Reiner Fuellmich has very credibly explained that the banks against which he took legal action had started a slander campaign against him. Video, unfortunately in German : https://www.bitchute.com/video/za67LiDBS3JJ/ . He was able to prove in court that the information was false. The Hamburg court then banned the further broadcast of the ZDF report and made the dissemination of the false information a criminal offence. Here is a copy of the court ruling ( unfortunately in German ) : https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Urteil-Fuellmich-..-ZDF.pdf
Because I speak German and have seen and read the evidence, I can assure you that the most credible version of events is that it was a pure smear campaign and the banks' revenge.
Please be so kind and at least remove the link from your comment. Would it be possible? If so, thank you very much in advance. None of us wants to be involved in such a dirty game played by the banks, because that is how the German court classified the matter at the time.
If your version is so robust why would it need extra protection? It would have a very reasonable chance of being able to stand up for itself and not require any censorship to remain viable. No assurances of credibility would be needed either.
Attempting to curate readers thoughts is not a typical sign of genuine openness and integrity. It's usually the opposite.
At the time, I was astonished that no one who was sufficiently qualified had placed particular emphasis on systematically structuring the individual subject areas in the interests of better clarity and comprehensibility. There are highly qualified people who live in English-speaking countries and could complete this task much faster than I could. Dr. Yeadon cannot do everything himself at the same time because there are 24 hours in a day and not a minute more. He already works all day for the enlightenment, and Tim West looks after the Telegram channel and much more all day (and night). In order for me to familiarize myself with a particular topic and save and process enough texts, I have to spend some time on it. I hope it is understandable that I do not want the message contained in the article to lose its impact.
In the face of brutal censorship, such work seems like a drop in the ocean. Under the excess of fake news, such work evaporates very quickly and remains invisible. In other words, a lot of work appears as very little in the world of censorship and achieves little. And now please imagine how quickly my work can be destroyed. With a single link, all my work can seem pointless. The modest impact of an article fizzles out in a matter of seconds. Dear Heinz, we are in an information war that is about the future generations and not about my own integrity. I know that every neurosis is based on rigid, inflexible values. Reality changes, but values remain the same, and people who cannot change their views are the ones who lose out. If I do not adapt my values to the completely new, harsh reality, my efforts will be in vain. But I don't want to be a loser. I'd rather have a few stones thrown at me than have my work destroyed. I'm not afraid of being accused of a lack of integrity. I'm more afraid that no one will share my work and that my work will have been in vain. I don't think that the end generally justifies the means. But if you hid Jews in Germany during WWII, would you tell the German secret police their true whereabouts, just because you always wanted to tell the truth? That would be an example of stubbornly understood values. Now I have to decide and either weaken the message of the article or maintain my integrity. I think that this can be understood as a "double bind" message that cannot be solved. However, I still solve such problems by giving up one of the values. I think flexible enough and not stubbornly. If you tell me I can have either fish or the aquarium, but not both, then I will at least take one of them before my stubbornness means I have nothing at all. I ask you very much, do me a favour, and please refrain from the link so that I can enjoy my work and trust that it can achieve something. Being inundated by opposing narratives in the time of censorship and having to work without results is so frustrating that I would rather protect the impact of my work and not my "good name". If I can't have both... One of my neighbours had his children "vaccinated" with mRNA despite my warnings. There was nothing I could do about it. This Substack is my last chance to make a difference. Even with the modest reach of the messages it contains, I am happy that at least a few more people will wake up as a result. If you look at it in this context, what does my name mean? Nothing, nothing at all. That's why I'm asking you to meet me halfway. This problem may look a little different from the outside. But I have lost a lot in the meantime because I spent a lot of time on this Substack instead of being able to take care of my personal affairs in time. When I say "a lot", it really is a lot. This means that my whole future will look different from planned. Among other things, I really wanted to move abroad. Unfortunately, this dream would no longer be possible. My hope is that these losses were not in vain.
Heinz, as long as I can do something to counteract the forces of nature to mitigate them, why shouldn't I do it? Walking upright on two legs is one example of how this can be done. Goodbye, Heinz.
