"Ignorance or not knowing is powerlessness.
People are powerless because they don't understand anything about infections or don't
understand enough. And they can't see through the lies."
"The problem is that you can earn an incredible amount of money with infectious diseases, which most people don't even realize."
I would like to welcome Prof. Dr. Bhakdi and Dr. Köhnlein to our Kla.TV interview.
Nice to have you as our guest again.
Both of them have already spoken at the anti-censorship conference on important medical topics.
And you two were also the first experts to speak out during the coronavirus crisis, when we all
couldn't really understand what was happening around us.
They then appeared on Kla.TV, with us on March 15 and 30, 2020 - in the broadcasts, and further interviews followed later.
For those viewers who don't know you yet: Dr. Köhnlein, you are a specialist in internal medicine and sports medicine and
have worked as an internist in your own practice for decades.
Prof. Dr. Bhakdi, you have trained medical students for decades as a professor and chairman at the
Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz.
You were editor-in-chief of the medical journal "Medical Microbiology and Immunology" and have received
countless awards for your research, thereby enriching the fundamental understanding of our immune system.
You two have published a new book, together with your wife (Prof. Bhakdi) Dr. Reiß, called: "Understanding infection
- instead of fearing it. Myths, delusions and reality".
My first question: Prof. Bhakdi, what was your motivation for writing this book?
Well, I published a book with my wife ten years ago.
It was called "The spectre of infections. Myths, delusions and reality."
And we wrote the book back then because I had retired, and my wife told me:
"You should write down your lectures for the general public.
Everything about infections that people in this country want and should know.
And that is reality, and then point out what is not reality, namely myths." And that's what I did.
And this book was on the market for ten years.
Didn't sell so well, but that doesn't matter.
But in there I have given an overview of all the important infectious diseases in this country. How to prevent them.
Why are certain bacteria and viruses dangerous? Why are the others not dangerous?
How do they make us ill? And how can this be prevented?
And this necessarily included addressing the topic of vaccination.
So that the vaccination issue was completely dealt with for everyone.
Then came Corona. And long story short:
In five years of corona, I realized that what we wrote in the first book had to be revised.
As a matter of urgency. Because I obviously haven't conveyed any really sound knowledge.
I made a mistake. Because I hadn't educated myself sufficiently.
I taught this chapter, this subject, for over 20 years.
And then I realized that there were fundamental things that I hadn't realized, that weren't right.
And you know, my mother was my first teacher.
She was a doctor. And she told me when I was little - I knew I wanted to be a doctor.
She said: "You're going to be a doctor. Remember, a doctor can't be afraid of anything. Of nothing.
Only one thing, namely that he makes a mistake.
And says something wrong in relation to medical treatment.
And if you do, you have to make sure you correct it."
And that's why I told my wife we had to republish this book.
And we need to introduce improvements so that it provides the right level of knowledge.
And at that time we were friends with him, Klaus (Dr. Köhnlein), close friends.
And I said there's a person here who expressed skepticism decades ago about this issue that is here.
And he's always been right. Shouldn't we perhaps ask him to join us?
And that's what happened. And he said: "Yeah, right!"
And so he is the third author of the new book, which was published the day before yesterday.
As an internist, I didn't have much to do with vaccinations.
I didn't actually bother with vaccinations until we had children.
And my first daughter was supposed to get a BCG vaccination straight after birth.
And then I intuitively said: we don't want to do that now.
I really don't see tuberculosis as a threat to my daughter.
At that time I didn't know that the BCG vaccination, that there was a study where they actually did a placebo-controlled study
- which is rare for vaccination - to test the BCG vaccination.
That was in India, where they vaccinated a large population and did not vaccinate a large population.
And the result was indeed that the vaccinated population had more BCG tuberculosis infections than the unvaccinated population.
This was then widely published in the Lancet under the title "Bad News from India".
And it took another 13 years, I think, from this publication until the German pediatricians were ready to stop this vaccination.
And she was still to have my first daughter.
The second time I asked, I had already become more critical, so I asked, what about the BCG vaccination?
The answer came back indignantly: "No, we haven't done that for a long time.
Very good. Let's take another step back.
Diseases and infections have been the spectre of mankind for centuries.
