For many people, Covid-19 was the beginning of a fundamental skepticism towards vaccinations.
The effects were completely different to those communicated by manufacturers, authorities and politicians.
But did they know that this is nothing new?
The story of the immunization trials reads like a thriller.
Today we have a detective as a guest in our interview.
He is a doctor, radiologist, medical historian and medical educator by training.
He has been working his way through historical archives, writing books and giving lectures for around ten years.
Welcome to the studio, Dr. Gerd Reuther.
Yes, hello.
Mr. Reuther, let's start with the title. You write in your new book "300 years of immunization attempts" .
However, most people will have the benefactor Edward Jenner and his successful smallpox vaccination
in 1796 in mind. But that is only 230 years ago.
So he didn't invent the vaccination after all? What started it? Who initiated it?
Yes, the immunization story is often abbreviated and only begins with Jenner.
Perhaps also because the first 80 years were actually a bit of a flop.
The fact is that the tradition of trying to infect children from an early age is a
centuries-old tradition, although it was not invasive.
So they didn't injure the skin, but used items of clothing for smallpox, for example, or tried to infect children
with measles through close contact at an age when they had a harmless disease and were then immune for life.
There were probably people in the Middle East, starting in Greece with fortune tellers and healers of all kinds, who said:
"Yes, we do the whole thing together with a kind of tattoo and take some smallpox pus from sick people, which we then
inoculate into other healthy people so that they become immune."
And this has spread, not only to the West, as it is portrayed in England, where the vaccination story
always officially begins, but also in Eastern Europe.
The official beginning in the West is via the wife of the English ambassador in Constantinople, who
would have propagated this method in England in 1721.
And then it gradually took off, so that over the next 80 years this invasive infection with smallpox was increasingly carried
out in England, but also on the continent, and although it was propagated for 80 years, it was even banned in
the 19th century because it was simply life-threatening.
And someone who was knowingly infected with smallpox could of course also suffer serious illness and death.
And that was always one of the complications that had to be said, that not everyone and by no means everyone got smallpox.
And if he was then simply infected at random, he was put to death.
On the other hand, the eradication of smallpox is blamed on vaccination as a great success
story. What is true from a historical perspective?
Yes, there's actually nothing wrong with that, because you can't eradicate diseases. Not a single disease.
And in the case of smallpox, it is also known that this disease has existed in Europe, North
Africa and the Middle East for at least 1000 years.
And a disease like this can occur more frequently or less frequently, but it will never disappear completely, especially as
the origin of smallpox has not really been clarified to this day.
So this smallpox virus has always remained something of a phantom.
And there are also other explanations that have led to these pox-like diseases.
This means that the diseases cannot really be eradicated.
This was explained in 1980. But the reason was actually that the smallpox vaccination had to be withdrawn from the stage.
This is because smallpox vaccination caused a relatively high number of deaths and severe disabilities at the time,
although there were almost no cases of smallpox in Europe and the United States of America in particular.
The disparity was so blatant that this vaccination actually had to be discontinued.
And in order not to have to admit that the vaccination was actually a medical error, they said that the disease no
longer exists and then we no longer need the vaccination.
But this time from the 18th century, just horrendous descriptions of smallpox patients, covered in
pustules, and then miserably torturing themselves to death.
However, you say that this disease was already known beforehand. Has it always been like this?
Yes, so it was always a childhood disease, and even in the 17th and 18th centuries it was primarily a
disease of children and adolescents and above all of people who lived in poor circumstances.
And it has something to do with woolen fabrics, with woolen clothing, and with the fact that people who were
rarely or never able to change their laundry fell ill.
The so-called better circles actually had almost nothing to do with smallpox and therefore there was never any danger to
the population at all to have to make such a fuss about this smallpox disease and then also this smallpox vaccination.
And there are enough contemporaries who describe how there were always outbreaks among children and adolescents and
occasionally a child died as a result, but that wasn't often, it was the exception rather than the rule.
And a lot of it simply had to do with general neglect, malnutrition, vitamin deficiency and all these things.
In other words, if a child dies of smallpox, you can't just go there and say that it's causal, that it has something to do with
this specific disease, but it's an overall phenomenon and a lot has to do with the poor general condition with a very damaged
immune system of those affected - mostly due to malnutrition.
And yet the success story of this smallpox vaccination began in the royal family, in
aristocratic circles. How does that fit together?
