In our studio today I welcome lawyer Ralf Ludwig.
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer our exciting, burning questions!
They are co-founders of the so-called ZAAVV.
The ZAAVV - I'll read it out: ZAAVV stands for Center for the Reappraisal, Clarification, Legal
Prosecution and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity.
The ZAAVV was created during the - I would say - recent past, which I personally experienced as extremely oppressive,
threatening, restrictive, in other words really cruel.
And that's when this ZAAVV was created with the aim of preventing this from happening again:
What happened there - and it must never happen again!
Now the thing is, during this very time - this corona time, pandemic time - many coercive measures have been prescribed,
where it has now emerged in retrospect through the exposed protocols of the Robert Koch Institute
that there was no medical need for them at all.
In other words, measures were imposed on us simply for political reasons, not really based on medical grounds.
And that brings me to the point why I, why we as Kla.TV want to talk to you of all people. And in a very practical way.
The Standing Vaccination Commission strongly recommends polio vaccination.
There are also repeated discussions and voices saying that polio vaccination should be made compulsory.
It was discontinued at the time, but it would be time to reintroduce it.
And of course, as a citizen, I am questioning this at first. Do I want this, do I have to
do this, should I do this? And I inform myself.
And the other day I read an interesting report by Torsten Engelbrecht and Hans Tolzin.
They, in turn, write in their report that these symptoms of polio, i.e. these signs of paralysis and so on, can
also be caused by poisoning - DDT, arsenic, lead and so on - which can produce exactly the same symptoms.
So then you also have someone who supposedly has polio.
And it's not entirely clear to Professor Dr. Bhakdi either.
Virus: What supports the virus? What else is there? And so on.
It is in itself something that is fraught with many question marks.
Hence my question to you as a lawyer:
If I, as a citizen, were to have a polio vaccination... - if something like this were to become compulsory again,
for example - and the matter is unclear, is it even permissible to expect a citizen to have such a vaccination?
Well, the standard legal answer: it depends.
Unfortunately, we have seen in the Corona period that the courts have not protected people and that the courts...
First of all, I would always say that it is an individual decision and medical measures should
never be carried out on people against their will.
That is actually what we have learned and taken with us from the National Socialist era.
Human experiments have been carried out, people have been treated against their will.
And that is precisely why one of the lessons of the National Socialist era was: Never again, it must not happen!
So 40 protocols or whatever they're called, right?
Exactly, but it is essentially about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the protocols
or catalogs of fundamental rights derived from it.
There is a bioethics convention, which incidentally has not been ratified by Germany.
But the Bioethics Convention includes this, as does the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
So it is said again and again: No forced medication, no medical therapy against the will of the person!
And that was really restricted for the first time during the Corona period.
And then the politicians more or less realized: We can do this.
And the judiciary, which is supposed to be there as a corrective, has not made this correction.
First of all, that's the experience we have.
And that is also the danger that, as you said, is still there from this most bitter time, and incidentally also one of
the reasons why the ZAAVV exists, so that we can intervene at precisely this point and raise our finger and say:
Wait a minute, we actually have the basic rule.
And since this bioethics convention has been in existence - that is, it has actually been under discussion since the 1990s - the
path has actually been towards defining more and more clearly and establishing more clearly that no one
may be treated therapeutically against their will.
But obviously this view of human rights contradicts pharmaceutical interests and more or less contradicts a
large global industry that makes a lot of money from it.
Yes, that's how we perceived it during the Corona period.
That's exactly how it was before the coronavirus pandemic.
This is also the case now after the Corona period.
So there's a lot of money involved, a lot of power, influence, spheres of interest and so on.
And you just mentioned the STIKO .
Of course, the STIKO is also precisely an instrument for implementing these ideas. We must not forget that.
So the STIKO - if you take a closer look at how the STIKO actually works...
So the STIKO is a commission, I think it consists of 18 members.
And in this STIKO, in this permanent vaccination commission, they form so-called subcommittees.
In other words, there is a coronavirus committee - or working groups.
There is a working group for various clinical pictures and for the measures that they then review,
whether we make a vaccination recommendation or not.
And then there are clear guidelines. So in principle, if you take a closer look, everything is well regulated by law.
Because the STIKO is actually supposed to make a recommendation.
They receive evaluations of studies that exist on these specific clinical pictures.
And these studies are then classified on the basis of an evidence scale .
