What should it be about this week? The chances of the URT, the Outbreak Repair Team, led by Khadija Arib with members such as Wybren and Pepijn, which supports the members of the parliamentary committee of inquiry? Because who has to do that now... All corona dossier knowledge has disappeared from the House of Representatives.
Or a comparison between the EMA's letter to Engel et al., which shows that the governments have made up their own narrative, and Steve Kirsch's futile attempts to get the FDA and CDC to look at verified, other data than their own studies? In any case, the government institutes have in common that they only test their advice against their own excellent and therefore unapproachable expertise.
Or a more playful piece that explains why the term 'theoretically trained' should be replaced by 'impractically trained'... That might attract the attention of Marianne Zwagerman. But yes, a few days ago I happened to speak to Stan Baggen and he didn't know about my article, about his piece in Trouw. I had thought that it would end up with him.
So here is a slightly more detailed report of my introduction to the youth programme of the Anne Frank House.
The good works of the Anne Frank House
I attended a presentation afternoon of the Anne Frank House. Head of the Education Department · Anne Frank House, Norbert Winterleitner, explained the purpose of the youth programme, whose participants were going to present their projects. The aim of this programme is to make young people aware of universal rights so that they can guard against the signals that started in the 1930s. He specifically mentioned:
- Exclusion of groups of people
- violation of human rights
- Restrictions on freedom of expression
- A government that decides where you belong
"OK, now we're going to get it" I thought for a moment.
During various talks, there were sporadic hints at the dark times in which we live, but this was referring to the results of the recently held democratic elections.
Not a word about the past four years, not a word. I mentioned that to this and that in the after-drink, but I was then told that it was really 'something completely different' and that 'the intentions were really good'. That confirmed the problem for me. Not naming it, not wanting to see what is happening because 'the intentions are good' and 'they have our best interests at heart'. Because it's in the paper. And there we have that damned trust again. The credulity that keeps everything superficial.
This is precisely the behaviour that I had expected the Anne Frank House to be keen on. But they are in the middle of it themselves, they march along in the narrative. Their own key points are being violated and they just don't see it.
I was also cautiously told that the subject was actually not very suitable to discuss here, which caused bad blood, which in turn raised questions for me about how freely we can still speak. When they also excused it with 'yes and afterwards it's easy to talk, they had to do something, they didn't know, nothing was known yet', then I couldn't help but think of 'wir haben es nicht gewusst'. I didn't say that out loud.
In retrospect, I realized that I had missed the Nuremberg Code. It seemed quite relevant to me, but it was not mentioned. I think they think that is a 'too far-from-my-bed-show' for the enthusiastic young people, among whom I suspect a high vaccination rate. But it was an instructive visit. It has always been powerful to address the most committed young people at an early stage and to put them right in the right direction in youth groups.
What an intriguing rollercoaster it was again, this week. And to think that people go on holiday to experience something.
Enough about that. I spent most of my writing time on something else: the Dutch subtitles for a German lecture by emeritus Professor Sucharit Bhakdi.
An intense lecture by Sucharit Bhakdi
When it became known a few months ago that the vaccines were contaminated and that the production method and the composition of the vaccines rolled out was different from the production method and the composition of the approved vaccines, governments and their failing institutes could have retraced their steps. After all, these were actually new facts of which they could have said: "we didn't know that, that could explain everything". Steve Kirsch said that right away, Campbell I think too, later.
Watch the video below with Sucharit Bhakdi and realize that despite the pile of available and unrefuted scientific evidence about the dangers of the vaccines, neither governments nor their institutions have made a U-turn. So they let this moment pass. Bhakdi says at the end of the video that they can still pull their heads out of the noose, but it is already clear that they are not going to do that. There are misdeeds that are so serious that you know that your head will have to go back into that noose. There's no turning back now. Every wrongdoing is now committed knowingly, with premeditation.
The evidence that the study reports and thus the approval of the vaccines related to a different product than the vaccines rolled out should have been sufficient for withdrawal. Despite this, there is a lot of stubbornness. We should have known: the WPG with its 'toolbox' full of social coercive instruments is also being honoured, while it is clear how nonsensical and even harmful the measures are that the pharma minister so desperately wanted to have in his hands.
Does Sucharit Bhakdi know what he's talking about?
From 1972 onwards, Bhakdi conducted research into the functioning of the body's non-specific defence mechanisms at the Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology in Freiburg. He contributed to a better understanding of the mechanisms by which molecules in the blood render foreign substances harmless. In 1978, Bhakdi discovered a protein that attacks and damages cells by sinking into the cell membrane. This was the 'maintenance molecule', which is formed on the surface of foreign cells as a result of a chain reaction involving the immune system. This was followed by the discovery that bacteria, in turn, can produce similar proteins. In 1984, the Royal Society in London invited Bhakdi to present his concept of cell membrane damage. From then on, Bhakdi focused on research on this topic.
Memberships & Features
- Member of the Collaborative Research Centres of the German Research Foundation "Proteins as Tools in Biology" at the University of Giessen (1987-1990),
- Deputy Spokesman of the Immunopathogenesis Research Centre (1990-1999)
- Spokesperson for the Collaborative Research Center "490 Infection and Persistence in Infections" in Mainz (2000-2011).
- Co-founder and board member of the Association of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy, which was founded in May 2020 and lost its non-profit status in October 2020. The aim of the association is to take action against the measures taken by the German government to contain the corona pandemic.
In the autumn of 2020, he was one of the first signatories of the "Call for Free Debate Spaces" (Appell für freie Debattenräume [de], a German adaptation of the project "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate" by the American Thomas C. Williams, previously launched in the US).
He was editor-in-chief of Medical Microbiology and Immunology from 1990 to 2012.
Bhakdi has been retired for some time. All the medical institutes mentioned above have cancelled him. Read on Wikipedia how he is dismissed as an anti-Semite. Hello Anne Frank House...? They play your trump cards. Good intentions or not, you shouldn't have let this happen.
Watch the video of Sucharit Bhakdi with English subtitles. There are some mistakes in it, but it is easy to follow. The original (without Dutch subtitles) is on YouTube, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
An updated transcript can be found here here, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
The 2nd Corona Symposium of the AfD parliamentary group in the German Bundestag took place on 11 and 12 November 2023. For two days, renowned experts such as Prof Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, Prof Dr Stefan Homburg, Prof Dr Andreas Sönnichsen, Dr Ronald Weikl, Dr Gunter Frank, data analyst Tom Lausen, Prof Dr Paul Cullen and pathologist Prof Dr Walter Lang made the event an unforgettable experience for all involved thanks to their high level of expertise.
The statements made during the symposium reflect the opinion of the speaker in question.
Via the official YT channel of the AfD parliamentary group in the German Bundestag