It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Covid: Dr Reiner Fuellmich

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Dr Reiner Fuellmich sums it all up here. Once again. He will not give up. You can count on that.
He is our hope in anxious days. Anyway, I very much hope that he will soon do what he has said. Initiate a lawsuit against one or more protagonists of the covid policy. Or should I say: The Covid Scandal?

oh17.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 07:24 AM
link   
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
edit on Tue Nov 30 2021 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


(post by incoserv removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 07:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: zandra

I've listened to only 12 minutes of Reiner's report, and already it's clear the German judiciary is utterly corrupted. It serves not justice and truth, but the World Economic Forum's agenda of eugenics.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: zandra

I don't believe a word of it.

In law, what he is doing is called vexatious litigation.

As a lawyer, he gets paid. Not by winning cases, but by getting litigants to put up money for trial. Class actions can be very lucrative for a lawyer.

(... and "OH17News"? What sort of a 'news' site carries only anti-vax and COVID-19 denialist stuff? Not to mention that it is also an anonymous site - no contact details anywhere - not even in the WHOIS record on the domain. Doesn't inspire confidence).

edit on 30/11/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Just read the transcript. Excellent write-up.
He should have added the computer-manufactured sequence being used.
That was another big wtf detail.
You are clearly over the target.
Watch the responses.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Inspires more confidence then the drug pushers on tele. Anonymity is a defence against misinformation.

a reply to: chr0naut



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dalamax
Inspires more confidence then the drug pushers on tele. Anonymity is a defence against misinformation.

a reply to: chr0naut


Then why not put some money down for one of Mr Fullos#it's class actions, then?



In reality, the drug companies on TV (etc.) are held to 'truth in advertising' standards by government regulatory bodies. That is why, occasionally, they get fined, or even prosecuted, or products that they would otherwise love to make money off, get taken off the market.

But also, really, how is anonymity a "defense against misinformation"? I can see the opposite, that anonymity is the defense of the liar, because no-one can hold them culpable, so they can get away with saying anything. I mean, I must be thick because I can't see how anonymity defends against misinformation. Would you please be so kind as to explain it to me, in a rational sequence, or in some sort of example?



edit on 30/11/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

LOL, boy oh boy do you live in La La Land! The drug companies on TV are held to truth in advertising standards by government regulatory bodies! OMG are you naive.

Prior to 1996 when Bill Clinton signed off on Rx drug advertising to the public (which had been prohibited prior to his action) you MIGHT have had a point.

Not no more, no sir.

The drug companies own the regulatory agencies. Wee tiny proof of that is that Pfizer has pleaded guilty to medical fraud TWICE, 2004 and 2009.

Do you know what medical fraud is? In case you don't, we have been immersed in it for years, especially the last two.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: chr0naut

LOL, boy oh boy do you live in La La Land! The drug companies on TV are held to truth in advertising standards by government regulatory bodies! OMG are you naive.

Prior to 1996 when Bill Clinton signed off on Rx drug advertising to the public (which had been prohibited prior to his action) you MIGHT have had a point.

Not no more, no sir.

The drug companies own the regulatory agencies. Wee tiny proof of that is that Pfizer has pleaded guilty to medical fraud TWICE, 2004 and 2009.

Do you know what medical fraud is? In case you don't, we have been immersed in it for years, especially the last two.


Yes, I also remember those fake cancer cures that the FDA shut down, where the scammers charged the dying vast sums, and then faked testimonials and success numbers.

And all the snake-oil salesmen who to this day push useless supplements and bad health advice, and get fined for false advertising, or shut down if their 'health supplements' are actually toxic.

You can see it in the HQC/Ivermectin stuff, where they say they are 'cheap' medicines (they aren't, and never were), and that they are effective against COVID. Yet countries where they even once promoted them as 'cures' for COVID-19 have withdrawn them (like they did in both India and in Brazil) because after all the advertising promotion BS, they didn't show any real-world statistical effectiveness at all. Also, there has been much online chatter about Ivermectin in Japan, however, the truth is that Japan's NIID has never approved Ivermectin for use against COVID-19 and sales of Ivermectin in Japan are very low. Additionally, Kitasato University (who were fundamental in the discovery of Ivermectin) tried to do a study called CORVETTE-01 in September 2020 but has, so far, been unable to get the 240 participants required to complete the study.