In other words, we know that this is a study in which many participants took part and which was double-blind .
So the evidence of such a study is classified according to scientific criteria, and then the STIKO members, or first of all
the members of the committee who then make a recommendation to the STIKO, get more or less a scientific overview of what the current
situation is with regard to the clinical picture in question.
So what do we know more precisely about this disease, what do we know about the symptoms of this disease, what do we know about
the course of this disease, what do we know about the severity of the disease, what do we know about medical substances, in
this case vaccinations, against this disease, how effective are these vaccinations, what are the side effects and so on.
And according to this evidence, the STIKO should then actually make a recommendation or not.
Yes.
The problem, however, is that there are often no studies that actually argue for one or
the other from a scientific point of view.
That's the main problem. And now comes the trick...
A very brief interposed question:
Does that mean that perhaps the aspect of poisoning, for example, was not taken into account at all in this weighing-up process?
First of all - I'll get to that in a moment - first of all, what exactly do these studies say?
But what is the level of evidence for these studies?
Yes, so the first question is whether the evidence is very high, high, moderate, low or very low.
In most cases, we have no studies that go beyond moderate evidence.
But then it is also possible, for example, that studies that say: These symptoms that we attribute to
this disease may also have been triggered in other ways.
So that is, I think, what you are referring to in this elaboration...
So it is quite possible that we call something polio that is not polio at all.
Or, if you go back to the corona period, that we call something Covid - Covid is the disease, the coronavirus disease, the
illness - that we call something Covid that is not Covid at all, but which only has the symptoms, such as a sore throat, cough,
headache, fatigue or something else, which has completely different causes, but
which we still call Covid. We don't know that.
As a viral disease.
Exactly, when this disease Covid.
And the medical measures that the STIKO then recommends are supposed to be directed against this disease.
And maybe that's not the case at all, because the study situation that we have, especially with Covid, we know
that there is no evidence-based study situation for Covid.
Neither about the disease as such, nor about the evidence of the measures.
All the studies we have tend to be low or even very low.
We have a single moderate study, which is the subject of the STIKO recommendation, which
deals with efficacy. And that is simply not enough.
And normally the STIKO says that these are the so-called Standard Operating Procedures , yes.
These are established, global procedures or global standards that are observed when
classifying diseases and the effectiveness of medicines.
They should actually always be at least moderate. But we don't have any.
And that may be the case with polio, I don't know exactly now, but you would have to look into
the study situation that the STIKO has at all.
And we may not even have any studies that go beyond moderate.
And then - and here comes the trick, namely that if we don't have the medical situation, the STIKO doesn't
just decide on medical-scientific grounds, but then comes a so-called Decide Board .
And this Decide Board then tends to say: How well can we bring this to the market?
How acceptable will it be to people? Will there be resistance from doctors?
Will there be resistance from pharmacies? And so on.
How cheap are these drugs and so on.
And then suddenly the scientific decision becomes a political decision. Like this. And that's when...
And a commercial decision.
Yes, it's been the commercial decision all along.
It is then a political decision, which is of course often made for commercial reasons.
Then, of course, we have the lobbyists who advise politicians accordingly.
We have the lobbyists who advise the RKI and so on.
And suddenly something becomes a recommendation by the STIKO without us being told that the medical evidence that would
actually be required does not even exist, but that the lack of medical evidence has only been ignored by the political decision.
This is the situation we actually have, and every person who has a STIKO recommendation must know
that this is not what the STIKO recommendation says:
We have scientific evidence here that says this disease is well researched and the effectiveness of the drugs is well
researched, and the harmfulness of the drugs, side effects are well researched, but that we may not have that at all.
It's just a political decision that says we'll bring it to market anyway.
And with a recommendation and with a STIKO recommendation, we naturally have the
situation that a drug sells better than without.
That's really tough. The focus is no longer on the well-being of the people, but on completely different interests.
Mr. Ludwig, I don't just want to stay on the subject of polio, but zoom in a little further.
For example, the doctor, Dr. Stefan Lanker, also focuses on the psyche.
That a person's psyche is also important for their subjective perception, but also for symptoms that the body also develops.
Another study from 1984, which does highlight both the psyche and diet, that diet does have an impact
- including what symptoms a body may also develop.
And it also describes, for example, that toxins, environmental toxins, can affect the psyche.
Suddenly I'm depressed or nervous or something else, which in turn often has an effect on the body.
