But India looks exactly the opposite, we have over a billion people there who are very happy to
multiply, as is the case with poorer cultures.
So why are such things done so much here and apparently not at all there?
Well, it was mainly done there.
If we look at the last few decades, these vaccination experiments have taken place in Africa and India with the clear
intention of damaging the population and making it infertile.
As far as I know, there are some lawsuits pending in India against Bill Gates in this regard.
And in Africa there was also this big campaign where they did this with a tetanus vaccination, which I think
should be repeated every six months, which was no longer comprehensible even for vaccination advocates.
And where activists within the Catholic Church uncovered that there were substances in
there that were supposed to cause infertility.
The whole thing was then stopped accordingly, of course.
That was no longer tenable after it was exposed.
And vaccination skepticism, to put it mildly, is now extremely high in these so-called developing countries.
In other words, if they see a vaccination team with white people arriving, that's enough for them.
Vaccination teams have been beaten up time and again and have returned without having achieved anything.
I believe that acceptance among the population has actually fallen to almost zero over the last few decades.
You can now see that a completely pointless vaccination campaign like the one in Gaza could only be carried out
under the completely grotesque conditions of the ceasefire - where people couldn't actually run away.
And perhaps this truce gave them another chance to catch their breath and get some food and fresh water.
But on the condition that they also take one of these vaccinations for their children with them.
So it was obviously only possible under these forced conditions, because in other countries where the
population can still flee, they would immediately flee.
If I may interrupt briefly, that's what got me going in Gaza - that would actually have been a topic I wanted to come back to.
I was very surprised why the West is now staging itself as the great benefactors who vaccinate these poor children.
Which vaccination was that? And does this vaccination have any basis for saying that it is useful for humans?
Yes, so that's polio, which is completely absurd.
First of all, contrary to this constant mainstream assertion, polio is not an infectious disease, not a viral disease.
Rather, polio is a phenomenon, namely flaccid paralysis, which occurs due to the influence of toxins.
In the first half of the 20th century, these pesticides were used in agriculture, first
on the basis of arsenic, then later this DDT.
But other toxins can also cause flaccid paralysis at any age, because the toxins that are used are
generally all toxins that affect the nerve cells.
And of course the smaller the child, i.e. the younger the person, the less distribution
volume they have, the more toxic they are.
And that's why polio mainly affected children back then, although there were always sick adults too.
In any case, polio doesn't make sense because you can't prevent poisoning with any kind of vaccination, it's impossible.
And the second thing is that certain diseases naturally occur in emergency areas, infectious diseases
caused by water contamination and food shortages.
Then there's influenza, all the diarrheal diseases, all these illnesses - let's just think of cholera and typhoid,
that's really it - or dysentery, which are dangerous when there's a war somewhere, a risk of epidemics.
But polio does not occur unless, for example, poison gas is used.
If poison gas were used, there would of course also be nerve poisoning and corresponding paralysis, which could
then of course be attributed to polio by saying that poliovirus markers had been found somewhere in the sewage.
But basically, as we know from war zones, there has never been a polio paralysis epidemic in
connection with hostilities in all the centuries.
So this again shows quite clearly that there is a completely different agenda at work here and that we have to assume
a damaging agenda, an infertility agenda in the population.
Have you fully read up on the arguments for vaccinating against polio in this war zone?
And that also seems very strange to me. There would have to be some kind of figures to
show that such cases really do occur there.
Yes, as far as I know, there has been talk of a single case that would have occurred, whatever caused this paralysis.
And this single case would threaten to cause an immediate mass epidemic.
So we don't need much these days. It's the famous sack of rice that falls over somewhere and people react immediately.
This is the typical behavior of the World Health Organization, that nothing actually has to be.
We know from the Covid-19 test cases that there were around 7,000 people who tested positive - we don't even
know if there was a sick person among them - when the pandemic was declared worldwide.
And the fact that measles, for example, has recently been reported again, stating that
measles cases have increased by 20 percent worldwide.
But if you then read through the World Health Organization's publication, you realize that it is about
simulations, that there are no real figures behind it.