Yes, back then, in 1721, the royal family in England was taken as a model family, because at that
time role model behavior was extremely important.
In other words, when the top echelons of a company have done something, the rest of society - especially
the middle class, the upper middle class - has said, yes, we actually have to do that too.
Because they set the tone politically, so they will also do the right thing in other areas of society.
And that has lasted for a very long time. Later, when she was vaccinated against polio in 1957, Queen Elizabeth in
England demonstratively had her two first-born children - her only children at the time - vaccinated against polio.
In other words, this role model behavior has always been a crucial method of propagating something
and making it acceptable to the general population.
But it was also made acceptable by presenting the disease in a particularly dangerous, particularly dramatic way.
Polio was a rightly feared disease. The children could no longer stand up.
And then there was this large-scale mass vaccination and polio actually disappeared. Hasn't everything been said?
No, the fact is that polio is a very demonstrative term, and as you rightly say, it is a term that
has been chosen to associate it with fear and panic.
But it is actually just one word for a whole range of diseases that can lead to paralysis.
So, there are pathogens, bacteria or even viruses, if you like, that can cause someone to develop flaccid
paralysis of the arm or leg, for example, or in extreme cases perhaps even respiratory paralysis.
But there are plenty of other toxins. Herbicides and pesticides are notorious for this, but
so are metals such as lead, copper and mercury.
All these substances can lead to paralysis in the event of poisoning. You can't tell the difference from the outside.
And that is why it is of course completely wrong to say that there was a pathogen and that this pathogen caused polio.
If you use the term polio, then you have to use it for all symptoms of paralysis and also for poisoning.
So that's why it's also more favorable today, one then only speaks of paralysis symptoms or
Guillain-Barré syndrome, for example, but no longer of polio.
And polio disappeared because the term was simply dropped and the same disease was then described differently, using the words
I have just mentioned and also the term meningitis, for example.
And today, it is admitted in the USA that there are 30,000 to 50,000 cases of meningitis every year, which
did not even exist before the time when polio was widely propagated as a scary disease.
To the extent that polio has disappeared, the concepts of the disease have simply changed.
And unlike in the past, when it was said that polio was so common - there were actually only a few thousand cases, even in
large countries - we now have many thousands of cases with similar symptoms, which we just call by different names.
Is that statistical fraud then?
Yes, it is of course a statistical fraud, because the same disease cases go under a different name and it is not admitted
that these new names that have been found, such as meningoencephalitis or
Guillain-Barré , would not have existed before.
But these diseases would have had to be named in the same way in the past and it would then have become clear that these diseases
are much more common today than they were 50 or 100 years ago.
But you'll have to explain that again, because the curves for all infectious diseases decline significantly after the war years.
Yes. Then how can you say that the disease has become more?
Yes, these diseases have increased because they are not only caused by infections, especially only to a very small
extent by infections, but to a large extent by poisoning.
That was already the case with polio back then, that it was the pesticides and herbicides, the DDT, that were not only
used in agriculture, but also in humans to help disinfect them.
And today we have these cases where vaccinations can also lead to Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis and meningitis, which
are now given millions of times a year, billions of times worldwide, and can therefore cause this clinical picture.
But it's not a pathogen that does it all.
But the vaccination advocates say the DDT was still used and yet the cases went down?
Yes, as I said, the cases only went down because they were no longer named that way.
You can see very clearly in the statistics that other diseases such as flaccid paralysis, Guillain-Barré and
meningoencephalitis have risen in the same proportion as the number of cases has fallen.
In other words, it was actually just a sleight of hand to make a disease disappear.
But the cases have not become fewer, on the contrary. In the following decades - as I said - these
diagnoses have become much, much more common than before.
This concealment of diagnoses is now also known. So we have seen with HIV-AIDS, similar mechanisms seem to have come about there
and also with Covid. There was no more flu, there was only Covid.
Exactly, that was the story that influenza completely disappeared in Germany for three years.
In other countries too, but in Germany for a particularly long time over these three years.
And then suddenly the influenza was back to the same extent that Covid had disappeared.
And this shows that - and this brings us back to the topic of vaccination history - the same sleight of hand has actually
been used for 300 years by relabeling the same disease and simulating the reappearance or disappearance of a disease.
The vaccinations were not particularly well received by the population from the outset.
They said that there were complaints and it was even abolished.