So there are many factors that ultimately affect or co-determine the symptoms that the body develops, let's put it that way.
So it's not always so clear, as they say, that it's the virus that causes the disease, as is the
case with Covid-19, but it can be many other things.
Professor Bhakdi says the same thing about liver disease hepatitis, for example, which is often caused by medication,
perhaps even drug abuse, alcohol consumption, all of these things, and not just a liver virus that is now
making the liver ill. And that's why I'm going to list that.
The fact is, we now have the WHO pandemic treaty.
Then just the International Health Regulations - also initiated by the WHO.
In principle, we've practically already been taught this: Dear people, we're entering an age of constant pandemics,
there's no getting around it. It's all connected globally.
And if a case of - I don't know what - occurs in Africa, then we have to start vaccinating here, prophylactically and so on.
But if all these connections, which simply make up such physical symptoms, are still so completely multifaceted, still
unexplained, then we as citizens, under the, I'll say ZAAVV, which arose during the time of the corona pandemic
panic, then we have to look: How can we prevent such crimes?
Crimes against humanity, that we are again subject to restrictions, that we are forcibly medicated,
that we are perhaps forcibly committed, as has happened on a large scale in Italy and other countries.
You've been tested somehow then - you have Covid-19, and now you have to go to hospital.
You have to be separated and so on. Then to be forcibly medicated, forcibly ventilated, people died like flies.
These are all just things, these are tough crimes.
And if something like this is just around the corner, the WHO is practically announcing it:
We are now entering an age of pandemics. We need to prepare for it.
How can citizens defend themselves? What can you do?
First of all, as citizens we are free people.
We are free people, we can take care of ourselves first.
And I believe that the WHO and this pandemic narrative that we have now is of course a
marketing tool for the pharmaceutical industry.
And you only have to look at who is essentially financing the WHO and who is investing in the WHO...
Then who is that?
Yes, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, pays a relatively large amount of money.
So the more states withdraw from financing the WHO, the more it will be privately financed.
In other words, the private sector, the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical companies and the upstream organizations they
set up are naturally interested in ensuring that organizations such as the WHO, the STIKO, the European medical authorities, the
American medical authorities and so on always focus their recommendations and their views on a pharmacological
solution - and less on what you just said, on a nutritional solution and possibly also on psychological solutions.
That is precisely the culture war that is taking place in America.
Incidentally, we also have a lawyer there, Robert Kennedy Junior, who is the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, who founded
the MAHA movement, the Make America Healthy Again movement, which played a major role in Donald
Trump being elected president in the first place.
Because this MAHA movement around Robert Kennedy actually comes from the Democratic spectrum, i.e. the Democratic Party, and
in the swing states it has ensured that the corresponding votes have gone to Trump, so that Trump has won these swing states.
When Republicans won.
As a Republican won, exactly.
And I know a lot of people from this MAHA movement, this Make America Healthy Again movement. That's exactly what it's about.
They say we only ever look when symptoms are already present, when a disease has broken
out, how can we then treat it with medication?
That's clear, if I were a pharmaceutical representative, that would also be my point of view.
My point of view would not be: Do we have healthy people?
But my point of view would be: How could I keep people so sick that we end up making money from them?
Because the pharmaceutical industry does not make money from healthy people.
So it's not about having the best possible healthcare, as the international social pact says, but
about making the best possible profit from healthcare.
And people will probably say again that Ludwig, who says this in the interview, is a conspiracy theorist...
But that's how our world works. We live in a capitalist world, and in this capitalist world everything is profit-oriented.
Yes.
That is, if you belong to the pharmaceutical industry, you would consider:
How do we manage to sell our products to men and women in such a way that we benefit from them?
When it came to banning smoking, the tobacco industry immediately set up institutes to find out
that tobacco smoke is not so dangerous after all.
And of course he also founded institutes that researched lung cancer and so on.
That is absolutely clear. First of all, this is a completely normal, logical measure taken by the industry.
And that means that the pharmaceutical industry has an interest in dominating the WHO, and the pharmaceutical industry does not
have an interest in preventing pandemics, but has an interest in ensuring that pandemics occur so that the corresponding
drugs, which have already been patented and produced - or prepared for production - can be brought onto the market.
We experienced this with swine flu, we have now experienced it with corona.
And, as I said, you can see this countermovement.
They wanted to know what can be done about it.
