![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Ausschuss_1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
by Brian Gerrish <\/p>\n
On 28 May 2021, I gave evidence<\/a> to the 54th session of the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss, the German-based extraparliamentary inquiry by lawyers into the medical establishment\u2019s and public policymakers\u2019 handling of the Covid crisis internationally.<\/em><\/p>\n The theme for the day during the 54th session was \u201cCaught between nudging and side effects\u201d. A transcript of my testimony is below.<\/em> Reiner F\u00fcllmich: <\/strong>Brian, I apologise for having kept you waiting for twenty minutes or so.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> That\u2019s absolutely fine, and I\u2019d just like to say that I don\u2019t speak German but it was fascinating watching you and listening, and it was wonderful to see you start laughing, because you looked very serious in most of the dialogues<\/a> that I\u2019ve listened to.<\/p>\n There was one word that I picked up that I found very interesting, and that was Wahnsinn<\/em>, which came up several times, particularly when [persecuted primary school headmistress]<\/em> Bianca was speaking.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> You know what it means, right?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Yes, \u201cmadness\u201d. And I\u2019m going to say to you: it\u2019s not<\/em> madness<\/a>. What we are facing is calculated, and it\u2019s a mistake to call it \u201cmadness\u201d, because it\u2019s very precise; it\u2019s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we\u2019re facing.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> That\u2019s very interesting to hear, because we have come to the conclusion that \u201cthe other side\u201d, as we call them, is using two major tools. One is, of course, psychology, psychological operations<\/a>; and the other, which transports this psychological operation, is the mainstream media<\/a>.<\/p>\n Can you tell us a little about your background?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Well, my personal background is, professionally, I was military: I was in the Royal Navy for twenty-one years. I then worked in industry, essentially, for a while, but after a few years, I began to understand that things were not good in the UK, and I began to see things and investigate things.<\/p>\n Ultimately, that\u2019s led me, over nearly another twenty years, to team up with a gentleman called Mike Robinson, and for fourteen years now, we\u2019ve been running a media outlet called the UK Column, where I\u2019m delighted to say that we\u2019re expanding, and it\u2019s clear that our viewers and listeners are now not only in the UK; they\u2019re across the world.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> Excellent. And now, of course, you\u2019re busy covering Coronavirus and all the ramifications of what Coronavirus is bringing\u00a0about.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Well, the key point is that we originally started by looking at some of the issues that you\u2019ve just mentioned. We we were looking at how propaganda had come into the country; we were looking at the use of applied behavioural psychology by the Government<\/a>; and we were looking at changes which were very serious (or we<\/em> thought they were very serious) that were particularly affecting the style of democracy, and that were also affecting our constitutional rights.<\/p>\n It was against that background of reporting that we have then encountered, obviously, what\u2019s happened with Coronavirus. So I would say to you that our analysis of what has happened with Coronavirus is seen very much against the background of what was happening politically, and in particular the use of applied behavioural psychology and propaganda.<\/p>\n Viviane Fischer:<\/strong> So what do you think is the \u201ccalculated madness\u201d? The [description] \u201c<\/em>madness\u201d is more our judgement from when we look at what was the normal status of things before. No-one would have thought, had you asked us a year ago, that this could have ever happened; at least not us, I guess.<\/p>\n And also, we were really surprised how the legal <\/em>system has deteriorated<\/a>, or at least, how it has become obvious that it is really in bad shape<\/a>. But we also have the feeling, at the same time, that it\u2019s very orchestrated, what\u2019s happening: that it\u2019s like a jigsaw puzzle. They move this piece and this piece, and then the picture is becoming more and more clear what\u2019s going on. But what are your experiences or your analysis of the situation?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> First of all, I\u2019d agree with you that the Coronavirus \u201cpandemic\u201d, if we want to call it that in inverted commas, did catch everybody by surprise. I don\u2019t think we saw that coming, and it happened very quickly. So I\u2019d certainly agree with you on that.<\/p>\n But I\u2019ll come back to the fact that we started to see very, very serious things things happening in the UK. If I just focus immediately on the Government\u2019s use of applied behavioural psychology: back in 2010 and 2011, we as the UK Column were warning<\/a> that the Government had set up a team which was called the Behavioural Insights Team<\/a>\u00a0[UK Column note: whose former homepage address\u00a0‘behaviouralinsights.co.uk’ now redirects to the consciously globalist ‘bi.team’]<\/em>. This was a team of psychologists who were working directly alongside not only the political process, but the policy-forming<\/em> process within the British Government.