Why, in your opinion, is this idea - which is still in the textbooks today - still the greatest invention
in the history of medicine when you open the Internet?
Yes, that's a very good question, because it's so grotesque that all the vaccinations, whether it was the first one, the fight
against smallpox with smallpox, or then the fight against smallpox with cowpox or the later Pasteur and Koch
vaccinations that came along, were anything but a success story, but showed early on that the whole thing didn't work.
And yet they went ahead with it and then you actually have to turn the approach around and say that it couldn't
have been about the benefits, because the harmful effects that occurred were obviously more important.
You then have to bring this issue of population reduction into the discussion.
Have vaccinations really made the population healthier? Have more people been born as a result?
You couldn't say that about any vaccination, but there were deaths, there were cases of illness.
And if they even went over to forced vaccinations against the will of the population, then the only thing left
to do is to say that illness and death were obviously desired by a significant number of people.
But that's quite a harsh accusation. Do you have any proof of that?
Well, otherwise we would have had to stop vaccinations.
At various times, many contemporaries said that there were massive numbers of deaths, that many children
became ill and then died as a result. That was all ignored.
And if you ignore all these warning signs, as we have now seen live again with Covid-19, there were plenty of warning signs.
Red hand letters were sent to doctors saying that these vaccines do not do what they are supposed to do and
have a high risk potential. And yet all this was ignored.
And if you do that, then I can hardly think of any other explanation.
I have another intermediate question. Do we need immunizations at all?
That is also a very good question, which is almost never asked in public. Although that is actually the crucial question.
It is taken for granted that vaccinations are part of health.
But mankind has lived for the longest time without vaccinations and has not died out at all.
On the contrary, we have a history of over 100,000 years or much longer in which the immune system has been bombarded
with various toxins, bacteria, viruses and pathogens, and our immune system has prepared itself for this.
This means that our immune system is well trained and does not need any additional training.
Conversely, it has to be said that if we introduce additional toxins, this leads to the
immune system being put under greater strain.
Apart from that, we are also working socially to try to eliminate environmental toxins as far as possible.
And if we are otherwise reducing these environmental toxins, why are we putting extra toxins into the
body on the assumption that this will make us healthier?
This is actually already a completely erroneous basic assumption in terms of the concept.
You also say in your book that vaccinations are mainly given against rare diseases. Can you elaborate on that a little more?
Yes, we're seeing that today. Flu, there are vaccinations.
There are vaccinations against harmless childhood diseases such as measles.
But where are the vaccinations against tuberculosis and malaria? One has recently been propagated that doesn't work.
We have no vaccination against noroviruses, which now play a role again and again in
kindergartens and schools through communal catering.
Vaccination advocates should actually be saying that we can solve this very quickly because we know something about vaccination
and we have the vaccination technology under control.
And if nothing has come of it for 150 years, it is actually an admission that the vaccination
principle and the vaccination technique do not work.
And if the vaccination principle doesn't actually work, then the safe explanation is that vaccinations are
used for diseases that are not particularly dangerous and that are becoming rarer anyway.
Because then, of course, you can claim the decline in diseases as a vaccination success.
Whereas with diseases that are often dangerous, it would very quickly become apparent that a vaccination has failed
if it is ineffective. And this must of course be avoided.
The other option is, as was done with Covid-19, to take a common but generally harmless disease such as the flu,
which is then so common that it is not noticeable even if the vaccination is not successful.
Because, in everyone's experience, the illnesses occur again and again anyway.
But I think people have shown a little too little critical faculty here, because they should have kept asking, if
we have been vaccinated, why are we getting sick again?
After Covid-19, after smallpox, the same thing always happened: vaccinated people got sick again.
And then the topic of boosters came up again and again.
Yes, it was actually always the same strategy.
It was then said, as was the case with smallpox vaccinations 200 years ago, that you just
have to revaccinate, which again is not logical.
If a vaccination has not had the desired effect once or twice, why should it have the desired effect the third or fourth time?
It would be the same if we gave the wrong antibiotic for an infection, for example, then we would still
give the wrong antibiotic a second and a third time.
Everyone would say, well, we'll have to give a different antibiotic because it was the wrong one.
But when it comes to vaccination, we just keep repeating.
That's the definition of madness attributed to Albert Einstein, who said that madness is
when you keep trying something that doesn't work.
You also write in your book that the history of vaccinations is also a history of unethical human experimentation.