So in America there is now this counter-movement, Make-America-Healthy-Again.
They have exactly two starting points.
Point one is that the Kennedy actually says that although we in America are the richest industrialized nation in the
world, we have the lowest life expectancy relative to others.
Why is that? It can't really be.
We are a prosperous country and have a low life expectancy.
And then he looks and says: What is the nutrition program like in the USA?
And then, of course, you see a lot of fast food, a lot of unhealthy food, a lot of fast food, a lot of artificial
food that is now being developed and so on. And he says...
Environmental toxins...
Environmental toxins, lots of things, lots of drugs, that's where it starts. Just this opiate crisis in the USA and so on.
So in the USA, an incredible amount of medication... - the drinking water is not clean
because there are also drug residues and so on.
In other words, he approaches it from precisely this point and says:
"We have to improve nutrition, we have to make sure that people eat healthier things.
And we must ensure that environmental toxins are reduced." That is precisely the approach.
And then we have to see if what the pharmaceutical industry is saying - that's the next step...
He completely replaced this permanent vaccination commission and said:
"Your task now is to actually check whether all the recommendations that exist are necessary or not.
And now actually take a look at the studies for evidence."
Big outcry worldwide, especially here in Germany of course, because it is clear...
Well, I can tell you that we have checked this for corona, and we have no evidence from corona studies!
Nevertheless, we have a recommendation. Yes, we have a recommendation for vaccination without
evidence from studies. And most certainly the...
And with all the serious side effects and the many deaths.
Exactly! And it will certainly be the same with the other vaccinations.
And now Robert Kennedy is having it checked. And suddenly there's a huge outcry.
Why? Who is making this outcry and who is organizing this outcry?
Of course, the media also make an incredible living from this financing from the pharmaceutical industry, from
the advertising, from the money that is poured into it.
Bill Gates, here we are again with Bill Gates, has paid several million to "Der Spiegel", for example.
This means that "Der Spiegel" and the newspapers, which have less and less money, also live
strongly from the support of the pharmaceutical industry.
So, of course, they also bring these corresponding messages. And that is the point.
So first of all, pay attention to our existing political system: Who are actually those who oppose it?
And there is a relatively strong, large counter-movement coming from America, and they have founded
this MAHA, this Make America Healthy Again movement.
There's nothing to be said against doing the same in Germany.
And we at ZAAVV are also quite prepared to support precisely these points as an organization.
We already work closely with the MAHA movement.
We know the people, we have already exchanged ideas, we have already met.
We also need to make sure that we say: We demand an evidence-based study situation, we demand that
medication in particular only happens if we actually have studies that have at least a high level of evidence.
So moderate is still possible, but rather high.
And then something will change - many drugs will no longer be approved.
And then, of course, people have to defend themselves.
So point one, what you said, everyone has to pay attention to how they eat.
In other words, you have to look at how you can possibly make sure that you eat more
regionally, that you support your regional farmers.
They have just taken to the streets against this central policy of eating regional food, eating
healthy food, paying attention to your dietary mix.
First of all, that's an individual matter. And then, when these state measures come, you have to defend yourself.
We have to take to the streets again. Then you have to say: No, I won't go along with that.
And then counter it accordingly.
Hmm. As a human being, you also said: I have my individual human rights, they are non-negotiable and I insist on them!
And I don't have to follow this forced medication or whatever it may be, I don't have to follow it at all.
Yes, as we can see, the consequence happens automatically.
So we see, for example, that there are unbelievably big problems in the area of junior staff, in the area of junior medical
staff, due to this facility-based vaccination requirement.
Yes, that is of course also a reaction to it.
So maybe nobody says anything and people don't take to the streets.
But a lot of young people no longer choose this medical profession because there is always this sword of Damocles
hovering over this medical profession, saying that now it's the next pandemic, now you have to get
vaccinated again with a substance like this and take a substance and medication like this.
And of course they don't want that either. They are also body-conscious.
Yes, sure.
And then you just have to say "No!" and say: "Stop, I'm not doing that!"
And when in doubt, you have to say: "Then I'll leave this job."
Of course, this is also an individual decision.
But I know that many people did that during the coronavirus pandemic too.
And especially those who have consciously left the profession, they won't go back. They don't want to.
And that means that we have - this is a huge problem in Germany, and there is no discussion about it - an incredible
gap in the medical professions that are not being filled.
