We welcome Prof. Stefan Homburg to our live studio today.
He was Director of the Institute of Public Finance at Leibniz Universität Hannover from 1997 to 2021. Welcome once again.
Back in 2020, you were one of the first to point out the irregularities in the coronavirus narrative.
It is now 2026 and various committees of inquiry are under way.
There is a commission of inquiry in Germany and similar formats in other European countries.
You have been involved in many commissions at home and abroad, have been there as an expert and have made contributions.
Some of these meetings were open to the public, others were not.
That was a little irritating, because a matter that affected such broad sections of the population - virtually
everyone in the country - should also be discussed in public.
That's why we've invited you today to find out about the status of the coronavirus recovery,
which you might not see in front of the cameras.
Perhaps you can briefly summarize (what) where we currently stand.
Yes. Where are we at the moment?
Well, you are right, there is a Bundestag commission of inquiry, of which I am a member as an expert.
And this Enquete Commission, some of its meetings are not public and there are public hearings.
All resolutions are made in closed sessions.
And, yes, if you say you don't like it, I'm with you.
But the majority simply do not want the process to be more transparent.
So there are also things going on in the closed session that you don't want to show people.
Or to put it another way, there are five parliamentary groups in the Enquete Commission.
Of the five political groups, four have actively participated in the lockdown policy and are still
defending it today, including the vaccination policy.
And one group has a different opinion.
And yes, as is so common in our democracy today, everything is simply enforced by majority vote, with a firewall,
so that minority rights are basically only rudimentary.
And here's an example: We once requested that we could also show graphics, just as you like to do.
Because when people somehow say, yes, this and that happened, it's all so vague.
If you look at a graph, somehow from the Federal Statistical Office or the RKI, then you can judge that much better.
Four political groups said: "No, you can't show any graphics."
Did you give any reasons for that?
So originally it was said that it was not legally possible because of copyright infringement.
I said: "We are not violating copyright law if we, as the Bundestag, as the highest constitutional body,
show graphics from the federal authority Destatis (Federal Statistical Office) or the RKI."
I think they then had it checked for two months.
And then they said: "Yes, you're right, let's just vote on whether graphics can be shown."
Zack - firewall, four factions, no, must not be shown.
And that is a major obstacle to enlightenment.
Because you can't get it across as well as in a real reappraisal with just arms and legs and a
very short speaking time in five-minute slots.
Yes, that's what your program is all about, where you show a lot of graphics.
They are very instructive , so at this point I can only recommend your entire channel.
They also always quote the sources. This, too, is always criminally omitted in the so-called quality media.
I recently read another review and then things are just put out there.
And in the end they don't give any sources either. So it's always a tactic.
Is that also the case in the Enquete Commission, where you are ultimately driven into a corner, so to speak, by arguments?
No, the Enquete Commission does not argue at all.
So we haven't discussed it for a second.
There is no discussion, but the closed meeting is about procedural issues.
When do we make which appointments? Which experts will be invited?
How long may each group speak? That concludes it.
And then comes the hearing. I don't know if anyone has seen this before.
The hearing works in such a way that the expert invited by parliamentary group XY says something and is then questioned.
And then the next group asks. Always in 5-minute slots with a stopwatch hanging ostentatiously under the ceiling.
And yes, after three hours the session is over.
I recently made an attempt to discuss this.
I have written an e-mail to all members of the Enquete Commission with a substantive point.
And then another professor from a different group also replied to me.
This was the first approach to a substantive discussion.
And then the Chairwoman, Ms. Hoppermann, announced via the Bundestag distribution list that it was
undesirable to discuss via this e-mail distribution list.
In other words, we can't discuss it in the meeting, and we're not supposed to discuss it
by email either - which I ignore, of course.
But no exchange is desired. The matter is too clear for that.
You can only find the truth by discussing things and relating something to yourself, to the other person.
Everyone presents their opinion, which they already had beforehand, and leaves with their opinion.
Yes. It's completely unproductive.
Now there are people who said at the beginning: "Yes, this Enquete Commission, it's no good at all!"
And as far as, let's say, discussions are concerned, that's absolutely right.
Nevertheless, I think that the Enquete Commission, together with the RKI files that were exposed at the time, is
basically the most important element of the clarification.