There were epidemics: Plague, cholera and tuberculosis were the main causes of death.
Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, these diseases suddenly began to decline sharply.
And today, driving a car is more dangerous than getting measles, for example, or even the dreaded tetanus.
But the fear of infectious diseases is still unbroken, as we have seen during the coronavirus years.
Can you perhaps tell us why this is the case?
Well, the problem is that most people don't realize that you can make an incredible amount of money with infectious
diseases, that you can make an insane amount of money.
With infectious diseases, there are always antibody measurements involved, there are laboratory measurements
involved, there are antiviral drugs involved nowadays.
And that was the topic that basically got me started.
At the time, this was the AIDS problem, which seemed so dangerous due to massive overtreatment.
In reality, it was just an ACT disaster back then.
It was this antiviral drug that came onto the market in an overdose, rather than the AIDS problem itself.
This was actually only due to small circles.
But the AIDS problem, as I said, was predominantly an ACT disaster.
And since this is no longer given, it has also become quiet.
But the CDC, the disease authorities, ran out of epidemics back then.
And AIDS was a lifeline, so to speak.
After polio and smallpox, there was nothing left.
Then there was the "Legionnaires' pneumonia" , which was stylized into an epidemic that was not an epidemic.
It was just a bunch of old, rather unhealthy legionnaires getting together and partying and drinking and smoking a lot.
And afterwards a few of them had pneumonia.
But then the CDC came on the scene and found a previously unknown bacterium, then logically named it "Legionella pneumophila" and
made it the causative agent of this Legionnaires' pneumonia, although the reason was simply
the weakening immune system of those affected.
And that is generally the problem with infectious diseases, that they can't actually do anything to
us as long as our immune system is working well.
And if it weakens, then something like this can happen.
Then you can become infected.
And with AIDS in particular, if drugs are abused a lot, you can get so-called opportunistic diseases.
These are diseases that you only get when your immune system is down.
Yes, I would like to say something more about that.
The problem is that the major epidemics were caused by pathogens that were able to spread very easily.
In principle, there were only two ways to do this, either water or air.
In other words, it is transmitted from person to person by coughing or sneezing.
When there was the plague, people who were sick with the plague coughed on others, and the bacteria got to them through the air.
The mechanisms and pathways of most of the really important infectious diseases are now known.
We know that the water has to be treated, and that is why there is no more cholera. There is no more cholera.
You know that if someone coughs and has the plague, then the person who has been coughed on must be given an antibiotic.
There is no more plague anyway, because we know how the plague is transmitted, namely by rats and
fleas, and where there are no rats, there is no plague.
Where there is the plague and antibiotics, the plague cannot be passed on.
But that means that because the ways are known, you know how to prevent something.
And this prevention is not always achieved through vaccination, but rarely through vaccination.
I would like to make one thing clear:
It is not the case that - because tetanus, for example, has become so rare here - that tetanus is not dangerous.
Tetanus is just as dangerous today as it was 100 years ago.
Just as dangerous. And when it occurs, people are at risk.
So, now I come to a very important topic, namely vaccination. Why did we have to revise so much?
Because I myself have realized that the three pillars on which a vaccination recommendation must stand - before a
vaccination recommendation is made - are: Firstly, necessity.
When is a vaccination even necessary? When a disease is really life-threatening.
If a disease is not life-threatening, then there is no need to vaccinate. And then you should keep your hands off it.
One pillar must not be missing. The second pillar is effectiveness.
Effectiveness means that the number of seriously ill and dead people must be significantly reduced.
Now you have to imagine that we have an infection that does not cause any deaths.
Or so little that no reduction can be achieved at all.
For example - by the way, measles is a very good example - the people who died of measles in the past
died for the same reasons that people with the flu died.
They were infected with bacteria. It was the bacterial superinfection that killed the people.
But this bacterial superinfection can be treated very well today.
And that is why, in principle, there are no deaths from measles in people with good medical
care and healthy people with normal immune systems.
That's why you can't measure the benefits at all.
And where there is no benefit, there is every risk.
And there is always a risk when you vaccinate. Always.
Because, as Klaus said, these vaccines are not one substance, it's always a cocktail of substances, and in
that cocktail there are always potentially dangerous ones.
And anyone who denies this should immediately be delegitimized in principle .