And it is even stated in this paper - because the real observation figures that have been reported worldwide would actually
underestimate the scenario - extrapolations have been made.
So that is the second meaning of the word extrapolation, that simulation models have now generated figures that
cannot be correct at all. And you can then consider individual countries and the number of deaths.
This does not fit in at all with the published data of the last few decades, where a few hundred cases have occurred
somewhere, tens of thousands of cases would then have to occur every year for this risk to the population to exist at all.
So we see that it doesn't depend on real incidents at all, but you just kick them off and claim them.
And if they do some test that says nothing - as we know with Covid, a PCR test, they can immediately
publish cases that supposedly exist and that never existed.
And then it's in all the newspapers around the world and the disaster is there - and fear arises.
That's why we mentioned this in our epidemic story in the book "Hauptsache Panik" ("The main
thing is panic"), which is the crucial point.
People only ever try to create fear, because fear makes people stop thinking clearly.
And it's very easy to create fear in the media today by publishing figures, huge dangers and potentials, even
though no one on the ground can even check whether they exist.
And when someone does it, they realize that it's nothing.
The problem always seems to be where you are not.
The problems seem to be these mathematical games, which we have seen in the Covid pandemic, in the so-called.
But we see it in the same way with the climate issue, where panic is also created by some
calculations that are not at all visible in practice.
And there is manipulation everywhere, including at the entry points.
With these pandemic stories, for example, I don't trust these measurements in wastewater at all.
I have also calculated this physically.
That would be like throwing a sugar crystal into a swimming pool and on the other hand I can measure it,
I cannot. Several scientists have also told me this.
Well, I think that's hocus pocus.
It's the same with 20 measuring stations in the sea to determine the temperature and say
we know what it was like 100,000 years ago.
So this is all nonsense, these measurements. Maybe we'll come back to the subject of measles.
This is also a recurring issue in Germany at the moment, because there is an indirect vaccination obligation, so to speak.
And there is one thing that interests me, I think I heard it from you at an MWGFD event:
These childhood diseases could actually also have a positive effect on humans. Is that true?
Yes, the childhood diseases are as old as historiography actually allows any evidence for them.
They have always existed and, unlike in our time, they have never been declared a problem.
So we know descriptions of measles, smallpox, scarlet fever and rubella from earlier centuries,
where we can deduce that these diseases were involved.
But firstly, it was said that these are childhood illnesses and the children will survive the whole thing.
And we were the first to say that yes, adults are also at risk.
And secondly, that it would be lethal.
So absurd things have already been said about measles, even in the current context, that one in 100 measles sufferers would die,
although we have been talking about one in 1,000 all these years.
But this is no longer true for industrialized countries. At best one in 5,000, which would mean that with 50
measles cases in Germany, one death occurs every 100 years.
And then there is the big question of whether this death was actually due to the disease.
Because you could only say that if the disease remained untreated. And in the untreated course, someone goes from life to death.
But who remains untreated? No one in the industrialized countries.
This means that treatments are carried out. And all these treatments have risks.
And in the case of measles in particular, there are a few studies that have established that this extremely high fever,
which can go up to 41 degrees for a short time, is a very important healing reaction for the sick person.
And when this fever spurt is over, the disease is gone and you survive the whole thing.
And it's over and you have lifelong immunity.
For many generations, however, medicine has had no other aim than to eliminate symptoms, including fever.
This means that even at a body temperature of 38.5 degrees, an elevated body
temperature is already being combated to reduce fever.
And this also disrupts the body's healing mechanisms, so it must be assumed that the few deaths that do
occur are actually due to such incorrect treatments.
Not to mention the fact that other drugs are used experimentally, which can also have harmful
and fatal consequences, especially in children.
But you have to see that in context.
So I know of some of the deaths that have been claimed in Germany in the last 20 years, which would have occurred in adults due to
measles, that these were cases where the adults were vaccinated because they were afraid of a measles infection because
the child had been ill, and they then died shortly afterwards.
