This is a transcript of the interview with Reiner Fuellmich that was published on 26 December 2020 for the in-process movie, Planet Lockdown - Having the Courage to Face Our Fears (https://www.planetlockdownfilm.com). The theme of Planet Lockdown is how we can all have the internal power to overcome our fears, because the ability to have the strength to be ourselfs and be strong comes from within.
Dr Reiner Fuellmich is a German American lawyer with experience going after large companies like Deutsche Bank. He is a member of the German Corona Investigative Committee [auto-gen Eng translation]. He discusses the current situation and his efforts to bring justice to the situation.
Bobby Kennedy gave a speech here in Berlin on August 29th that was the largest demonstration that this country has ever had. Even though the mainstream media—there were more than a million people there—the mainstream media here made this into something of no consequence, like they’re telling there’s 17,000 people or so that came together. We know, because we had 34 lawyers on the ground, [we] were cooperating with members of the police force. We know it was way more than a million.
But he reminded people of something that—not just of what his uncle said some 50 years ago, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Famous, absolutely famous. Every German will always remember this. But also of a quote of Franklin D Roosevelt: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” And that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to keep everyone in fear by pretending, by using these marionettes like Drosten and Wieler and Tedros—who’s kind of slipped into the background right now—but trying to use fear so that people will believe everyone, even their closest neighbors and relatives, is a danger to them; could be a super spreader. Even if they’re completely healthy and show no symptoms.
That’s why I’m saying: It’s not just a lie about PCR tests can tell us something about infections. In addition they needed to lie about people can be infectious even if they don’t show any symptoms. That’s another thing, because Drosten knows that he’s lying. When he first published a preprint, where he wrote a preprint on January the 30th [Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany, New England Journal of Medicine 2020; 382:970-971] about how this woman from Wuhan came to Frankfurt and infected a lot of people without her having any any symptoms; that was wrong. There was a journalist by the name of Kai Kupferschmidt who pointed this out and said, Hey this is wrong. [Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed, Science, 3 Feb 2020] This woman did show symptoms because she was taking anti-flu medication. You don’t do that if you don’t have any symptoms. But still he published his paper without correcting this.
So what you have here is lie number one: There can be infections without symptoms so that everybody here is afraid of everybody even though nobody shows any symptoms, nobody is seriously sick. And the second lie is the PCR tests, with their positive results, tell us about infections. And there you have it. That’s the stage which is perfect for this panic which is playing out.
I’m Reiner Fuellmich. I’m a trial lawyer. I have been admitted to the German and the California bar for 26 years. My firm and I have over these years mostly represented consumers and small corporations against fraudulent large corporations like VM and Deutsche Bank.
I got into this because a friend of mine asked me to do something about this and my wife confirmed, Yes you have to do something about it. That’s why we returned from California to Germany in order to take part in the effort of finding out what’s really going on. Now that we’ve more or less gotten a clearer picture, the big thing is to fight what these people are trying to do.
Q: Is your focus on the PCR test?
RF: Our focus is on the PCR test because if we manage to convince a court of law that this is a fraudulent enterprise—the PCR test being being marketed with the assertion that it can detect infections—if we can convince a court of law that this is a false statement then the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down. Because there is nothing else that is the tool that they’re using in order to keep people in panic mode and there’s no basis for this panic because even according to the WHO which couldn’t quite escape the conclusions of John Ioannidis, the mortality is, or lethality is, roughly the same as that of the common flu.
Q: So inconsequential, basically.
RF: Yes. And also there’s already herd immunity. That’s another thing that has been overlooked. So there’s absolutely no reason for vaccines except for the pharmaceutical industry to make money and probably cause a lot of damage as far as health. There’s probably going to be a lot of fatalities too because these vaccines haven’t really been tested properly. Usually it takes between five and seven years to develop a new vaccine. And now this should be done, or they’re claiming it can be done, in nine months or so? I don’t think so.
Q: Can you comment on your lawsuit you’re going do next week. This will be published—
RF: This is not going to be one single lawsuit. It’s going to be a number of different lawsuits that are going to be filed both here in Germany on this side of the Atlantic and in the United States. Here in Germany we’re going to start filing these lawsuits because we’re a little bit ahead of our American colleagues, even though we’ve been discussing this for quite a while now in numerous zoom conferences. But we’re a little bit ahead of the pack and so we’re going to start filing these lawsuits here in Germany for damages against people like Drosten, Wieler, and some of the others.