They are not allowed to give advice or vaccination recommendations.
Because if there is no benefit, and I say if the benefit is zero, with corona, as we know today and as is
established, the risk of death for people under 65 was practically zero. Practically zero.
If the benefit is zero, then every single risk, be it one in a million or one in a
trillion, which is divided by zero, is infinite.
I am Thai. Yes, I learned that at school.
Everything that is divided by zero is infinite.
Then the risk-benefit ratio is infinite. And you can't accept that.
So. The effectiveness has to be shown and as Klaus said and as we also explained in the book, the effectiveness can only be shown
if you have figures of deaths without and with vaccination.
And these figures do not exist for any vaccination in the world - none.
Now we come back to proportionality.
There is no tetanus here. But I can tell you that there is tetanus in the Third World, in Africa, in Thailand.
And I was in a tetanus ward in Thailand, and I (saw) people dying miserably of tetanus.
The second disease that has a potential benefit from vaccination is rabies.
And I say that because it should be clear that he and I, we are not here - and my wife - as anti-vaccinationists.
We are not anti-vaccinationists, but we say that if vaccination really makes sense, if there is a need for it, because the
lethality and mortality rate is incredibly high - tetanus is over 50 percent, one in two people who have tetanus will die.
Rabies practically 100 percent - today. This means that anyone who has rabies will die unless
something is done about it, and there is no treatment.
There is actually a vaccination for both. And this vaccination works.
And this is what we tell and explain in our book.
So it must be clear to everyone if vaccination makes sense - yes.
And not only yes, but we wholeheartedly recommend it, because it can - and must, by the way - save lives.
If a doctor does not know that you can vaccinate against tetanus - and how to vaccinate in particular.
And here, and this is also explained in the book, there is not only the vaccination, as it is done here, with
the vaccine that stimulates the formation of antibodies.
There is the so-called passive vaccination. This means the administration of ready-made
antibodies from people who have been vaccinated.
And these antibodies are available for tetanus and rabies. And they work, they really work!
And these actually have no serious side effects because they are pure.
They are pure antibodies, there are no additives.
So, I really wanted to clarify that I am not an opponent of vaccination, but say that the risk-benefit effect must be right.
You spend seven chapters on the subject of vaccinations in the book, and they are generally regarded as the
greatest achievement and strongest weapon against infections.
You have already addressed this. And the vaccination advocates will argue that all infectious diseases are on the decline.
Isn't that proof of the effectiveness of the vaccination?
Yes, that's an important point, and I also wanted to address it.
After I had looked into the subject of vaccination, I came across Mr. Buchwald's book, which has the simple
and catchy title "Vaccination - The business of fear".
And Buchwald has done a very simple and very memorable job.
He painted all the statistical data on infectious diseases from the Federal Statistical Office and
then always put the time of vaccination above it.
And then we saw very clearly for each infectious disease that the sharp decline in infectious diseases always
occurred well before the introduction of mass vaccination.
And that speaks very strongly against the effect of vaccination, but other measures must be
involved in the decline in infectious diseases.
And that is simply the better lifestyle we have in the post-war period.
You can also see very clearly how tuberculosis went up and then down again during the war.
So that has to do with the fact that people were starving, freezing and had other poor living conditions, which
is why infectious diseases had the opportunity to spread.
The circumstances of life were decisive, the circumstances of life.
Yes.
And the pharmaceutical industry says it the other way around. They say we have this favorable situation because we vaccinate.
But the statistical data clearly speak against it, and that's why this argument, which is always used by the other
side, that the anti-vaccinationist or anti-vaccinationist is an antisocial free rider, is not really valid.
Above all, we have now seen with the corona vaccination that there was no external protection at all, so this
buzzword that has always been spread is completely unfounded.
The aim of the vaccination is to produce antibodies.
This is supposed to be proof that the vaccination has worked.
That's what people say.
Yes, is that the crucial point in the immune defense?
No, of course that's just so naive, to say that everything is based on antibodies.
What are antibodies? How do they work? And how does the immune system work at all?
Nobody knows this because it is hardly ever taught in medicine.
Doctors become doctors without the basic knowledge of immunology.