Where you have to say, yes, was it the measles that wasn't even there yet? Or was it the vaccination?
So it was almost certainly the vaccination, which is also contraindicated according to conventional medicine, if there is
an epidemic, if a possible infection is imminent, then you shouldn't have a
vaccination, even if you believe in vaccinations.
And that has now been done again with Covid-19.
A global pandemic is claimed and a vaccination campaign is carried out.
This is against the rules of conventional medicine, which has repeatedly propagated these vaccinations for 300 years.
Many of the things that move people have a very nice story behind them.
And the story behind it - because vaccinations sound nice:
You are immunized with a small amount of a substance, and then you can acquire a certain immunity.
What strikes me, and what is not discussed enough, is the fact that people forget how diseases get into the body.
The diseases don't come through injections into any muscle or into the bloodstream, but through the nose,
through the mouth, through the mucous membranes, wherever.
And here the question is whether a functioning vaccination, if there is such a thing, should not start there.
Yes, that is a very important point that you raise.
It is completely unnatural to use either a knife or a needle to introduce any toxic substances into the body.
That is bodily injury and nothing else. And that is an alarm situation for the body.
Similarly, if we have a fall on our bike, scrape our knee and then some dirt particles on the road get into the
tissue, the immune system has to react as much as possible.
But this is not the natural situation with an infectious disease.
The infectious disease, as you rightly said, is somehow absorbed through the skin, through the mucous membranes.
Many mechanisms are still unclear today. And there are defense mechanisms there.
This is what our biology and that of other mammals on this planet specializes in.
And if I now inject a substance somewhere into the tissue in a shoulder muscle that might actually trigger a meaningful
mechanism in the immune system, this does not mean that anything will actually happen at the normal entry site.
The American vaccination apologist, Mr. Fauci, admitted very belatedly that it actually makes no sense.
That, if anything, it would be done via the nasal mucous membranes, via a spray and the like.
But obviously they couldn't. They still can't today. It doesn't work.
There is simply no evidence that these measures actually make sense. And about 250 years ago, there was an English surgeon who
proved this with these smallpox vaccinations by putting this smallpox substrate, this
smallpox pus, into the skin without it bleeding.
Or deeper under the skin and into the muscles and he then observed what happened.
And the desired reaction, that these vaccine pocks appeared, only happened when he put it into the skin, but not in depth.
From this he concluded that a smallpox vaccination only produces the desired immune response and is not
dangerous because it remains in the skin and no blood flows.
And that is a basic finding, because what triggers the immune response in us is the skin or the mucous membrane.
But not the subcutaneous fatty tissue and not the muscles.
And I would venture to say that if what they called Covid vaccinations had only been given into the skin today,
without blood contact anywhere, we would have had no benefit.
But we probably wouldn't have seen anyone dead or sick.
The damage would probably have been less, yes.
The deal could have been made.
This brings us back to the initial point of our discussion, that it's not just about business, obviously.
Because if you only wanted to do business with Covid-19 vaccinations, you could have just used saline solutions.
Then it would have gone very well. There would have been no development work.
No damage would have been done. And everyone would have been happy.
You could have started the next action.
But if we're honest, that would have been noticeable.
Of course, it must be expected that someone in some laboratory will investigate.
But it took a long time for things to come out.
And quite a few of these batches were obviously placebos, as the study showed. Nobody was bothered.
And if there is no damage in the end - we see that, indemnification, all these things.
So you could have made a very good deal without the potential for damage.
And that's why the business alone is no explanation.
Of course, the involvement of the military suggests that something more serious is going wrong.
The generals were active everywhere, in America as well as in Germany and Austria.
This raises the question of why health agents are a military issue on this scale.
That too can be explained in a way that makes sense, because it was such a great threat, such a great danger.
But we have seen two things and we could come back to that.
On the one hand, this alleged Covid disease, which didn't really hit the mark after all.
People have not died, there is no relevant excess mortality anywhere. That's one side of it.
But the second side is also, and here we are perhaps speaking a little against our own reasoning:
These vaccinations that we know don't work, they don't produce the effect we were promised, but they don't actually kill much.
