I am very pleased to welcome the investigative filmmaker Klaus Scheidsteger for an interview here at Kla.tv today.
Mr Scheidsteger, many of our viewers do not know you yet.
Can you briefly introduce yourself and tell us something about your career?
Yes, I am very pleased to do that. Thank you for inviting me to the interview.
That has been happening more and more lately. I am pleased too, of course.
By trade, I am actually a television journalist.
I studied journalism at the University of Dortmund and was part of the first cohort back then.
And this new orientation of my practice-oriented studies ended after my intermediate diploma in a traineeship, which I
was able to complete at Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne.
That was at a time when there were no private broadcasters.
So, that was still wishful thinking for reporters.
Anyone who had a good idea was allowed to implement it and was not censored or anything else.
And that was just a good time, those were the apprenticeship years that I really enjoyed.
And the next development was then, when the private broadcasters were licensed, I founded my own film production
company in my home town of Essen when I was 30, in 1984.
From there, I produced international news, reports and documentaries with my own
technology and my own team, which was a lot of fun.
For a while, until around the mid-90s, things started to change.
So according to the motto, we now know what the viewer wants to see, and stop with your
intellectual nonsense, nobody wants to see it.
Ok
Thus, I reduced the company for a while and produced for Arte.
It was still a very open-minded station, but let us just say that what I had once learned had gradually been lost.
So everyone also thought they could be reporters.
And what used to be teamwork - a camera team there, an editor there - step by step had to be done by one person.
Of course, digitalization also gave rise to this street. But in terms of content, it actually got worse and worse.
But what was and still is important is that I had a great education.
Your reports and documentaries have been focusing on mobile communications for around 20 years now.
How did you come to recognize the mission for your life in this particular area?
So it was actually the case that electro-hypersensitive people approached me in the private sector.
They said they could feel that I was carrying a cell phone. And at first I thought they were a little crazy.
But at the next meeting, these people gave me a book by an American scientist named Dr. George Carlo, who had once done
research on behalf of the industry between 1993 and 1999 and had written this book together with a Washington Post journalist
named Martin Schram, where he had then started his own experience with the industry - the industry was his client.
He had found problems, and these were not communicated to the public in the form that would have been necessary.
And this George Carlo had two main focuses in his life: he had studied Medicine and Law.
And they had chosen the wrong sparring partner.
The man then went ahead and tried to organize lawsuits against the large mobile communications industry, to help
structure them and also to drive the whole thing forward on the basis of his scientific findings.
In other words, it was a great story that, strangely enough, nobody cared about.
And then I gradually worked my way into the subject, which has an incredibly wide range.
Yes, your films have brought you into contact with renowned experts in this field. You just mentioned George Carlo.
Can you say a few words about this? What other experts have you met and what views do these scientists hold?
My very first film, which was shown on French television in 2006, actually focused on the lawsuits against
the mobile phone industry, based on scientific findings.
And the whole thing was carried by the story of George Carlo, who was discredited after he went public.
Actually with important consumer-protecting information from its own science, which was financed
by the industry but then brought fatal results.
And in the course of this, let us say, first story, which was broadcast in 2006 on the French state broadcaster France Deux, I
got to know one or two scientists with the help of George Carlo, who had not only found problems back
then, but also solutions. That was also very interesting.
There was the so-called Noise Field at the University of Washington.
The people who had once found this, incidentally also on behalf of the industry, namely the military, then also spoke openly.
They told me that this was the supplier for the military - it was Motorola. Motorola is the pioneer in mobile communications.
And Motorola was the client to see if something could be found to render the rays ineffective while still creating communication.
And they then researched this for ten years and found the so-called Noise Field.
And when they presented this to Motorola, the technicians were initially very enthusiastic.
There is a Professor Lipowitz, who is also known to the researchers and is now deceased.
But his successor then took the whole thing further.
Motorola's enthusiastic technicians were then gradually replaced by lawyers, and then at some point they
said: "What you have discovered here does not exist".
However, the military used it to protect their own guys, so to speak from the rays.
But they did not release the whole thing because there must not be any problems, because simultaneously
charges are pending, and the huge class action lawsuits would cause the whole industry to collapse.
So, that was very exciting.
In the course of my further work, I was able to get to know European research in
particular, because George Carlo then consulted them.
There is the film "Thank You for Calling", where I show this a little and go into the laboratories of people like Kundi and
Moosgöller, Michael Kundi from MedUni Vienna, an occupational physician who has also
carried out research on behalf of the state.
Then there are people like Willi Moosgöller, who is actually a cancer researcher.
That is how I got to know Professor Adlkofer.