So, perhaps the FDA and the CDC aren't lying, but the social media astroturfing and snake-oil salesmen, are?


edit on 2/12/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you understand....well, maybe you do understand, maybe you are just toooo trusting.

You have to follow the money.

If ivermectin was studied, and shown as a treatment for covid, before the FDA approved a vaccine then ALL vaccines under a EUA would be null and void- See 21 U.S Code 360bbb-3 (C)(3).


(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—
(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

www.law.cornell.edu...
This was one of the main reasons the FDA approval was rushed. Data was coming in from all over the world about the benefits of ivermectin.
Think of the money Pfizer, the FDA and some in the US government would have lost......
Quad



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Mr who’s what now?

a reply to: chr0naut



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you understand....well, maybe you do understand, maybe you are just toooo trusting.

You have to follow the money.

If ivermectin was studied, and shown as a treatment for covid, before the FDA approved a vaccine then ALL vaccines under a EUA would be null and void- See 21 U.S Code 360bbb-3 (C)(3).


(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—
(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

www.law.cornell.edu...
This was one of the main reasons the FDA approval was rushed. Data was coming in from all over the world about the benefits of ivermectin.
Think of the money Pfizer, the FDA and some in the US government would have lost......
Quad


Data wasn't coming from all over the world about the benefits if Ivermectin. There were a couple of studies that showed a positive effect (mostly in-vitro studies, with exceptionally high doses), there were other studies that showed little or no effect, and there was a significant amount of experience of use of Ivermectin which showed adverse reactions.

You still aren't getting it though, that the Ivermectin crowd are just lying. Doing what you accuse the FDA and CDC of doing.

Here's a hint, you don't trust big pharma - where does Ivermectin come from?

Countries that had massive government supported roll-outs, not limited trials, have withdrawn the use of Ivermectin because it didn't work, and because people were having liver failure from overdosing on it, when it didn't work and their friends and relatives still got sick and died.

And the vaccine costs about $40 a dose US, for three doses that's only $120.00. A pack twenty high-dose Ivermectin tablets costs that! And how many of them would you have to buy to keep up your resistance to the virus? That is a drug company making profits! Follow the money, indeed.

edit on 2/12/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Your reasoning is faulty.

What about, what about, what aboutism.

Your government hates you.

Corporations hate you.

The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.

It is always about control.

a reply to: chr0naut



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.

What about, what about, what aboutism.

Your government hates you.

Corporations hate you.

The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.

It is always about control.

a reply to: chr0naut


I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?



edit on 2/12/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.

What about, what about, what aboutism.

Your government hates you.

Corporations hate you.

The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.

It is always about control.

a reply to: chr0naut


I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?



How could they?

Because....
You are only a $ sign to them.
Love is an emotion.
They LOVE money.
Simple.
edit on 2-12-2021 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.

What about, what about, what aboutism.

Your government hates you.

Corporations hate you.

The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.

It is always about control.

a reply to: chr0naut


I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?



How could they?

Because....
You are only a $ sign to them.
Love is an emotion.
They LOVE money.
Simple.


But surely they would try and woo me and the rest of the populace to try and get all that extra ca$h that they want so badly?




posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The snake oil salesmen constitute today's medical industrial complex, which you seem to support and believe 100%

The quacks run today's medical industrial complex, sadly including the AMA.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.

What about, what about, what aboutism.

Your government hates you.

Corporations hate you.

The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.

It is always about control.

a reply to: chr0naut


I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?



How could they?

Because....
You are only a $ sign to them.
Love is an emotion.
They LOVE money.
Simple.


But surely they would try and woo me and the rest of the populace to try and get all that extra ca$h that they want so badly?




What for?

Your government already paid with your money for their product.

I guess they woo you with threats and promises.

Eat the bread and don’t be the main event at the circus.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join