And Covid and this blatant mRNA injection was nothing more than a human experiment.
In other words, this regrettable development is nothing new?
Yes! That's what people like to keep quiet about in the vaccination story.
But if we start again with the smallpox vaccination through smallpox pus, then it was the case that
you had to get this smallpox pus from somewhere.
And this smallpox pus had to be produced by smallpox sufferers. And who wants to be sick with smallpox?
So they went to the orphanages, where there were lots of children without parents who couldn't defend themselves.
In other words, smallpox infections always ensured that there were children with smallpox in the
orphanages, from whom secretions could always be obtained.
And this was also done with the Jenner vaccination with the supposed cowpox, which did not actually exist, by repeatedly
infecting orphans with this supposed cowpox - which in many cases was only smallpox or even other
pathogens such as syphilis - in order to have this secretion.
In other words, we worked with humans as bioreactors at an early stage, just as we are now producing these mRNA
fragments in bacterial tanks, genetically modified bacteria.
And it has to be said that little has actually changed in the whole process.
Well, then the supporters would object and say, yes, we now have these bacterial tanks, there are sterile purified bacteria
in them, everything is then neatly packaged in such protein-lipid envelopes and that sounds much better, doesn't it?
Yes, that's not true either, because it had to be established early on - by the way, this applies not only to
vaccines, but also to food, because many foods are now also produced with genetically modified bacteria.
So the friends of vegan food who now prefer to eat pea protein isolate instead of peas: This is not
obtained from peas, but from genetically modified bacteria.
They are now in these tanks, producing these proteins - or the vaccines - in a warm and humid atmosphere, and when
they have produced enough, you can harvest them, so to speak.
But the bacteria are all still there. And you can't simply filter out these bacteria and they'll be gone.
That would be extremely time-consuming, you don't do that at all. What do you do then?
The entire contents of the tank are shredded so that the bacteria are destroyed, but the fragments
of these bacteria are contained in the end product.
And this has also been established with the mRNA vaccines, that they contain a lot of these fragments and these
bacteria not only contain a cell wall, but also their own DNA.
This means that foreign DNA is included in this end product and it is not just this highly
purified mRNA that is contained in vaccines.
Just as this phantom-like smallpox pathogen was not present in any pure form in the smallpox vaccine.
Instead, it was smallpox pus, i.e. dead cells, bacteria and I don't know what else was in
there, and you simply inject it deep into the tissue.
And that is of course a bodily injury with foreign substances that must cause problems and that is simply quite clear.
So, regardless of the RNA, the Covid vaccines also contain all these foreign substances from the
bacteria and put a strain on our immune system.
Are these bacteria really only shredded? Is nothing being cleaned?
Yes, we certainly try to reduce these coarse residues as much as possible.
But a complete reduction with today's production in bacterial tanks is not even possible.
There are simply far too many foreign components in it.
This shredding is being done, it has been admitted, even in industry circles.
And then I still have smaller fragments. And how am I going to get them all out of one solution?
We are talking about the tiniest components without filtering out my actual end product, for example these mRNA sequences.
So selective elimination of these mRNA sequences, which could then be added to a purely sterile new
solution, is technically completely impossible. And that's why there are foreign components in it.
And these foreign components, regardless of whether they are a little more or less, get deep into
the tissue. And that makes them hazardous to health.
What many people don't realize is that these mRNA snippets that BioNTech came up with did not
correspond to what was in the mass vaccination campaign.
Yes. That was said early on.
But I think very few people have realized that these mRNA fragments were initially assembled
synthetically, without bacteria, but that this production method is far too complex for a mass product.
And that they then switched to this bacterial tank production after approval, even though this changed the entire
product considerably and a new certification would have been necessary for approval, which they failed to do.
Very interesting. Let's come back to this story about population reduction.
Who would be interested in reducing the population anyway?
You would see it the other way around, more is produced, more taxes are paid, it would be
more practical to have more subjects than fewer.
It is the case that those who determine social relations, those who have a lot of money, are always a few.
And the rest of the people from whose wealth they live, always a great many.
And that, of course, causes fear among the very few.
Now we tolerate the fact that there are so many of them as long as we can control them
well, for example through military superiority.
But then there are situations where you realize that you don't actually need all those people down there.
That was also the case after industrialization with increasing automation.
Where people have realized that you don't need so many workers in a company to have the same productivity.