Big names - that means something to people who are slightly familiar with the subject.
He had initiated the Reflex Study, a European study, which was later tried to be discredited
as commissioned research or falsified research.
Well, that was very interesting. You find this pattern again and again.
All the people who have found something are being fought by the lobby with huge financial support from the
industry, and some of them are even being taken away.
This really is a disastrous situation, especially for us consumers.
But we also have radiation protection in Germany and they do it well - they protect the radiation.
Yes, you have already anticipated the next question a little with your comments.
The other so-called scientists almost all give the all-clear on the subject of mobile communications.
I think the reasons are already obvious from what has just been said.
Yes, there are very interesting books on this. It is not just a phenomenon that can now be found in mobile communications.
It is similar in industry, the food industry and so on.
Well, there are two books by Professor Kreis, who also appears in my latest film "The Digital Dilemma".
Christian Kreis has written: "Purchased Research" and "Purchased Science."
And he describes very clearly how people who do not go along, so to speak, are discredited,
transferred, threatened. There really are different scenarios.
And at the beginning, I was still very naive. I could not even imagine that there was such malice.
But unfortunately, that is the way it is, because - of course - we have a global industry. We have
fascinating technology, there is no question about that.
You and I are talking about this digital opportunity and so on and so forth.
We all use a cell phone. We are not against it.
But what we have seen in individual cases is sometimes very difficult to uncover.
But there is, for example, the so-called ICNIRP - the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
And the ICNIRP is based at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection and is financed by German taxpayers' money.
There is the so-called ICNIRP report by a colleague from Munich, Professor Buchner, in combination with a deceased
Member of European Parliament from France, Michelle Rivasi.
This can also be downloaded as a PDF from the Competence Initiative.
The individual members of this commission, which sets international radiation protection and limit
values, were investigated and it turned out that they all have connections to industry.
Therefore also being paid by the industry, these are simply facts that have been created here.
And it might be interesting for people who are interested to take a closer look at this so-called ICNIRP report,
because you will quickly find what you are looking for.
And a group of colleagues called Investigate Europe has summarized this very nicely.
And in my new movie, I show that too. So, das-digitale-dilemma.de (always with a minus sign in between) provides a
lot of information, if I may do a bit of self-promotion.
Yes, with pleasure.
Yes, although your documentaries were actually always highly explosive, above all in terms of health for all people, it was
only shown once - you mentioned it earlier - in a documentary on French TV and only in abridged form on
German TV and without any kind of programme announcement.
What experiences have you had as an insider with the so-called mainstream when it comes to mobile communications?
Yes, that was a very intense experience.
Well, the very first film was a commissioned production by France Deux in Paris. There was still a
very open-minded documentary film director back then.
And he said: Look, you are German, maybe you have a combination opportunity, a co-production opportunity with ARD, for
example. I know someone, an open-minded editor-in-chief at MDR.
And I knew her, too, got in touch, and then she said: "Okay, we'll do it. We need 45 minutes."
The French needed 50 to 52 minutes for their broadcast format.
And I was promised that the whole thing would also be shown on ARD, i.e. in the first programme.
The French showed it in prime time. And it was also repeated several times.
For the Germans, the movie initially was locked away in the poison cabinet.
Ok
But I may also say that the film had the title that was also announced in the newspapers: Portables en
Accusation - in other words, cell phones under fire.
And this title was changed slightly on the evening of the broadcast under pressure from the industry's lawyers.
It said: USA: Cell phones in the Indictment.
And we had to accept the fact that we included a typeface in the credits that stated the WHO has everything under control.
So, there is actually no real problem.
Even though everything that the movie shows happens over there, we had to put this addition
in there to calm the audience down, so to speak.
The in-house lawyers at the broadcaster were really in a headlock. And I had to go along with it.
I had the chance to say, okay, then we will not broadcast it at all.
Or I can go along with these small changes. So that is where it started, it actually is an interesting topic.
An incredible amount of money is made there. And people do not like the fact that this is being disrupted.
Well, the first critical contribution ever was on a talk show in America in 1993.
As a result, Motorola shares fell by 10 % within a week.
And of course they reacted and filled all the positions in such a way that nothing would go
wrong and then followed this up in the media.
Because the following then happened at ARD, i.e. slash MDR.
They did not inform me at all. They always said: Okay, we shall broadcast it at some point, we will let you know then.
And towards the end of the year, I got a call from a secretary the day before the show was due to air, who said:
We will be showing it tomorrow, but we have cut 30 minutes - or no, shortened it to 30 minutes.
I had delivered the 45 minutes they wanted and had been paid for these.
And then I saw that there was no programme announcement for this contribution.
