Lockdown: A crime against humanity?
By Kathy Gyngell
SEVERAL people have sent me a YouTube video report concerning an international group of lawyers who say they are preparing to sue the World Health Organisation (WHO) over damage inflicted on large parts of the population by the coronavirus lockdowns. It is presented by a lawyer named Dr Reiner Fuellmich who introduces himself as one of four members of the German Coronavirus Investigative Committee. They have, he says, been taking evidence and listening to testimonies of large numbers of international scientists in order to ‘find answers to questions that more and more people are asking world wide about the Coronavirus’.
This corona crisis he says must be renamed a corona scandal and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. He proceeds to explain how and where an international network of lawyers will argue this ‘biggest tort case ever’. There are three main questions to answer: briefly, the first – is there a corona pandemic or a PCR testing pandemic? the second – is lockdown (social distancing, masks and so on) a protective measure or there to create panic and fear? third – was the German Government massively lobbied by the chief protagonists of the corona pandemic?
A report of the presentation by Martin Bürger in LifeSiteNews is helpful to read as a resume of the main contention – that is to be the basis of the group’s legal suit – which is that the widely used PCR tests ‘do not give any indication of an infection with any virus, let alone an infection with SARS-CoV-2’.
This opinion is based on a publication of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which stated: ‘Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.’
In the video Dr Fuellmich explains: ‘The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is, as reported by the New York Times and others, considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable.’
These tests, he continues, are set to 45 cycles and he asks: ‘Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?’
You can watch the video and hear the rest of his case here:
How seriously should we take this? Much hinges on how many scientists (and commentators) share Fuellmich’s level of scepticism about the PCR tests. Attributing ‘alternative’ or malign motivation and intention behind countries Lockdown policies is almost bound to be speculative. Identifying those with interests in its maintenance may be easier.
Even those who are supportive may not see a legal initiative as amounting to anything ‘until the basic scare is defused and Governments realise they have to change policy and are on the run’, as one scientist wrote to me.
Another question is whether any court asked to take on what will be seen as political decisions will do other than support Establishment orthodoxy.
It may be that Craig Kelly, an MP in the Australian Parliament, comes closest to being effective when he says that certain health bureaucrats in the Australian States should be on their way to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for what he deems to be their quite specific crimes against humanity. In this interview with him and others on Sky News (Australia) he discusses the ‘criminal ban’ of hydroxychloroquine by Australian bureaucrats. Watch to the end when he says that if the bans are extended these officials will be committing crimes against humanity.
It would be interested to know if such an action could be drafted credibly. Any lawyers out there?