That has to be said so provocatively. Far too few people die from it.
Of course it's bad, from the first death, from the first injured party. That's quite clear.
And no state has the right to kill or injure anyone - arbitrarily.
But the truth is, what we feared, what great minds like Professor Bhakdi feared, that people would die like flies, that
half of those vaccinated would drop dead, that has not happened.
Yes, but I don't think that's due to these vaccinations.
Some were given as placebos, others were obviously also given at very low doses, which only had a limited potential for
harm, but many vaccinations did not take place in this sense.
First of all, there are statistics showing that vaccine damage is much lower in warm
countries where the cold chain could not be maintained.
That was not planned. Then much more would have happened.
And the other thing is that the potential for damage is not over yet.
Because we can still see that the deaths and infertility are continuing.
Birth rates are still in the basement.
In other words, this is a very long-term effect that has been planned.
And, of course, there is also the point that there have been many fake vaccinations.
So in Germany, the assumption is 10 to 15 million.
Perhaps there are also significantly more fake vaccination certificates from people
who have not received a vaccine after all.
And that, of course, explains why the damage is not even greater.
If this had been carried out in such a way that really everyone had received these injections, even with a
certain placebo component, then we would have had a completely different mortality rate.
And it was planned anyway, and will continue to take place in some form, that such
injections will take place on a repetitive basis.
As they say, you should be vaccinated at least once a year against such respiratory diseases.
And then, of course, this damage potential increases.
We have also seen that two, three or four injections immediately lead to an exponential increase in the number of diseases that
are then - even with such a mixed chronic picture of the most diverse diseases, which also cause different symptoms due to
vascular damage in different organs - no longer assigned at all.
And that was certainly the important thing about the damage principle, that you cannot simply assign it to a clear mechanism
with a clinical picture, but that you can say at the end:
Well, the diseases that we already knew before, certain types of cancer, heart attacks and strokes, are
just a bit more common, but they are the same diseases.
What should this have to do with our injections?
Concealment is a very important aspect of this.
What's very strange about the whole thing is that everyone really should be vaccinated.
This rolling out over billions of people can no longer be explained by logic.
And it is also very difficult or even impossible to explain why everyone played along.
I think that was on many people's minds in the first few months of this pandemic.
How can it be that hostile power blocs are all saying, yay, we'll join in, we'll inject our population with various means.
But still, basically just about everyone played along.
Our time is already very advanced.
I would still be interested in a topic that we discussed in advance.
It's all about social policy. Where is society heading?
And you have made a very interesting comparison with the past, that these smart cities that are now being
planned, 15-minute cities, are not a new concept, but that you could actually see this in the Middle Ages.
Yes, the freedom of movement that we have come to know in recent decades, that we can move freely in any direction at any
time, not just locally, and even simply get on transport and move to other continents, has not existed for a long time.
And not just because traveling was very expensive and the appropriate means of transport were not
available, but because it was simply not permitted.
At that time, especially in the German lands, there were many small principalities, especially when they were
created as dominions around 1000 years ago after the takeover of Europe by Scandinavian knights and monks.
These were areas, maybe 10, 20 kilometers in diameter, that was the entire dominion.
And only the lords, i.e. the nobility, who could move freely, were allowed to leave.
But ordinary citizens, farmers and those who lived in an urban settlement were only allowed to do so with express
permission. Otherwise you were immediately sent to prison.
There is also the well-known incident with the composer Johann Sebastian Bach, who also moved away from his Duchy of Weimar.
And then he was simply put in the hole for four weeks and his wife didn't know where he actually was or
whether he would come back. So that was the normal case.
And especially those who lived in fortified cities had city walls for protection - just as we are now always promised
protection everywhere - so that the enemies wouldn't come.
But where it's not so easy to get in, it's not so easy to get out.
In other words, these city gates were also closed at night. Nobody could get out.
In other words, you could only get out there during the day at best, and even then you couldn't just move around freely.
You had to have a good reason for leaving the city somewhere.