Q: And can you hold them personally liable?
RF: Oh yeah because they’re the ones that lied. They’re the ones who stuck their heads out too far. They’re not doing this on their own. They’re making money with it of course. But somebody else is pulling their strings like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates who are lurking in the background so to speak. But we have to start somewhere and the intention that we think is important here is to uncover the whole thing. To use what we’ve learned through the Corona Committee [auto-gen Eng translation], to use these pieces of evidence and the experts that we’ve heard in order to convince a court of law that this is a staged pandemic and that there’re other goals, other people who are behind this and trying to push completely different goals. This has nothing to do with the world’s health.
Q: How does an operation like this work or how is it structured do you think?
RF: We don’t know and we don’t care. Right now we don’t care. The evidence is going to take us there. In particular if we take advantage of the Anglo-American judicial system in order to win this case against Drosten we don’t have to know who’s behind him. We know. We can see that there’s people behind him because he’s just not smart enough to pull this off by himself. And neither is Wieler. We know from listening to many of these experts, that they’ve been in touch with—Wieler and Drosten have been in touch with, in close touch with, the players behind the field. The pharmaceutical players like Roche is one of the big pharmaceutical players. Or the Wellcome Trust that I think Wieler used to work for them or with them.
So we know that there’s something in the background but it’s not important for our lawsuit. For a lawsuit we can concentrate on one thing only: these people lied when they’re telling the general public that PCR tests can tell us something about infections.
Q: How could such a simple deception grow so large with this PCR test?
RF: Because it’s the panic. Bobby Kennedy gave a speech here in Berlin on August 29th that was the largest demonstration that this country has ever had. Even though the mainstream media—there were more than a million people there—the mainstream media here made this into something of no consequence, like they’re telling there’s 17,000 people or so that came together. We know, because we had 34 lawyers on the ground, [we] were cooperating with members of the police force. We know it was way more than a million.
But he reminded people of something that—not just of what his uncle said some 50 years ago, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Famous, absolutely famous. Every German will always remember this. But also of a quote of Franklin D Roosevelt: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” And that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to keep everyone in fear by pretending, by using these marionettes like Drosten and Wieler and Tedros—who’s kind of slipped into the background right now—but trying to use fear so that people will believe everyone, even their closest neighbors and relatives, is a danger to them; could be a super spreader. Even if they’re completely healthy and show no symptoms.
Mr. Drosten Mr. Wieler Mr. Tedros
That’s why I’m saying: It’s not just a lie about PCR tests can tell us something about infections. In addition they needed to lie about people can be infectious even if they don’t show any symptoms. That’s another thing, because Drosten knows that he’s lying. When he first published a preprint, where he wrote a preprint on January the 30th [Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany, New England Journal of Medicine 2020; 382:970-971] about how this woman from Wuhan came to Frankfurt and infected a lot of people without her having any any symptoms; that was wrong. There was a journalist by the name of Kai Kupferschmidt who pointed this out and said, Hey this is wrong. [Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed, Science, 3 Feb 2020] This woman did show symptoms because she was taking anti-flu medication. You don’t do that if you don’t have any symptoms. But still he published his paper without correcting this.
So what you have here is lie number one: There can be infections without symptoms so that everybody here is afraid of everybody even though nobody shows any symptoms, nobody is seriously sick. And the second lie is the PCR tests, with their positive results, tell us about infections. And there you have it. That’s the stage which is perfect for this panic which is playing out.
Q: Could you reiterate the first one in a sentence or two concisely like we were told there was this asymptomatic spreading and that isn’t true and that’s the basis of masks just because that’s such a big point.