As I taught this subject from A to Z for over 20 years, the students in Mainz really had to know a hell of a lot, otherwise
they wouldn't have passed the exam. They knew that too.
No, there are different arms and pillars of the immune system, and we have explained them all.
There aren't many, but you have to know them.
It's the antibodies and then it's the cells, lymphocytes .
And roughly speaking, antibodies can only be really effective against toxins because toxins are small and
antibodies are also small, and the antibodies can intercept the toxins if they are present.
Namely the toxins that are in the blood, because the antibodies are mainly in the blood.
Therefore, it only works if a toxin is transported via the bloodstream.
For example, the toxin of the tetanus bacterium.
And that's where the antibodies can catch and stop, i.e. stop, don't go any further.
Otherwise, viruses can only be stopped by antibodies if they are in the blood.
However, most viruses enter the body through the nose, the airways or the intestines.
And that is why there is no way to really protect the lining of the lungs, the bronchi, the lungs themselves
and also the gastrointestinal tract through vaccination.
That's why, and I said this five years ago, folks, it's completely pointless to try to vaccinate against a
respiratory infectious agent if the antibodies develop in the blood because they're on the wrong side of the wall.
They can't stop it and now we know that this is the case.
That this vaccination could never prevent the infection.
Yes. The measles vaccination introduced by Jens Spahn is currently being discussed again.
There, too, it appears that the antibodies do not contribute significantly to the defense.
Yes, we also told that in the book. It's been known for 50 years.
There are people who cannot produce antibodies at all. This is a genetic defect.
And it was known that these people get measles normally and always recover normally like everyone else.
They don't die. They don't get more seriously ill either. Not at all.
And this is the proof, the clear indication that it is the lymphocytes, the white blood cells, that
are responsible for eradicating viral infections.
Yes, and these white blood cells are not measured. Do you understand? Through the vaccination.
Because it's too difficult, and besides, it wouldn't do any good because they're always
there. That's the other thing we also say.
In the case of viruses, these white blood cells are not responsible for one virus, but they recognize one
type of virus and the whole family at the same time.
And that is why we are protected. And the more often we are confronted with different
viruses in childhood, the more protected we are.
That's why all this nonsense about preventing viral diseases in children. It has to stop.
And why do you think this compulsory vaccination against measles was introduced?
I don't know. I suppose that was a sample of how the compulsory vaccination is accepted by the population.
Because compulsory vaccination against corona was also brought up later.
That was already planned.
That was probably already planned. It was a "trial pack" with the compulsory measles
vaccination - because it was by no means necessary.
So as I said, as Sucharit said, there were no measles deaths at the time.
The infection numbers were also arbitrarily small.
So why measles, of all things, should suddenly be made compulsory, there was actually no indication at all. Or no sense.
Yes, in this respect, this law is really an own goal, that ultimately incompetent experts are just doing things....
Excuse me, what are incompetent experts?
They call themselves experts.
No, no, no. They don't dub themselves, they are called and appointed (to be) experts, yes.
There is an agenda behind all of this. And this agenda is actually planned.
The planners are not in this country, they are somewhere far to the west.
But this planning has been going on for 10 years, 25 years, the planning for this Corona outbreak.
The book by Paul Schreyer should really be required reading. For all journalists. For everyone.
And also for would-be politicians. It was all planned.
And it is absolutely clear that this coronavirus crisis was almost fully planned in 2019.
There was the simulation game in October 2019, and of course the virus was there.
Because the virus comes from the laboratory, as we now know .
Anyone who doesn't know this should definitely be locked in a library somehow and then given compulsory reading.
Because it was all planned. Moderna already had 100,000 doses of vaccines available in 2019.
And they said, guys, we'll have a billion cans next year. We'll manage that.
The message was that a virus had been released against which humanity has no immune system.
Yes. But that's nonsense in itself, isn't it? It's not as if we're totally at the mercy of a pathogen.
Yes, that's why the mask and that's why the distance.
Those were the only things that could protect us - which was complete nonsense.
We have seen that there was excellent basic immunity.
They didn't know that immunity to coronavirus is always broad-based. Because coronaviruses are everywhere.
And when the child goes to kindergarten, in the first year, the child is sick every few months.
These are mainly coronaviruses. And the immune system is trained and trained and trained with
every infection and becomes stronger and stronger.