When former Federal Minister Spahn says in the hearing that vaccination was never
intended to protect others, that was never the aim.
So many people reacted with such shock and then wrote me letters.
"It was never the aim, not even of the WHO, when developing vaccines, to protect third parties from infection.
That is crystal clear. Vaccination makes a difference, you protect yourself and others.
Those who are vaccinated or have recovered will no longer experience contact restrictions and curfews."
In retrospect, Spahn acts as if external protection was never the goal.
But this facility-based compulsory vaccination, the compulsory vaccination for soldiers, this 2G and 3G rule, i.e.
this exclusion of unvaccinated people, was all based on the assertion that vaccination protects others.
And anyone who doesn't get vaccinated doesn't have this external protection, is basically an asocial element, or
as one prime minister put it so well, is out of society.
And that's a very big eye-opener.
Or Prof. Scheibenbogen, Carmen Scheibenbogen, who is one of the fiercest advocates of
vaccination, was asked about the spike protein.
The spike protein in corona is the one that settles on the mucous membrane and somehow makes you ill.
And with the vaccination, you have it injected into your body - in other words, the instructions.
And she was asked about this, and then she said: "Yes, the spike protein, that's dangerous.
And unfortunately, this remains in the body longer after the vaccination than we thought."
That's all, of course, it's all on the Bundestag server, yes.
This is all properly documented and, in my view, invaluable.
Last example: Mr. Drosten had said in March 2020 that Corona is a cold, you won't even notice it.
A week later, he said we would see scenes like those from movies - so many people dying.
I then asked him on what data he based this change of opinion in one week.
He couldn't answer it. He then said, "Your questions are too confusing and too complex," although I really don't
speak in a way that is perceived as confusing and complex.
So everyone has seen - basically - Drosten had no substantive arguments at all for his change of opinion,
but has said this way and that about masks, tests, vaccinations and the danger of the virus.
You can find an opinion and a counter-opinion on the Internet for every issue he raises.
Yes. That's the reappraisal in Germany now, but it's good to hear you say that it does bring something, in the long
run, that they then betray themselves through their own words.
Yes.
What is it like in other European countries?
You've also been to Austria, Switzerland and Italy. Is it different there?
You have similar mechanisms everywhere, only sometimes some countries are luckier than others.
So we've just been incredibly lucky in Germany.
We are number one worldwide because an employee of the RKI took heart and gave us 10 gigabytes of
internal material that should never see the light of day.
Then you read that the RKI wanted to sue the Ministry of Health because they didn't think all this scaremongering made sense.
You can see how the RKI is shocked internally about vaccine damage, especially at AstraZeneca.
Eight weeks later, Mr. Spahn issues a press release stating that he has been vaccinated by AstraZeneca.
Of course, nobody believes that. So we're ahead of the game.
And at number two, I would clearly put the USA.
So the USA has also achieved an incredible amount through its technique of Senate hearings, which are also largely public.
At the moment, the issue is that Mr. Fauci and his health administration have partly falsified, but above all
destroyed and suppressed documents and have not answered requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
As a result, we now have the first indictment from a public prosecutor.
So things are progressing slowly and slowly, step by step.
But think back to 1945, when not everything was clear in 1946.
First of all, nothing happened in Germany for 20 years. And then things slowly picked up speed.
And people were still being sentenced 50 or 60 years later.
Yes. And do you assume that the material that is now coming to the public will lead to convictions later?
Well, it's difficult to say in Germany, because we - I think we have a very clear disadvantage as Germany, because unlike
practically in the rest of the civilized world, we have this obligation of the public
prosecutor's office to follow instructions.
It is well known that the European Court of Justice said at some point that German public prosecutors are not allowed to issue
European arrest warrants because they are not independent as in other countries, but are subject to political instructions.
It is quite clear that as long as there is no political change in Germany, the
instruction will be that no one will be charged at all.
In the event of a political change, where of course we don't know whether this will ever
happen, the situation could change fundamentally.
That's what Mr. Blome, the former Spiegel author, said so well.
He said on television - against the background that he said at the time: "I wish unvaccinated people all kinds of disadvantages."
And he said that if there was a change of government, even he could suddenly be persecuted for what he said.
And that is why he would prefer the firewall parties to remain in power, even if they are running our country into the ground.