RF: One of the law professors who advises us in the background pointed out to me in this tort case there are two really important lies that have to be put front and center. One is PCR tests can tell us something about infections. The truth is it cannot. In particular not the way these PCR tests, the Drosten tests, are set up. Because everybody agrees that using these PCR tests, you take a swab and then you have these molecules which are invisible to the human eye so you have to amplify them by putting them into a machine—most of them produced by Roche—and amplifying them in cycles. Anything above 35 cycles everyone agrees is completely unusable—doesn’t make any sense—it’s unscientific. The Drosten test—just like the CDC test by the way which used the Drosten test as a blueprint—were set at 45 cycles. Lie number one: you cannot tell anything about infections by using these PCR tests because what they do is they test positive to almost everything including, for example, the debris, the fragments of a common cold, of your immune system’s fight against the common cold.
Lie number two, even more important I think, is he says that there are asymptomatic infections. Which basically means anyone who is surrounding us, our relatives, our friends, and who shows no symptoms, who’s perfectly healthy, or appears perfectly healthy, could be a threat. That’s what this fraud—there are asymptomatic infections—induces. It tells us, Oh my god everybody could be potentially dangerous. That is not true. And we know that Drosten, when he wrote this in a preprint, knew that it was not true because he was referring to a woman from Wuhan who traveled to Frankfurt and who apparently spread whatever virus she had to a lot of people. And she, he claims, didn’t have any symptoms. A journalist pointed out that is wrong. She did have symptoms because she was taking anti-flu medication.
Q: Basically this is just like the normal flu where if you’re sneezing coughing then you’re infectious.
RF: Yeah. Unless you show any symptoms you are not infected. Dr Mike Yeadon found a really great way of defining what an infection is. He says, There’s a cold infection and there’s a hot infection. If a test—whatever test—is positive, because it finds some debris, some fragment of your body’s prior fight against a common cold for example, or whatever, that doesn’t mean anything if it’s just there. Only if a virus enters your cells and then replicates are you contagious and that’s when you have symptoms. Meaning if you don’t have any symptoms, whatever virus is there, hasn’t done anything, isn’t dangerous, is being probably killed by your body’s immune system. It’s only contagious, it’s only infectious in that common sense if it has entered the cells and is replicating. Before that, nothing to worry about.
Q: So if you don’t have symptoms, you’re not infected and you’re not contagious.
RF: Absolutely. That’s the big thing because symptoms is like a sore throat or a headache or a diarrhea or whatever. Just like the normal flu. That’s what it all boils down to.
Q: It’s been really disgusting seeing these things in the media with people walking with blood on the ground and all.
RF: Just plain stupid. But it works. Like Bobby Kennedy said, There’s nothing to fear but fear itself. But now we have a lot of fear and many people have simply decided we’re not going to think anymore. We’re just going to react to whatever triggers us. Whatever they use to trigger us.
Q: What’s your goal with all this? Do you think you can get injunctions on these things?
RF: If we’re lucky we’re going to get injunctions depending on which court we address. We have had not just lawyers who are trying to help, more and more lawyers who are coming out of hiding more or less, but we’ve also—the Corona Committee that is—we’ve also had judges calling us getting in touch with us and asking us how they can help. They’re not intending to bend the law or break the law but they want to apply the law in order to stop this. So there is going to be lots more pushback than we can see right now.
Q: Are there efforts to change the laws to make that harder?
RF: Yes. The government is trying to change the laws because, just like in the United States, here in Germany and in Austria more courts have declared governmental decisions are not based on a parliamentary hearing—on our lawmakers the ones who who we voted into office—deciding about these laws but simply made up regulations. Many courts of laws including the Constitutional Court in in Austria, the Supreme Courts of Michigan and Wisconsin, a federal court in Pennsylvania, a Superior Court in in California, have said, You, governor can make emergency regulations for a few days. But then you have to get the parliament involved. You have to get the lawmakers involved and that means you have to have a discussion about the pros and cons. What about the mask? Does it serve any purpose? Is there any other opinion out there that says no it doesn’t serve any purpose? Are they maybe dangerous and particular to children? Are there any studies out there?
That’s the kind of discussion that we need to have and that’s one of the things that we need to push as the Corona Committee: a public scientific discussion about what’s going on. And that’s what the other side of course wants to suppress. Because once we have this the results are going to be the same as those that we have had in the Corona Committee because the witnesses that we have listened to are basically the same, plus some more, who are going to go to court. So they’re not going to change their minds I don’t think.
Q: Have any of the events this year changed your perspective of the world?