I experienced the corona pandemic in my practice.
I wanted to experience that too, and it came with the test.
The moment the test was available, panic broke out.
People would come into the surgery gasping for breath - but they had nothing.
were tested corona-positive and they felt like they couldn't breathe.
I just had to talk them through it for a while and make them realize that they had enough air.
They were just hyperventilating. And then it died down again.
There were also patients who were corona-positive. But this was masked by the test.
And then I took the liberty of looking further to see what they actually had. They actually had shortness of breath.
And one had chlamydial pneumonia , the other had a pulmonary embolism.
The third one had this parrot disease that needed cortisone.
There were very different causes. But all of them were, so to speak, the same under the corona test.
Misdiagnosed.
Yes, misdiagnosed. The one with chlamydial pneumonia would certainly not have been very happy about cortisone.
In exogenous allergic alveolitis , the cortisone worked.
But the differential diagnosis is completely lacking.
Yes, that was very nice to see in an interview, from a pulmonologist , who described his course, he then got it himself.
And Ms. Maischberger told us: "You sacrificed so much and then got it yourself. Why don't you tell us about it?"
And then he recounted the classic course of pneumococcal pneumonia and then summarized that it was a very
atypical course of corona pneumonia that he had had.
They were so blinded at the time and only looked at this corona test and said it would decide everything.
Influenza disappeared in the same period.
It has actually been virtually tested away because no one has tested for influenza anymore.
I then called my lab doctor and asked him: "Tell me, does anyone else test for influenza?"
Then he says: "No, only you sometimes." So that's a very clear test bias .
Without this test, we would not have noticed the disease. I also asked several colleagues:
"Tell me, do you think we would have noticed if we hadn't had the test?"
Professor Allersberger from Austria said and agreed with me: "No, we certainly wouldn't have noticed anything."
But my colleagues said: "Yes, you've seen all the dead people."
And then I was completely unsettled. "Have you had many deaths in your practice?"
"No, not in my practice, but have you seen the pictures of Bergamo?"
It was all reduced to the pictures of Bergamo.
That spread fear and made people compliant.
But now, for example, Tom Lausen went there and counted the dead, so the dead really did exist.
Then what do you think is the cause? Why did the people die?
Yes, I did - having woken up to the AIDS problems and the overtreatment, of course I immediately
looked - how did they treat the corona patients?
And I found what I was looking for straight away. In China, they treated me with cortisone, steroids and antiviral drugs.
Didn't work out, it was written right above it.
When I hear that it hasn't worked, I become very wary. Then it usually means that it has done harm.
And I took this as an opportunity to write a letter to the editor of our German medical journal in response to an article
entitled: "There is not yet a treatment for coronavirus."
And then I wrote: On the occasion of this statement, I wonder what kind of medication is
apparently already being used without being tested.
And these were all preparations that were more or less immunosuppressive .
And with a clinical picture that resembles influenza, or was probably also influenza in part, I wouldn't want all these
substances because it certainly doesn't help the healing process.
And they actually published the letter. But the text went on anyway.
And then came these WHO studies on April 1, which actually resulted in a considerable excess mortality rate.
And that was due to a substance that was in there, that was hydroxychloroquine, which is certainly quite good in low
doses, so it can also be quite effective for viral infections, because it takes away the pain in the limbs a little.
But it has a very narrow therapeutic range, and it was recommended in doses that were absolutely lethal - that is, that
caused cardiac arrhythmias, including ventricular fibrillation.
Of course, this was also noticed relatively quickly and was then immediately stopped, so that there was only
one peak - the curve really went up vertically, 14 days after the start of these studies.
So you could send the public prosecutors there and see, demand the patient files that were treated on April 1.
They would certainly find what they were looking for, wherever this excess mortality has arisen.
These were London, Paris, the big cities, the big capitals, where the big university hospitals were, and Madrid.
And yes, New York too, but that didn't fit in with Europe.
But of course this has been done over there in the WHO studies, certainly also in New Zealand and Australia.
But this excess mortality has naturally spread fear.
No one believes that the patients die as a result of the therapy, but of course they believe
that they die as a result of this serious illness.
And that's why corona suddenly had a reputation for being ten times more dangerous than influenza.