Let's come back to these other criminal machinations that are in the background.
You recently reported in a few programs about what interesting things came out of the
Epstein Files as "by-catch", as you called it.
Among other things, it showed that he had worked with Bill Gates back in 2011 to harness the WHO for
their financial juggling, if you want to put it nicely.
Well, not quite, but the funny thing is that from 2011, as you rightly say, they started talking about pandemics
and vaccinations and offshore vaccine financing companies and all sorts of things in purely economic terms.
And then years later you find an e-mail where Epstein says that we now also have to get the WHO on board.
Yes, just like now with our so-called 2020 pandemic, doctors are basically largely left out in the cold.
The whole thing is a business for economists, lawyers, psychologists and sociologists.
And they basically spent years, Gates and Epstein, thinking about how to make money from pandemics.
Then we had a big conference in 2015 with JP Morgan, which was the biggest bank in the world at the time.
For example, the president of the World Bank, the head of JP Morgan and all sorts of people,
except doctors, spoke about pandemic preparedness.
And from the further course of events, there is a strong suspicion that incredible financial incentives
have been created for a pandemic to really break out.
And the nice thing was that because the WHO was practically completely under control financially, they
were able to tell the WHO in 2009 to declare swine flu.
Unfortunately, that was a shot in the arm. And in 2020, the WHO was told to declare a pandemic.
And that really hit the spot, but from a medical point of view it was similar to 2009.
For example, we have a mortality rate in Germany in 2020 that lies between 2018 and 2019.
So in 2018 we had a strong flu epidemic, relatively high mortality. Very low in 2019.
2020 in between - nobody would think that anything bad had happened.
We will only see an increase in the number of deaths in the vaccination years 2021 and 2022.
Of course, many people will immediately think, yes, but only because the schools were closed and we were in lockdown.
But there is also a study from the top journal Lancet, on how mortality has developed in all European
countries during this so-called pandemic from 2020 to 2023.
And the result, as was to be expected, was that Sweden came out on top - because it was the only country to stick to what was
written in textbooks, guidelines and directives, while all the others basically caused
collateral damage by pursuing the wrong policies.
So again, that I understand this correctly.
There are no doctors sitting there who specialize in clinical pictures, courses of disease, biological processes, but
people who are primarily interested in how to market this to the public and others who want to make money from it.
Yes, a good example is the following.
All the textbooks say that when a really dangerous pandemic comes, even a layperson can see that you have to
reassure people so that there is no collateral damage.
So what did the then Federal Minister of the Interior Seehofer do?
In March 2020, he put together a special group with the task of writing a shock paper. This was then also leaked.
It says, for example, that it is important to make children aware that if they do not wash their hands, they will
infect their parents, who will then suffocate in agony at home.
At home, because all the clinics are already overcrowded.
That's how people were briefed via the press.
So, and now you ask, who sat, which doctors sat on this commission?
The head of the commission was a German studies doctoral student, then there was a sociologist and, I'm sorry
to say, a few economists. Not a single medical doctor.
At the same time, Stefan Kohn, the official responsible for crises at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, who
had 20 years of experience, wrote a paper saying that lockdowns, school closures and so on were excessive.
As a result, Seehofer immediately suspended and then dismissed him.
He was dismissed as a civil servant for life because he basically said what almost everyone now considers to be true, at least off
the record, namely that the measures were terribly excessive.
Then why do such things have no legal consequences?
So it is an abuse of office, for example by Seehofer.
He is authorized to do so, but it was not justified.
It was also an abuse of power within the WHO.
In other words, just because they have the financial upper hand, they are not allowed to use it to carry out
their transactions, so to speak. It was insider trading.
You also reported that Bill Gates is investing heavily in this completely run-down company BioNTech - 55 million, if I remember
correctly - and then selling it off at a profit in 2021 after the hype is over, and then mocking the
other investors for holding such a piece of junk.
And when things like this come out, or what you just said, this panic paper, is it only because of this
public prosecutor's office, which is bound by instructions, that nothing happens there?
No, there are several. For example, you can't do anything about the WHO.
It is based in Geneva and has immunity for everything it does.
In other words, God knows what they could do.
Even if everything is crystal clear, you can't do anything about them.
This is similar to the exemption from liability for vaccine manufacturers.