RF: Oh yeah. As I said in the beginning, I was not completely surprised to see how governmental functions have been taken over by private corporations. The most important thing however and that’s something that I’m still quite shocked at, the most important thing is that private companies like Youtube and Facebook are deciding about the range of freedom of speech. They’re the ones who are deciding whether or not somebody’s opinion can be heard or not. That cannot be. We have to stop this because this is a sovereign task. It’s up to the courts of law to decide whether somebody, some speech is defamation or whatever. But it’s not up to private corporations to decide whether or not an opinion that is being told to the world through a video is is covered by the right to freedom of speech or not. It’s us. It’s the people who have to decide about this.
Q: Their behavior surprised you?
RF: What what surprised me is how careless we have been over the last 10 or maybe 20 years. Because the encroachment of our individual rights has been going on for a lot longer. This is just maybe the final stage of this plan. Because there is a plan behind this. There must be a plan behind this when it turns out that the pandemic isn’t a pandemic but it’s just something like the common flu and when it turns out these people who are telling us about these PCR tests are lying to us. So the next question of course is who’s doing this for what purpose?
Q: What do you think this is heading towards? What do you think is the goal?
RF: From what I’ve read, and again this is not important for our lawsuits, but from what I’ve read and the people who we talked to here on this Committee, historians and journalists, this is the so-called great reset that some very rich players of the corporate world including Bill Gates but also including Klaus Schwab—he’s using his World Economic Forum as a meeting forum for the self-appointed corporate elite and the self-appointed political elite to influence them, to manipulate them. To basically lobby them. What the goal is, probably, probably, population reduction is one of the goals so that the resources of the world will last longer for those who will survive this. That, in my opinion, is one of the goals. Maybe the basic goal.
Q: Through control and population?
RF: I think so.
Q: Sort of managed reduction?
RF: I think so. Because you can read this. They’re not doing this in hiding. It’s out there. Last week’s, was it Newsweek’s article? I think their cover shows this eerie, ghostly person Klaus Schwab who is one of the people who is behind this.
Q: What do you say to people that are new to this or skeptical of this, haven’t read all this material?
RF: It depends on who you talk to. Like when we met out there I was speaking to a cab driver. This guy is intelligent. Intelligence I think has nothing to do with if you have a law degree or a degree in in medicine. But this guy is intelligent because he’s asking questions. He wasn’t wearing a mask which was to me an invitation to talk to him; get a conversation going. We drove, he drove me here and took took us about 10 minutes, but within these 10 minutes he began to ask me questions. Like what you’re doing right now. He was open-minded but he was open-minded because he had already begun to ask himself questions. Some of the things that are going on don’t make any sense to him he says. I think maybe I got him interested in looking a little deeper and getting more information from the Internet because he can’t get them from the mainstream media. As I said they have been influenced in much the same way by these investors—Bill Gates and others’ money—as the pharmaceutical and the tech industries.
Q: I’m from Washington DC and all the so-called expert intellectual class, they seem to be some of the dumbest in situations like this. Why do you think that is?
RF: Because they think they’re much smarter than they are. I mean some of the people who I went to law school with know everything about the law because they have learned many of the regulations by heart, many of the decisions by heart. But that’s not all. There is another layer of intelligence which many of these people don’t have. You have to be able to follow your gut instinct. You have to be able to put the dots together. You have to be able to—I guess what this is called is social intelligence. You have to understand what’s going on. Not just have a knowledge of certain individual aspects of the law in this case but you have to be able to see the entire woods and not just one tree.
Q: Like some street smarts.
RF: Street smarts. That comes into play. But it doesn’t—in addition you need to have the factual knowledge. If you’re a lawyer you have to know about the law. But that alone doesn’t get you very far. You have to understand—street smarts is probably good.
Q: Yeah because in DC it’s like a hundred percent right now. But you go into the midwest and south, a lot of people are more skeptical.
RF: In California, out where we live, Northern California most people don’t really care. They do put on their mask if they have to. In Reno that’s the closest larger city to us, if you go to a Walmart or any of the hardware stores, yeah you put on your mask. But in those smaller towns people don’t care. Neither the shop owners or the employees, they don’t care. They don’t wear masks....