Yes. Yes, we have a very interesting program about this on Kla.TV, where you can also see these people who have been treated
in Italy, for example, who have received an absolutely wrong therapy, who have died there in rows, that
probably in the hospital almost nobody came out alive.
Yes, and then there was the problem, the epidemic hygiene recommendations, that the
patients should preferably be intubated .
And Remdesivir.
And the Remdesivir, the preparation that is a very toxic, also antiviral drug, which is apparently produced
under license in Bergamo - and Tom Lausen found this out.
So there were short distances from the manufacturer to the nursing home.
So they've probably all been well treated with Remdesivir, the patients.
Not to say killed...
In any case, that was not conducive to recovery.
Apart from SARS-CoV-2, a lot has already been said about that, and many of our viewers know about it.
But there are also other diseases where the diagnosis is not quite so clear.
You write... In your book you have a good section on hepatitis C. Can you say anything else about it?
Yes, hepatitis C has, so to speak, sat on top of HIV.
I need to briefly explain the animal experiment that took place.
There was non-A/non-B hepatitis, post-transfusion hepatitis, which was not actually
infectious but occurred after blood transfusion.
This may also have been an immunological effect, which is why the patients turned yellow temporarily.
But the virologists were at work and said it could also be a virus, which has not yet been discovered.
And then they looked for it by infusing monkeys with blood from non-A/non-B hepatitis patients
and keeping a control animal in a separate room.
That was the experimental setup. They should have infused an equal number of monkeys with blood from
healthy humans to rule out these immunological effects.
Well, these transfused monkeys did not get sick.
They temporarily had a slight increase in liver enzymes and were then slaughtered.
And the liver was also fine, nothing was found.
But then these high-resolution PCR methods came onto the market, and these were used to find any fragments that did not appear to
belong to the genetic code of the laboratory animal, and from this they concluded that this
could be the virus that the animals were harboring.
And then an antibody was built against it, an HCV antibody.
And then it was ready for the market. Then it just so happened that the Chinese emperor somehow had
hepatitis, and so it was propagated and marketed.
They made the antigen. So they took these gene fragments as a template for the protein, for the blueprint for the antigen.
And they took the antigen to induce antibodies in other animals.
And then they set up a test to detect these antibodies in humans. This is the antibody detection test.
But the antibody detection is directed against the building block that was built using a hypothetical blueprint.
And they then peddled this test and examined people to see who had antibodies against it.
And if you have that, you have hepatitis C. That was the definition, wasn't it.
Even if they then show no clinical symptoms, such as turning yellow?
Yes, then we already had this incubation period with AIDS, where we also had these healthy
patients who reacted positively to the antibody.
They were told you'd be dead after a year - the incubation period was always a bit longer, then it was ten years - with
hepatitis C they didn't die at all, then it was 30 years - then you'd get liver cancer or liver cirrhosis.
And to make sure you don't get that, you're already taking our antiviral therapy, which now costs 10,000 euros per pack.
And that's how it works. They're not ill, but they don't get ill from the therapy because it's not as high-dose as it used to be.
So hepatitis C used to be treated with interferon and high-dose ribavirin.
People were completely flat and ill for a year, got severe anemia, then had to recover from it, so that you then realized
you had to change something, i.e. make the therapy less toxic.
But actually it was always a good reason not to treat liver problems with medication, because
that is always toxic for the liver in some way.
And nowadays people are wondering - I've just been to another liver symposium - why the number of hepatocellular
carcinomas is not decreasing despite an effective reduction in viral load. Or even a little bit more.
The simple answer is because one has nothing to do with the other.
All the junkies are positive for hepatitis C, but they have another reason.
They have their drugs as a liver-toxic problem. Just like alcoholics.
When you say that at a liver congress, it means that yes, alcohol is a very important
co-factor. So you can't do without alcohol either.
In fact, the HCV-positive patients who have problems are generally alcoholics.
Yes. So that you then attribute a benefit to a therapy that you can't even prove.
And does not see the damage.
And doesn't see the damage, yes. Your book is very much about perceived and real risks.
So you often make comparisons there, you talked about these three pillars.
Lifestyle in general, you talked about alcoholics, but also other things that are much more widespread, such as
obesity and smoking, are statistically much more significant than any infectious disease.