<\/p>\n A critical document which we found in 2010 was called Mindspace<\/em><\/a> (you can find it very easily by searching online for it as a PDF document). In that document, the Government admitted that it was using applied behavioural psychology to influence how it designed<\/em> policy and how it implemented<\/em> policy.<\/p>\n At one particular point in that document\u2014in fact, it\u2019s at the bottom of page 66, if I remember correctly\u2014the Government boasts that it can change the way people think and behave, and that people will not be aware that this has been done to them. But it adds the caveat that if they do<\/em> realise that their behaviour is changed, they will not know how<\/em> it was changed.<\/p>\n We read this document and we were shocked, and we then started to research further. That then led us to discover that, around that time and of course a little bit earlier, the British Government had been conducting meetings with the French, in which we were bringing the political<\/em> psychology teams together to produce joint plans with the French. The key Frenchman who was present in the meetings was called Olivier Ouillier<\/a>, and he was working directly at that time for Sarkozy\u2019s private office.<\/p>\n Now, all these meetings were essentially held in secret. We were able to discover that they had taken place, but we were only able to discover that by carefully researching along specific routes which we understood were important. For example, most of these meetings were conducted under the guise that they were part of a charity, the Franco-British Council<\/a>, which said it was simply set up in order to improve relationships between Britain and France.<\/p>\n So these meetings took place, and it was very clear that there was concerted effort to expand the use of these techniques: not only from Britain and France, but the implication at that time was that these techniques were going to be used across the wider power base of the European Union.<\/p>\n And I\u2019ll just say again that the Mindspace<\/em> document was boasting that this was the first time the Government would be able to use applied techniques where people would have their behaviour changed\u2014that means their thoughts<\/em> changed!\u2014and they wouldn\u2019t even be aware that it had occurred.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> For what purpose?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Well, if you want to execute power, then you\u2019re going to try and use normal, democratic politics, or you\u2019re going to try and use force, or you\u2019re going to try and use other means<\/em>.<\/p>\n And so this comes to me as other means<\/em>. I have to say that when I saw how cynical this was, how calculated it was, when I was using effectively my military background, I could see that this was the use of raw power<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now, if I jump forward into events around Covid: very early on in the Covid pandemic (I\u2019ve called it a \u201cpandemic\u201d; of course, I don\u2019t believe that that is what it is, but that\u2019s how it was reported), it came to our attention that the Government scientific advisory group, SAGE, had actually had an internal meeting with elements of the Government\u2019s Behavioural Insights Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n The key gentleman concerned with this was a man called Dr David Halpern<\/a>. That meeting was not properly minuted in a proper official sense, but they did put out a briefing sheet from the meeting, and in that document, which I think was dated 22 March 2020, it admitted that the SAGE team and the Government\u2019s policy on Coronavirus was going to use applied psychology in order to ramp up fear in the population<\/a>, in order to get the population to adhere more closely to the Government\u2019s policy over the response to Coronavirus.<\/p>\n We have the document<\/a>; we can provide you with a copy of that document.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> Yes, please, because we have the same thing. It\u2019s a leaked paper from the [Federal] Secretary of the Interior, and it is now referred to as the Panic Paper [UK Column note: reported by us on 10 February<\/a>,\u00a0commencing at 53:15]<\/em>.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Yes, I\u2019ve heard about the paper in Germany. I haven\u2019t seen it or been able to read it in English. I\u2019m going to suggest to you that that German paper would have come out of the specific talks that I just referred to. When we started to see that the British Government was having these secretive meetings with French applied behavioural psychology experts, it was clear to us that this was going to be rolled out in other European countries. So I was not surprised when I heard about that German document.<\/p>\n Now, in the SAGE document<\/a>, aside from saying that they were going to ramp up fear, there was something very interesting. It said [UK Column note: in paras. 6\u20138 on p. 2]\u00a0<\/em>that inside [local] communities, community members were going to be used to effectively police each other. So people were going to be used to put pressure on their neighbours, for example, to wear a mask; to adhere to social distancing.<\/p>\n So it was very clear in what they were talking about that they were going to use this covert applied psychology to pressurise citizens to act against one another. And, significantly, they also said that this had to be done with some care<\/em>, because they believed that it was possible that this situation could get out of control. Clearly, what they meant by that is that instead of having somebody saying to somebody else, \u201cYou should wear a mask!\u201d, that requirement could be translated into violence.<\/p>\n Having told you about that document\u2014very clear-cut, very specific\u2014I now come back again to Bianca talking [just before Brian Gerrish]<\/em>, because I could understand a little bit of what she was talking about: she talked about angst, she was talking about stress.