Then, I called my colleagues at Süddeutsche Zeitung. Because there was still a very interesting media
section there at the time, including a critical one.
And I drew their attention to this connection.
And then they reached out to the broadcaster and, unlike me, they got a statement that
said: The movie lacked a German connection.
And then, the following day, I watched the movie at 10 a.m. broadcast time.
The German reference was indeed missing, they had cut it out themselves.
Well, that is what I experienced, so it is actually unbelievable.
But that is how censorship measures started 20 years ago. And after that, I took a closer look at what that had to do with.
They had T-Mobile as a partner for the Bundesliga football tournaments that year.
Now, they could not make the best customer, the best advertising customer - who left a few hundred million a year and could
therefore support them for the Bundesliga rights - look bad.
In this respect, the German reference was deliberately missing.
So, yes, today, I can laugh about it. Back then, I thought, my God, what are you doing?
Actually, I did not learn it that way.
Yes. As a journalist, what possibilities do you see for our viewers to counteract these machinations of the censorship media?
Well, you are already taking advantage of the opportunities that exist so far.
Well, I also had a bit of a stomach ache, because I would say that overall there is a lot of denigration, even among people who
are critical of mobile communications, for example, you are not universally popular, which is
actually a great shame. The drudge knows why.
But shots are fired wherever possible.
And so I also felt that to an extent where I really thought, enough is enough.
And the only chance at the moment seems to me to lie in the competence and power of the alternative media in particular.
And I also looked at the event in Prague, for example, where Auf1 organized this AWEF. You were there.
And there were some colleagues present who simply spoke plainly and explained things as
they should. And they are no longer allowed.
So, you should actually invite people, who have participated there, almost every week.
But it is always the same faces from politics. In the meantime, they are really playing a
double game, industry, politics and the media.
It has slipped down to a level that is unbearable.
So if you know a bit about journalistic work, according to the motto... what I felt, my colleagues also told
me quite clearly: if you do not play along, you are out.
I am out of the game. And I am glad about this.
But now I am in, Martin.
Yes, let me put it this way. I get the impression that critical minds are unwelcome.
I often get the impression that the same people are always invited to talk shows, which are on somewhere every
day, but instead of letting it rip and allowing other opinions to be heard, they are framed. Well, that anyway.
And these are simply conditions that are no longer democratic in my eyes. And I find them very, very sad.
I am hugely disappointed, too. As an observer, you have so many different positions, and I
cannot even watch the normal programme anymore.
Because there is always this kind of framing.
Let me give you a keyword: the Russian war of aggression. Yes, that is hammered home every few sentences.
And it is only at this level that this kind of thing happens and is used manipulatively, right down to the
feuilletonistic area, to perhaps get people in the mood.
And that is simply a wrong and non-objective way of conveying information.
And I do not see the admission of critical minds, even in the so-called talk shows, and I find it extremely sad.
So at the beginning of the Covid-era, there were one or two critical representatives like Wolfgang Wodarg or others.
You saw him again at the beginning until he was silenced by the media.
On the contrary, people like Sucharit Bhakdi have even been legally prosecuted and shut down or tried to shut him down.
And they are such wonderful people. What are you doing there?
So, to me, that is incredible. But also such standard margins.
Yes, and I think something has to be done to counteract that, and it actually works quite well.
So, I think there are a lot of us who will not be fooled anymore and who still do our thing, everyone in their own way.
There is a wide variety of temperaments and skills.
But I think i is called democratic media behaviour, I think it is pleasant and colouful, that is how it should be.
And that is where I try to do my thing. With the help of wonderful associations, too, e.g. the WIR association in Switzerland.
These are people who are so multi-active.
But because I did something together with them and got it off the ground thanks to their help, I
am also being pushed into the right-wing corner.
So, from their own ranks! This is so outrageous, so ridiculous, so embarrassing.
But well, I do not want to operate with anger either.
What we need is consumer education, consumer protection. To achieve this, consumers need to form
their own opinions. And not just on the daily news.
Yes, I think that among all these other people, what I think has resonated so well at this AWEF is simply this solidarity.
This solidarity of all the people who are still trying to form an opinion somewhere and also support it.
And I think that is happening more and more, that these sensitivities, which are sometimes there, are really, I would
say, that he does it more in such a way and he does it more in such a way, that it does not really matter,
but you have one goal: to inform people comprehensively.
And everyone has to form their own opinion anyway. That is not an issue.
Yes, Mr Scheidsteger, thank you very much for this brief interview, and we wish you continued success with the things
you do, and that you continue to take a critical approach.
Thank you very much and all the best. Yes, with pleasure.