Yes, a huge shortage of staff.
Exactly.
Okay, now there is also this Vetopedia.
Have you witnessed vaccine damage? Record it on Vetopedia, the free encyclopedia of dissenting voices: www.vetopedia.org
This platform, this database, where you can enter your vaccination injuries during the corona
period, for example - or other vaccination injuries.
But especially during the Corona period, a number of vaccine injuries have occurred,
including fatal ones - some of them can then be...
Relatives can also enter this vaccination damage there.
Isn't that also an important tool, I would say, from a legal point of view, from a forensic point
of view, in order to have a handle there as well:
Coercive measures were not good back then, and we never want to go back to having something simply imposed on us
in future pandemics - with such horrendous consequences.
Isn't this an important tool for lawyers too, I say?
Yes, that is also an experience we have from this pandemic period.
This is actually a time of pandemic measures.
And what we are now also seeing - especially through people like Tom Lausen - in the committees of inquiry:
The authorities actually responsible did not do this job.
The Paul Ehrlich Institute did not collect the data as it should have.
The warning messages have not gone out.
The health insurance companies... - actually everyone, I mean, the signs were red everywhere, the
alarm bells should have been ringing everywhere.
I mean, at the Paul Ehrlich Institute we learned in the committee of inquiry in Brandenburg that the Paul Ehrlich Institute
didn't even have enough server capacity available to accommodate all the reports that came in about side effects.
Crass.
This means that the assertion that we do not have that many side effects results from the fact that the side effects that have been
reported have not been recorded and have not been documented.
What I don't see, I don't have. And Tom Lausen has done a very good job of that.
And that means that we can only get to the actual numbers that have happened as a result of this vaccination through modeling.
And then of course it's good when there are private initiatives that do exactly these things, so that it at
least becomes obvious that there are many, many more cases.
So if a public authority, which is more or less equipped with infinite resources, is not in a position to record this,
and then a private initiative does it, and you suddenly see:
Oh my God, how many reports do we actually have here and what actually happened?
Then you at least have a look at it for the time being.
And then at some point the leading media, the mainstream media, will no longer be able
to work against it or hide what has happened.
That is also a very important experience that we have gained during this time.
We have to bring all these things out of the darkness and into the light.
So your question was, what can people do?
For example, you can set up such initiatives. You can register there yourself.
You can also provide your information to the ZAAVV to show that you are doing so: Just because you don't
record it as authorities that are responsible, we do it.
That you also urge your doctor to say: This is a vaccine injury and I'm telling you to report it to
the health insurance company as a vaccine injury!
Because many doctors don't do that. Patients simply have to insist on it.
The doctor is obliged to do so. If it could be vaccine damage, he must report it.
Things like that, that you just push yourself to report it to your health insurance company or, if in doubt, go to a
portal like this and report it on the portal so that we can see that something has actually happened here.
And you can see that the political wind is changing.
Due to the strength of the AfD, for example, or the BSW - in eastern Germany we now have more than this 25 percent everywhere,
so that committees of inquiry or commissions of inquiry can be set up everywhere, which at least
serve to ensure that these things are made public.
And you just have to get in touch and keep pushing.
Yes, and that's just the way I feel, that right now is a good time, in this time after Corona, to simply push for such a
reappraisal or for such an inventory, to work towards it, especially to prevent, to prevent further crimes, right?
Yes, exactly. It's essentially about prevention. We have to learn what happened.
I can only recommend that you take a look at... - this is online, the videos of the Enquete Commission in Brandenburg.
In Brandenburg, the state parliament has a commission of inquiry to come to terms with the coronavirus era.
A commission of inquiry - unlike a committee of inquiry - always means that a commission of inquiry only looks to the future.
In other words, you just look at: What can we do better?
But the Enquete Commission in Brandenburg in particular is designed in such a way, due to the political
circumstances there, that there are many, many critical experts and many, many critical experts have their say.
Interesting.
For example, there is Gerd Antes, there was Stefan Homburg, there is Tom Lausen. So there are many, many.
For example, the AfD parliamentary group's scientific advisor is Stephan Kohn, who worked here in the Federal Ministry of the
Interior, then leaked this shock paper and was dismissed for it.
He is now involved in the reprocessing in Brandenburg, so to speak.
This gives us a great deal of information about what has happened and then points us into the future.