If someone had a field to cultivate outside, that was a good reason.
Reminds me of the Covid era, when it was called ... - I'm still thinking of former Federal Chancellor Kurz, who
philosophized about whether going for a walk was a good enough reason to leave the front door.
Of course, it was basically similar there.
In other words, the towns were all very small - 5000 inhabitants and with a wall around them - you can imagine.
Those were the famous 15 minutes that are now being offered to the public again.
You could certainly move around to some extent, but not beyond that.
And that is precisely this control of movement, a very important element of authoritarian societies.
And that alone shows where the whole thing is heading.
It's not about protecting people, it's about control.
And if we also go back to 1989, when the wall in Germany, the GDR, fell.
One of the main reasons at the time was the restricted freedom of movement.
The freedom to travel was the main reason that ultimately caused this barrel to overflow.
Not the lack of freedom or any other more abstract things, but the fact that people didn't just want to travel to
other Eastern Bloc countries, but also to the West, somewhere in the South Seas or somewhere else.
People must have looked with envy at the West, where freedom of movement was permitted within a short time frame.
It's getting less and less now, air travel is supposed to stop.
But DDR is a very good topic. Maybe we'll do that briefly.
We are always promised that we will be protected.
They want to protect us from climate change and viruses and all sorts of things.
We are such poor people who can't do anything on our own, and we need a state to protect us.
And this is allegedly how the GDR dictatorship was established.
The fact that many companies were privatized - or all of them, or expropriated, it has to be said - was
also the background to the hygiene dictatorship there.
So more and more things have been developed and invented where entrepreneurs have to pay attention and invest.
And even back then, it was all about protecting people and keeping them healthy.
What you say is absolutely right.
In the GDR, when they wanted to create this model socialist state - the conditions were similar to those in the West after the war
- the idea was that there would still be private businesses in agriculture, trade and
industry, which they wanted to nationalize.
And there, too, you could of course act compulsorily, and in some cases you did.
So in the border zone with West Germany, people were simply deported and working capital was simply expropriated.
But otherwise, in terms of society as a whole, it was not and could not be done so easily.
And then you have to find reasons.
Just as you can now find reasons to say:
Yes, we don't want to do you any harm, it's for your own good.
And health is always a good argument.
The state cares about health - vaccinations would be health and screenings would be health and all these things - although
at the end of the day it's just control and surveillance.
And that's how the whole thing was abused back then in the GDR. And created hygiene regulations that were
increasingly difficult to comply with, as we are now experiencing with medium-sized companies.
Not just health, but think of all the quality certifications.
Now product safety, for example. Ever stricter requirements that are increasingly ridiculous. I've seen it now:
If someone now sells a music CD, he must also have a picture at the bottom of his Internet
catalog showing the CD cover and the CD itself.
It's exactly the same with every CD, but it doesn't matter, it has to be mapped.
This means that additional processes must be carried out.
Descriptions have to be expanded. It all costs money - and does no good.
Large companies can still manage this somewhere within the scope of their profits.
They also usually have sufficient personnel resources.
But the small company with three, four, five, ten employees is actually already on the
brink, it can no longer cope and then it stops.
Okay. And then you've lost a few companies again.
And that's how they sorted it out in the GDR back then.
And so we are now seeing a "cleansing" - in quotation marks - of these small and medium-sized companies in our society too.
And medicine in particular is always something that is considered a "measure" more easily than others.
Because everyone immediately says - as medicalized as society is: "Yes, if it's good for
our health, then we have to go along with it."
The fact that it then costs the company its existence is another matter.
Then I would like to close with a note:
There are numerous exciting books by Dr. Reuther.
You can find them in our article, on the Internet or on Amazon. But I think it pays off.
We got a brief insight into how many topics there are worth knowing about medicine.
And I personally always want more when I listen to you.
Yes, I'm pleased. Thank you for the interview.
Thank you.
Truly independent journalism is only possible with your support.
The undemocratic measures taken against Report24 repeatedly include account terminations.
Please always check our current bank details at report24.news//support. Thank you very much.