For avoidance of doubt. I’m more than aware that, AFTER the WHO fraudulently called a “pandemic, changes in medical management of many conditions were imposed internationally. The details vary substantially from country to country.
In U.K. for example, hospitals were much more likely to sedate, intubate and mechanically ventilate patients than previously. Further treatments such as remdesivir led predictably to many deaths.
In care homes, the scandalous misuse of sedatives and strong painkillers caused many vulnerable residents to stop breathing, a predictable consequence of administering these drugs (eg midazolam and morphine).
In the community, people with incipient or developing pneumonia were disregarded and not prescribed the “better safe than sorry” medication, a short course of oral antibiotics. Many died avoidable deaths from pneumonia induced respiratory failure.
Many of these unfortunate people were “tested” using a known-invalid diagnostic method, based on PCR.
Dying after a positive test result meant they were classified as “Covid deaths”. There is no such new, unique and clearly delineated illness. Yet, there’s your “pandemic”, if you’re expecting to see the evidence that way.
I do not believe “pandemics of severe, acute respiratory syndromes” are plausible, let alone possible. All claims for historical pandemics of this variety are faked, exaggerated and outright lied about.
Even in ordinary times, people fall ill & die. No one is saying anything different, least of all me.
But I am resolute that pandemics of severe, acute respiratory illnesses cannot happen & have never happened.
Please don’t fight me, fight the liars who intend to steal the freedoms of you and your family.
For some reason, many people have got to the point that they accept we’ve been lied to about almost every major narrative point in relation to the “pandemic”, yet insist there was a novel illness, and impliedly a new pathogen.
Perhaps there were local episodes of poisoning. While I personally have not seen evidence of such things, it’s not completely absurd in that those who set up these military grade psychological operations against their own people have indicated that this can be used to initiate fake pandemics.
I’m well aware he has a complex background.
That doesn’t matter to me.
I think you’re confusing me with someone else.
Dear Heinz,
Reiner Fuellmich has very credibly explained that the banks against which he took legal action had started a slander campaign against him. Video, unfortunately in German : https://www.bitchute.com/video/za67LiDBS3JJ/ . He was able to prove in court that the information was false. The Hamburg court then banned the further broadcast of the ZDF report and made the dissemination of the false information a criminal offence. Here is a copy of the court ruling ( unfortunately in German ) : https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Urteil-Fuellmich-..-ZDF.pdf
Because I speak German and have seen and read the evidence, I can assure you that the most credible version of events is that it was a pure smear campaign and the banks' revenge.
Please be so kind and at least remove the link from your comment. Would it be possible? If so, thank you very much in advance. None of us wants to be involved in such a dirty game played by the banks, because that is how the German court classified the matter at the time.
Best wishes,
Suavek.
If your version is so robust why would it need extra protection? It would have a very reasonable chance of being able to stand up for itself and not require any censorship to remain viable. No assurances of credibility would be needed either.
Attempting to curate readers thoughts is not a typical sign of genuine openness and integrity. It's usually the opposite.
Dear Heinz,
At the time, I was astonished that no one who was sufficiently qualified had placed particular emphasis on systematically structuring the individual subject areas in the interests of better clarity and comprehensibility. There are highly qualified people who live in English-speaking countries and could complete this task much faster than I could. Dr. Yeadon cannot do everything himself at the same time because there are 24 hours in a day and not a minute more. He already works all day for the enlightenment, and Tim West looks after the Telegram channel and much more all day (and night). In order for me to familiarize myself with a particular topic and save and process enough texts, I have to spend some time on it. I hope it is understandable that I do not want the message contained in the article to lose its impact.