This means that there is basically only one option with the WHO, which Trump has used, namely to withdraw from it.
It is true, as you say, that the WHO is basically an instrument of insider trading.
If you know the WHO, you know which diseases will be declared next, which pandemics and so on, and you can
prepare for them by making purchases and buying companies.
But insider trading is still prohibited under international criminal law.
No, but the WHO is immune under Swiss law.
And then you would have to send soldiers to Switzerland somehow, which we don't want.
No, Switzerland has given them immunity. That's nothing unique, by the way.
This European stability mechanism, which serves to bail out bankrupt states, also has such immunity.
And as soon as I see a legal institution being given immunity in a way that no federal ministry or
chancellery has, I become suspicious and think to myself.
Well, rightly so. So, the question for me is also, is this mainly a business model so that the super-rich can
enrich themselves even more? Or is there more to it than that?
I don't know.
I am often asked when I have shown someone figures and graphs and they are completely convinced that this lockdown and
vaccination policy was wrong, I end up being asked the question, what motive did they have for doing it?
And then I always have to say, firstly, I don't know. And secondly, what kind of question.
Who asks what motive Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot had?
We don't know. It could be greed, domination, sadism.
But it doesn't matter. As long as the deeds are clear, you can assess them and, in the best case, bring charges.
Yes. So that would be the next question.
So why are these crimes not punished?
Yes, it's difficult. So for several reasons.
One point is that the public prosecutor's office is bound by instructions.
But there is something even more difficult. The main problem is that too many people have taken part.
So, they can always prosecute criminals if there are few criminals and many non-criminals.
The non-criminals are in the vast majority, and that is now somehow the case with assault, theft and so on, of course.
But if you think about it, who has been involved here during the coronavirus pandemic?
It wasn't just the Minister Presidents and the Federal Chancellor.
Basically every university president, every principal, every hospital director has taken part.
Basically, almost every restaurant operator who has basically allowed himself to be used as a block guard and then told guests
that if you are not triple vaccinated, you will not come in here.
In other words, there are so many people who now basically have a guilty conscience and also have
a strong interest in this simply being forgotten.
It's similar to 1945, when there were trials, but they were conducted by the Allies and not by us.
So the Nuremberg trials. And that makes the whole thing difficult, so that only in individual cases,
with really extreme people, is a conviction plausible.
The Fauci, Anthony Fauci, for example, is very interesting.
Now his closest employee has been charged.
For him, the statute of limitations will expire in ten days.
And nobody knows how it works. And for new deeds.
After all, he had been pardoned by both, the Fauci, in a unique and unprecedented way that must
ring alarm bells for anyone with an ounce of sense.
Namely, Biden has pardoned Fauci as the world's number one of this fake pandemic, for all sorts of deeds.
So not specifically for everything he did.
Where he wasn't even convicted yet.
Yes, wasn't even charged yet. There wasn't even a preliminary investigation.
Biden pardoned him, but only until the day Biden left office.
And now it would be possible to charge Fauci with perjury, with new offenses, because he testified falsely.
Or, in the best-case scenario, it is discovered that Biden's pardon only comes from a signature machine and is invalid.
But that's legally controversial and I'm not involved.
Yes. This inclusion of several perpetrators is interesting, because the - here we actually come back to this Epstein network,
which is obviously very typical there, that they turn the former victims into
perpetrators and thus make their network impenetrable.
There are then individuals who can break out.
We've brought that up in many programs about all this ritual abuse. And it's very reminiscent of that.
It's actually interesting that this man is also involved in these things, because that's a certain
way of thinking, how you make yourself unassailable.
Yes, it is a pattern. It's basically the actions of the powerful.
If you ask yourself, why does the US law say Trump has to release all the Epstein files, with only the victims' names
blacked out, and then you see that it's all perpetrators' names, so almost all the perpetrators' names are blacked out.
Then you can see that there is an "esprit de corps" , so they stick together and cover for each other.
So that only individual people in Norway or Prince Andrew in the UK or this Ms.
Sigl-Glöckner from the SPD suddenly appear unblackened.
While most of the worst correspondence is simply unknown.
What would you say, in summary, what can the person on the street do, what can you do,
if it's all so clumsy, legally unassailable?