And now it is even being said quite openly that we will hardly need any more people in
the future because everything is automated.
And then there are the humanoid robots, so there are actually far too many people.
It is therefore relatively clear that those who determine social conditions have an
interest in saying that there are too many people.
We actually have to do something about that, because the people who are there also need
to be fed, they also need to eat something.
And it was over 200 years ago that a clergyman in England introduced the term "useless eaters".
Oh, that didn't just come up now? No, no, no, "useless eaters" have been around since Mr. Malthus, who
was already propagating population reduction back then.
Because he said that economic growth can never keep pace with normal population growth.
And that's why something has to be done and he also said quite openly at the time, for example, although he didn't specifically
speak out in favor of vaccinations, that he said that the conditions in the cities
where people live have to be made unhealthier.
The alleyways are narrower, the water dirtier, the air dirtier and then the diseases take care of that.
Because you don't want to be to blame and you don't want to kill people directly.
It is always more elegant when they simply disappear due to illness.
That means you then have a culprit who basically only ... Yes, who cannot be held liable.
Yes. And could you then say that this whole development towards AI and technocracy and
transhumanism is related to this vaccination story?
Yes, that is actually a clear connection.
This is also why the term vaccination comes from grafting. In other words, from the modification of other living beings.
This actually stems from horticulture, where people tried to grow new fruit and vegetable varieties by grafting.
And that I also want to change the vaccinated person in some way with a vaccination.
So we also take the first smallpox vaccinations that he could no longer get smallpox as a result.
And it is also the case now that I want to create immunity, i.e. a relatively deep intervention.
This has never succeeded, but that is the claim.
In other words, I always say that the vaccinated person has a deficit and this deficit must be remedied.
And that is actually already clearly a part of and an introduction to transhumanism.
What is interesting, of course, is that it was the church that propagated this.
Who, if they trust their own book of faith - the Bible - say that everything was very good in the
end - creation. Why do you have to help it along?
Yes, because the church obviously doesn't trust its own message.
Because if she really thought that everything was fine after these seven days, then I wouldn't be
allowed to do vaccinations and other things at all.
But after the church already campaigned massively for these vaccinations 300 years ago and then again with Jenner
200 years ago and now again, it shows that it is saying:
"Well, Jesus, you didn't do so well after all. We need to do a bit of rework here."
And I think that's just completely fatal if you actually had this claim otherwise and assume a world that is
as perfect as possible, which a creator would have made.
This is actually a betrayal of the church's own ideology. It is completely inconsistent.
And so it also shows that the church ideology, which is often held up as charity and creation and that we must
protect our environment, is obviously pretty hollow. Because otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to do all this.
And on the other hand, people go along largely without complaint.
There were a few, even during the Covid crisis, who rebelled against it, but not very many.
What was ordered or recommended by the superiors was simply carried out. Why do people look on indifferently?
Yes, most people don't decide whether a thing they hear is right or wrong, but whether it comes
from above or somewhere from the side or from below.
And what comes from above is more or less accepted, because over the centuries - we have always had a feudal society, an
absolutist society, an authoritarian society, except for brief periods in Europe - it was clear that if you somehow
rebelled against decrees from above, you would get into trouble.
That is actually the simple, clear reason why people run along, because the facts have always shown otherwise.
And especially when it comes to vaccinations, which have shown this for 300 years.
And these are not just assertions that I make, but that you can gather from contemporary reports from people
that the majority of people were never convinced, simply because they saw what happened.
Namely, they have seen negative consequences and they have found with each of these vaccinations, which were promised as
protection, that the vaccinated people who wanted to protect themselves always got sick, just like now again with Covid-19.
And do you have a final statement for the viewers on what to do in this situation?
Yes, I think you should always go by the facts. And you shouldn't just blindly believe things that are decreed from above.
And especially when they are spread with a great deal of propaganda.
And we have all had to experience it now with Covid-19, from morning to night Covid and then vaccination propaganda.
But it hasn't been any different in the last 300 years.
Otherwise these vaccinations would not have survived for so long.
It is simply a story of 300 years of propaganda.
And it is a simple fact that the worse the product is, the louder the trumpet has to be blown.
All the better that you also blow a counter-trumpet and bring these things to light as they have been historically.
Everyone is free to form their own opinion.
Thank you very much for taking the time for this interview.
I wish you all the best for your work and your new book.
Thank you very much.