Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity
A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.
COVID Fraud – Lawyers & Medical Experts start legal proceedings against W.H.O and World Leaders for ‘Crimes against Humanity’
That’s great. I hope it succeeds although I have my doubts.
In another time, Fauci et al. would be hung in the public square. He funded creation of the virus, using shady methods to do so, has fomented fear and despair, and has lied to us all repeatedly. He is an evil little megalomaniac. Yet, apparently I am of the minority in this opinion.
The thing about the Nuremberg Code is that it requires informed consent.
You cannot have “informed consent” when there is an organized media blitz reporting – at most – half the story.
To have informed consent there would have to be at least:
1) Mandatory reporting of deaths and adverse events.
2) Mandatory, unbiased investigation into those reported deaths and adverse events.
3) Ongoing public disclosure by media and government of the information garnered by 1) and 2), so that citizens can decide whether to give “consent” that is “informed” by all relevant facts.
Instead we are getting non-disclosure coupled with measures intended to force people to get the vaccination.
A different and probably more rational pov:
This seems like standard mischaracterizations from TPTB to me.
There are links to two interviews of Fuellmich himself in the 1st post of the “Nuremberg 2.0” thread where he explains his legal approach. It is logical and well thought out. Unfortunately, it will take time, which we may not have a lot of. Still, he’s acting in a legally rational manner.
Fuellmich totally loses me at one point, where he dismisses Covid as perhaps not a real thing at all. I groaned at this, but it is typical of a trial-lawyer preparing his ground. Covid is definitely a distinct disease, and big deal to those who get to an advanced stage, but a trial lawyer is a trial lawyer, and he is strictly attacking to abuse of our civil liberties being based on the worthless PCR test that is actually incapable of diagnosing infection. His approach has merit.
We all have our abilities. Fuellmich’s approach may turn out to be the only way to destroy the “One Ring”. Everybody should do what they can. This is what a class-action lawyer can do. We need more Frodos. And Sams. We can’t all stay in the Shire preparing for the worst and merely hoping for the best. Some of us have to try to make it happen. For recognizing the opportunity and making this effort, I congratulate Fuellmich and pray for his success.
…not even bothering to open the link Doug posted.
Initially I was a little bit surprised at your utter lack of support for Pope Fauci in this whole debacle. All through my time here at the site, I have always been able to count on you to present the best possible face on the latest disaster, defending the status quo come what may.
But instead of defending Fauci, you attacked the attorney!
I now realize this is excellent news. Attacking opposing counsel is literally the best idea you could come up with.
This tells me that Fauci is toast! You believe it too! Otherwise – you’d have mounted a far more clever defense of the embattled former bureaucrat.
We all contribute, each in our own way.
Posting a link to an over-emotional, ad hominem attack on Fuellmich is the best you can do? How about refuting some of his claims with factual evidence?
Just reading through the OP’s link.
We who frequent these forums have known the content is more or less correct if not literally so.
Isn’t it still a little stunning to see it all laid out though?
Does anyone know of the PCR test is a real-time PCR test or an endpoint PCR test. I read the first paragraph of the link in the OP and the wording is incorrect which makes me immediately skeptical. As someone who has developed PCR tests for HIV, HCV I can tell you that PCR can be designed to test pathogens. I’m fairly certain PCR tests are used to screen the donated blood supply for HIV, HCV etc.
It’s not how many cycles the test was “set to” but how many cycles it takes for detectable amplification of the target (the threshold cycle) – assuming its a real-time test. Also, the cutoff for a true positive can be somewhat determined by how many cycles it takes for known negatives to show up – which is also not always 28. It depends on the amount of initial DNA input, among other things.
Only an end-point PCR test would have these issues, because it is amplified to a specific number of cycles and then the PCR product is detected by another method and is a binary yes/no for the existence of the target product. This is hardly used anymore because real-time instruments deliver a result right away and you can watch the progress with each PCR cycle.
Been seeing a ton of misleading and outright false statements about PCR testing so thought I would attempt to explain a bit.