Only individual offenders, some insignificant people might be arrested or dragged before the press.
They are also in the hands of the powerful. What do you do then?
So you shouldn't be so pessimistic.
So, a lot has happened in the last six years. A lot of people have woken up.
In my view, it is very important to be aware of manipulation by governments and their media. So in particular the ÖRR .
Because these manipulations: By manipulations, I specifically mean that they published
PCR figures in 2020 that never existed before.
Internally, the RKI has written that the hospitals are severely understaffed.
But to the outside world they said these PCR figures are so bad, we have to keep schools and stores closed, otherwise there will
be exponential growth. So people have been totally manipulated.
What is interesting now is the spring of 2022, when this 7-day incidence was 50 times higher than during the lockdown.
But there was no lockdown and the whole thing didn't make the news. Why?
Because the war in Ukraine had just broken out and they had other things to do.
So the whole thing was purely a media fiction.
And my point is that there are many of these media fictions.
And the more people who are mentally prepared for this, the better.
After all, a government can only implement such a course if most people go along with it.
And the issue of manipulation is not peculiar to corona, but we have the same with climate, we also have
the same with war and these are of course major dangers.
If I may say so, climate too, we're here in Lower Saxony, but it's like this all over Germany, I looked at my
display on Monday and saw sunshine forecast for the whole week.
In the past, I would have just been happy about it.
But because I'm a quick thinker, I thought, oh boy, the drought propaganda will be back this week.
And yesterday, weather before eight, Germany predominantly gray-brown.
Here comes the drought again. And no matter how green it is outside.
Last year they took the first quarter and said that the first quarter is always right because it's the driest in living memory.
There was the Tagesschau, Lake Constance running dry and so on.
Not a word this year in the first quarter because it rained a lot.
But now it has rained less in April and last night on April 30 they come with the news of drought again.
Simply to enforce this climate ideology.
Basically, the only thing more dangerous is anything to do with wars.
Wherever it is said that we are under total threat and must now rearm, rearm, rearm.
According to the SIPRI, Germany is now number four in the world in terms of military spending.
Absolute or relative?
Absolutely. So in terms of military spending, we are only topped by the USA, China and Russia.
And this despite the fact that we are surrounded by friendly and militarily very strong states, i.e. Scandinavia,
Poland and so on, France, none of whom want to attack us.
Nevertheless, the narrative that Russia wants to attack us is simply being maintained.
Russia, which has been trying for four years to conquer the Donbass - an area with the economic importance of roughly the
Saarland - and has failed to do so for four years, is then told that yes, they will also overrun the remaining
thousand kilometers of Ukraine and then they will overrun Poland and then they will be on our border.
Yes, that's such a very strange narrative, that on the one hand they say, yes, the Russians are too weak to ...
Always alternating, yes.
Always alternating. And that's how it seems to me, then there's a pandemic, then there's war, then
there's another financial crisis, then there's ...
Absolutely, it's coming off. And it's so hypocritical when our government members somehow say, yes, we're having a
really hard time, nobody has experienced so many crises in a row, but it's basically all of our own doing.
Next, as you indirectly mentioned in your last sentence, comes the financial crisis, this time
not with Greece, but with Germany at the center.
So, you're arguing that you should ...
... talks a lot, writes a lot, e-mails a lot.
I think the WhatsApp status is a very good tool, even if some people say it's dangerous.
Because your programs, for example, are only watched by people who already have a certain level of open-mindedness.
The others say, no, I don't want to watch it, I only watch Tagesschau and Heute.
If you put a graphic or something like that or an insight in your WhatsApp status, people who
don't actually want to see it will see it too.
So, the electrician who was at your house the other day, your daughter's teacher, all the people you have in your
contact list see something like this, which is why it's basically a very effective method of dissemination.
However, I have to say that some people also say that this would have led to your dismissal.
So you also have to think about who will see it.
Yes. But of course you're also the sort, as we've noticed, you're not intimidated by that.
So thank you very much for the good work you do with your own channel, for always stepping into the breach and
giving people reliable information that can be passed on without having to hang any propaganda on it!
The figures, data and graphics speak for themselves.
And right, yes.
Then thank you very much for that and thank you very much for this interview!
Thank you too!
Give your fellow human beings the chance to form their own opinion by spreading our news.