And that's exactly where the starting points are, so that people, we are in the enlightenment, that we first of all know:
What happened and how did it happen and what is the reality?
And Wolfgang Wodarg, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, said in one of his very first videos, perhaps it was even his first video, at the
beginning of this corona period - that's how I became aware that something was going wrong - that if we
really have a pandemic, then we'll see dead people on the street. Then everyone will know...
...it's a pandemic.
It's a pandemic, people are dying.
And not a paper pandemic.
Exactly. And now we see that when we go out on the street, we hardly find anyone who can tell us:
Oh, I have an acquaintance who died of corona. That hardly ever happens.
So nobody, because we also see that the median age of those who died of corona or died of and with
corona is 84 - i.e. above the life expectancy we have.
But everyone knows someone who has vaccine damage.
Everyone knows someone who has suffered as a result of vaccination, who has had damage as a result
of vaccination - strokes, heart attacks, heart disease, myocarditis, deaths and so on.
In other words, the actual pandemic that we have was the side effects of the vaccination.
Well, I also experience this with people who were less lateral thinkers or critical.
But when I talk to people today - of course they often wouldn't admit it in public, but when you talk to them, they all say it:
I know someone or I've experienced it myself, I'm feeling bad myself, since I've had this vaccination I'm constantly ill,
I constantly have problems and so on. And that's the point.
And that's where people have to... - I think that's the learning we have.
And if it becomes clearer to them through such portals, which are then also used for the future, that there are
side effects here, then people will become more critical and are more likely to say no and speak out:
I'm not going to do that again, I'm not going to do that to myself and my body again!
Yes, I understand. To summarize it: All in all, it's basically about raising awareness.
It's not about our health, it's about a business model of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is a pandemic industry behind it in principle.
The companies are not interested in us being healthy, they only live off the sick, in
principle, if I have understood it correctly.
Yes, of course, so we know that too.
So even with normal doctors, the time that the doctor takes for the patient is relatively short.
I think it is actually average at a few seconds.
Doctors are then often provided with computer programs by the pharmaceutical industry, which they use.
The medicine that pops up is always the one from the manufacturer that financed or co-financed this
computer program or the equipment in the doctor's surgery.
It's all about money, of course it's about money.
Everything that happens in our medical field is first and foremost about money.
Of course, I would say that healthcare is a side effect.
And I am not someone who criticizes or opposes conventional medicine.
We need conventional medicine, and in the surgical field in particular we naturally also have modern, good
medicine that is scientifically sound and does good work.
But many areas or many things, for example in oncology, all these measures that are being taken against cancer, are of
course measures that are essentially borne by the hospitals, which are responsible for the medical field.
And there is simply an incredible amount of money involved.
And for me it's completely logical to say: Why am I only thinking about which drug I'm putting
into my body and not thinking about how I'm eating?
Because the oral intake of nutrients is one of the most important things of all.
For example, there is always this vitamin D discussion, which is now becoming more and more mainstream.
This means that it is becoming clearer that vitamin D or vitamin D supplementation is essential to prevent disease.
But vitamin D is of course cheap to obtain and is therefore not a business model for the pharmaceutical industry.
And that's why many of the insights we have are naturally withheld.
But of course, it's a global trillion-dollar industry, the medical industry.
And of course you recommend masks if you want to sell masks.
And of course you then support studies that say that an FFP2 mask, which is actually a dust mask, protects against a virus.
And of course you don't take the cheap drugs that are on the market if you can get an expensive
development financed by the state - and then without liability.
Ultimately, we are the state, we pay for it with our tax money.
Exactly.
But as you basically said at the beginning, everyone is responsible for themselves.
And as a lawyer, I can't really do much about that, as you mentioned.
I can only say that the human rights situation actually prohibits this treatment, this
forced medication, forced therapy and so on.
But if the courts simply wave it through, as we have experienced here, then it is of course difficult.
And then you are left to your own devices. And when in doubt, you have to clearly say no and say, I'm not going along with this.
Just like it says on your T-shirt: Freedom begins with No. For me, it means human rights first.
And the other thing is to prevent crime - I think also through education, by educating
yourself, informing yourself and also informing others.
Great. Thank you for this interview. It was very enlightening.
In other words, everything does not have to be eaten as hot as it is cooked.
Corona has warned us, shaken us up. And we don't need to subject ourselves to all these pandemic fireworks.
Exactly. Thank you for letting me be here!