They write a list there, infectious diseases only come in at number 5 in the causes of death.
So why don't institutes like the Robert Koch Institute explain that people have much more to
gain from keeping healthy and promoting this?
And instead, tests are propagated, vaccinations are propagated that are at the bottom of the risk-benefit analysis.
Can I now put forward my thesis with ruling class and servitude?
Our whole society is built on a capitalist... Yes, it is a society built on capitalism.
And I read something by Rainer Mausfeld that was incredibly moving for me.
Rainer Mausfeld, our great historian (correctly: psychologist) from Kiel, has written:
Capitalism and democracy are incompatible.
Because capitalism leads to people taking things away from other people.
In principle, they want to satisfy their own greed.
And greed, something human that is difficult to stop, leads to the rich wanting to get richer and richer.
And in return they have to take more and more from the poor.
And we have reached a point where they now have to take everything away from the whole world in order
to maintain their position as rulers of the world.
And what they do is they take away our humanity, our abilities as human beings, and make us pay for our own resources.
In this case, vaccines, drugs that determine our own demise. That is such an insane thought.
I have to get rid of it now, because I have seen and I have come to this realization by
studying various books, history, politics, economics.
And everyone I have spoken to in this field for years, it looks very, very much as if the ruling powers - and they are not in
Germany, they are somewhere in the West - have discovered my subject, my discipline, infection science, as
a unique, new, powerful, most powerful instrument in the world to consolidate their rule.
Because with these, they then have their scientists, experts, and they now have the WHO. It's all in one hand.
And the WHO is now being given the power by the people of Germany, of Europe, to do whatever
they want. And that is what they are doing now.
They can declare a pandemic at will, and thus they can - at will - order measures that must be followed.
It is punishable by law if you don't do it, punishment, the worst punishment.
And the instrument exploits people's ignorance, because knowledge is power, ignorance or lack of knowledge is powerlessness.
People are powerless because they don't understand anything about infections or don't
understand enough. And they can't see through the lies.
And they also fail to see through the fact that woven into these lies is the worst lie of
all time, the lie about gene-based vaccines.
Yes, I won't say much more, but I will say one main purpose of this interview too is, I would like to make all my fellow human
beings aware that we really treat this topic in the book too, all the topics are treated in such a way that
anyone with a normal intelligence level must understand it. It's all written so simply.
They did a really brilliant job.
And we said to ourselves, if one chapter in this book should be required reading for all journalists, for all doctors, for all
lawyers - I'll leave out politicians for now, that's probably pointless, then it's the one chapter, it's
only eight pages, about gene-based vaccinations - the greatest danger to humanity of all time.
And then I talked to Mr. Kopp, and he immediately said "yes", this one chapter "Gene-based vaccinations" could be
offered separately on the website, for free download for every person who can read German in the world.
And that's what happened. So, for two days now you've had the opportunity - this chapter for free, you don't pay a
cent, the only thing you have to invest is an hour of reading.
And you won't need more than an hour for the eight pages. It's so easy.
This gives you the perhaps unique opportunity to stand up and protect yourself and your loved ones.
Because all you have to do is say "no" with one voice now and stop the politicians from giving the WHO this power!
And if they do, then say "no" anyway and say that we won't do it.
Watch how you punish us millions. Because they can't do that either.
And that's how I understood the purpose of this whole book, to turn people who have been made immature into mature citizens, so
that they understand, at least in the basics, what infectious diseases are, what the countermeasures are, how they
are to be weighted, to restore a correct relationship at all.
I thought that was very well done in her book.
There also to say that science is an aid to decision-making.
It is not the new god. It is not a substitute religion, for which it has now partly been made.
That the so-called expert can then proclaim what people should and shouldn't do so that they
don't die. And you can see that it's not true.
But I must repeat what you mentioned.
The fact is that we are dying of cardiovascular diseases and cancer.
And infectious diseases do not actually play a role in mortality statistics.
The opposite is always propagated, as if infectious diseases were our greatest threat.
Now particularly emphasized by Corona.
But it is also emphasized every year that flu deaths are just around the corner - 30,000 flu deaths are always to be lamented.
If you take a closer look, it's not true at all.