In the face of brutal censorship, such work seems like a drop in the ocean. Under the excess of fake news, such work evaporates very quickly and remains invisible. In other words, a lot of work appears as very little in the world of censorship and achieves little. And now please imagine how quickly my work can be destroyed. With a single link, all my work can seem pointless. The modest impact of an article fizzles out in a matter of seconds. Dear Heinz, we are in an information war that is about the future generations and not about my own integrity. I know that every neurosis is based on rigid, inflexible values. Reality changes, but values remain the same, and people who cannot change their views are the ones who lose out. If I do not adapt my values to the completely new, harsh reality, my efforts will be in vain. But I don't want to be a loser. I'd rather have a few stones thrown at me than have my work destroyed. I'm not afraid of being accused of a lack of integrity. I'm more afraid that no one will share my work and that my work will have been in vain. I don't think that the end generally justifies the means. But if you hid Jews in Germany during WWII, would you tell the German secret police their true whereabouts, just because you always wanted to tell the truth? That would be an example of stubbornly understood values. Now I have to decide and either weaken the message of the article or maintain my integrity. I think that this can be understood as a "double bind" message that cannot be solved. However, I still solve such problems by giving up one of the values. I think flexible enough and not stubbornly. If you tell me I can have either fish or the aquarium, but not both, then I will at least take one of them before my stubbornness means I have nothing at all. I ask you very much, do me a favour, and please refrain from the link so that I can enjoy my work and trust that it can achieve something. Being inundated by opposing narratives in the time of censorship and having to work without results is so frustrating that I would rather protect the impact of my work and not my "good name". If I can't have both... One of my neighbours had his children "vaccinated" with mRNA despite my warnings. There was nothing I could do about it. This Substack is my last chance to make a difference. Even with the modest reach of the messages it contains, I am happy that at least a few more people will wake up as a result. If you look at it in this context, what does my name mean? Nothing, nothing at all. That's why I'm asking you to meet me halfway. This problem may look a little different from the outside. But I have lost a lot in the meantime because I spent a lot of time on this Substack instead of being able to take care of my personal affairs in time. When I say "a lot", it really is a lot. This means that my whole future will look different from planned. Among other things, I really wanted to move abroad. Unfortunately, this dream would no longer be possible. My hope is that these losses were not in vain.
Best wishes,
Suavek
You can't fight gravity Suavek. It always wins
Heinz, as long as I can do something to counteract the forces of nature to mitigate them, why shouldn't I do it? Walking upright on two legs is one example of how this can be done. Goodbye, Heinz.
For avoidance of doubt. I’m more than aware that, AFTER the WHO fraudulently called a “pandemic, changes in medical management of many conditions were imposed internationally. The details vary substantially from country to country.
In U.K. for example, hospitals were much more likely to sedate, intubate and mechanically ventilate patients than previously. Further treatments such as remdesivir led predictably to many deaths.
In care homes, the scandalous misuse of sedatives and strong painkillers caused many vulnerable residents to stop breathing, a predictable consequence of administering these drugs (eg midazolam and morphine).
In the community, people with incipient or developing pneumonia were disregarded and not prescribed the “better safe than sorry” medication, a short course of oral antibiotics. Many died avoidable deaths from pneumonia induced respiratory failure.
Many of these unfortunate people were “tested” using a known-invalid diagnostic method, based on PCR.
Dying after a positive test result meant they were classified as “Covid deaths”. There is no such new, unique and clearly delineated illness. Yet, there’s your “pandemic”, if you’re expecting to see the evidence that way.
I do not believe “pandemics of severe, acute respiratory syndromes” are plausible, let alone possible. All claims for historical pandemics of this variety are faked, exaggerated and outright lied about.
Even in ordinary times, people fall ill & die. No one is saying anything different, least of all me.
But I am resolute that pandemics of severe, acute respiratory illnesses cannot happen & have never happened.
Please don’t fight me, fight the liars who intend to steal the freedoms of you and your family.
For some reason, many people have got to the point that they accept we’ve been lied to about almost every major narrative point in relation to the “pandemic”, yet insist there was a novel illness, and impliedly a new pathogen.
Perhaps there were local episodes of poisoning. While I personally have not seen evidence of such things, it’s not completely absurd in that those who set up these military grade psychological operations against their own people have indicated that this can be used to initiate fake pandemics.
Best wishes
Mike