Instead, these 30,000 or 40,000 are simply a subtraction of summer mortality minus winter mortality.
For whatever reason, more people die in winter.
And what is left over after this subtraction is simply attributed to influenza deaths in
order to propagate the flu vaccination again.
And if you look at the Robert Koch Institute to see how many people actually die from influenza - and influenza is notifiable,
the figures are relatively reliable - then you end up in the three-digit range. So hardly anyone dies from influenza.
So, the announcement is there, it is said every time again, get vaccinated against the flu, because otherwise 30,000 will die.
We say it's the normal mortality and the pure, what's really due to the flu, that's 300, 400, something like that?
100 to 200 - per season. Yes.
But you also have to realize that this flu vaccination, whose effectiveness is made by
measuring antibodies, that doesn't mean anything anyway.
This bad parameter alone is hardly reduced.
Yeah, I mean, the efficacy is supposedly around 50 percent, fluctuates between 40 and 60
percent. Forget it, people. That's nothing.
You can't vaccinate millions of people with a vaccine that is potentially dangerous to get a 50
percent reduction in antibody response. Are you crazy?
I experience it often enough that a patient gets the flu after the flu vaccination.
Of course.
Only, that's what he gets when I tell him: "You have the flu."
"No, doctor, that can't be. I've been vaccinated. It must be something else."
Yes. So, we can just summarize.
In the book you write that infections can be dangerous. But are they often not these days?
Mostly not.
Mostly not. There's just this deliberate scaremongering by politicians and the media.
You say for capitalist reasons, perhaps there are others.
Science is actually a guide.
They are putting the spotlight back on the fact that we need to get to the bottom of things.
That you say what is important and what is unimportant.
That you don't just hype up the facts one by one and forget others.
That you don't make a mountain out of a molehill and vice versa.
And people should make their own responsible decisions again.
At the end of these vaccination chapters, you always call for everyone to inform themselves and
then make their own decision and never to be coerced.
Because, as you say, this is a tool of the ruling class.
Is there anything else you would like to say to the viewers at the end?
Except, of course, the recommendation to buy your book.
It's very well written, it's really easy to understand.
I was able to understand it very well in just a few days. It was a pleasure to read it.
But I have to be honest, I don't want this to turn into a book selling show, yes.
We didn't write the book so that as many people as possible would buy it.
We wrote it so that as many people as possible would read it.
How you get the book is up to you. You don't necessarily have to buy.
But you have to ask, at libraries for example, if you want to borrow the book.
And what we certainly hope is that the book will also reach certain professions, such as teachers -
teachers are so important in this country, they need to know more about infections, they have to.
Because what they are doing or have done in schools is irresponsible towards our children. That is not acceptable.
And simply believing everything that comes from any office or authority is not the way
to a hopeful future. The future is hopeless.
We wanted to give hope. And with this book, we wanted to give you knowledge, to put power in your hands.
How you come to power - the book must be read, that's all.
And please at least read the chapter that doesn't cost anything.
By the way, perhaps one last word. We are in an association called MWGFD.
And this association is a gathering, an association of doctors and scientists, all German-speaking.
And we did our bit - everything is voluntary, none of us get a penny for it.
And they are very, very outstanding doctors and scientists.
He (Dr. Köhnlein) has also been there for years.
We installed and set up the Pathology Institute of Arne Burckhardt. He was also one of our members.
And you know that he did pioneering work.
Work that is now suddenly being seen internationally. It all came from Germany.
When Arne Burckhardt died, we were in a crisis.
We were no longer able to carry out any pathological examinations.
But we have set up another laboratory for this, called the "Institute for Molecular Diagnostics".
And it is also run by members of our association.
So, our association started out as a non-profit organization, and our non-profit status was revoked a year later, in 2021.
We are therefore unable to issue donation receipts. This association lives from donations.
We would be delighted if you would donate something to the association and this institute "Inmodia" .
That would be something that would make me very happy.
Thank you very much for your work on this great book!
Yes, thank you again for this interview.
I hope that it will be widely distributed!
Goodbye.
Yes, thank you! Bye.
Kla.TV needs your help! Use the distribution function below the program.
The ready-made e-mail template helps you to reach your private recipients. Without any spam blocking.
My contribution to changing the world with just one click. It has never been so easy.