<\/p>\n Now, of course, the techniques that are being used on adults\u2014these psychological techniques to induce stress and fear\u2014are also being used on the children<\/a>. I could only understand a tiny bit of what she was talking about, but I understood enough to grasp\u2014correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014that the rules change, so she doesn\u2019t know what the rules are from time to time.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> Exactly, yes. Every week, they changed the rules [for schools]<\/em>, so that she had to sit at her desk over the weekend in order to figure out how to make these things work.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Right. And what that is, the uncertainty and the change in the rules: that is part of the psychological attack<\/a>. Because the uncertainty immediately is putting people in a position of stress and anxiety and confusion<\/a>. And if we go back into the professional world of applied psychology, people who are in a distressed, confused state are very susceptible to further messages and instructions. If there\u2019s a fire in a building and people are starting to panic, the first person that starts to give clear<\/em> commands to the people, those commands will be followed. And that is due to the psychological state.<\/p>\n Now, I\u2019m not professionally trained in psychology; I do know a reasonable amount, which I\u2019ve now learnt as a result of the investigations that I do.<\/p>\n But the other point that I want to bring into this is that many years ago, we started to get very interested in a charity called Common Purpose<\/a>. Common Purpose, as a charity, said it was there to create \u201cfuture leaders in society<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n It effectively was like an octopus<\/a>: it had tentacles, it got into the hospital system, it got into the police, it got into the military, it got into the schools. And once inside these organisations, it was essentially spreading a new philosophy<\/a> in many areas.<\/p>\n Everything I\u2019m saying to you is fully documented. I have a website<\/a> which is packed full of documents talking about what this organisation was doing. It particularly went for children. In the earliest days, it was going for children of the age of about 11 to 14, but it also was interested in university students.<\/p>\n Aside from the fact that the people who went on [its] courses were selected<\/em>, they were also keen to get younger people<\/em> into their so-called training courses.<\/p>\n When I was investigating this organisation, because I was extremely suspicious about what it was doing (it was a very interesting claim to be \u201cchoosing future leaders\u201d who were going to \u201clead beyond authority<\/a>\u201d!), [I found that] <\/em>the training was clearly designed to produce people working in an organisation who were not<\/em> working in the normal culture of the organisation. Common Purpose had given them a new set of values<\/em>.<\/a><\/p>\n When I took some expert advice on how they were doing this, that was the first time that I was told about the technique of neurolinguistic programming. NLP is actually a form of hypnosis. You can look on the internet and you will find many consultancies providing training in NLP, and you will find many people providing training who say that it has a therapeutic [value], that it can be used to care for people and help people<\/a>.<\/p>\n In essence, this is true; but what we<\/em> were interested in is where we started to see the use of neurolinguistics in government<\/em> policy.<\/p>\n So, [we must] bring these two together:<\/p>\n – It is a fact that the British Government set up a specific applied psychology team.<\/p>\n – It is a fact that that team was promoting ideas to make the population fearful around the pandemic.<\/p>\n But, on a much bigger scale, that team was using\u2014amongst other things\u2014NLP in order to influence virtually every document that the Government was producing<\/a>.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know whether any of your team have come across NLP before, but I\u2019ll say that it\u2019s an open secret (you can go and research it, and many professional people teach<\/em> it) that essentially it\u2019s a form of hypnosis. And this means that you can put across ideas and concepts to people which are not necessarily just going through their conscious mind.<\/p>\n This is fact; this is not fiction.<\/p>\n Now, when you start to see NLP being used for political<\/em> objectives, of course, the wider public is very, very vulnerable, because unless you have a little bit of training or knowledge of NLP, you won\u2019t even realise that it\u2019s being used on you, and it can be used in a verbal sense but it can also be used in writing.<\/p>\n So, for example, you can have a document in front of you: you many notice a full stop at the end of a sentence; that marker is in the wrong place, and you believe that somebody made a mistake when they were typing.<\/p>\n But this is not what NLP can do, because when you are reading the sentence and you come to the full stop, your conscious<\/em> mind makes one decision but your subconscious<\/em> mind makes another one. And it is perfectly possible to be writing documents where it appears<\/em> that one message is being put across but actually a completely different message is being put to the audience.<\/p>\n If I bring this into the realm of Coronavirus reaction, we are now seeing that every statement made by the Government, every piece of paper that comes out, is invariably very carefully crafted, it\u2019s very carefully put together, and I can see that in much of this documentation, carefully-applied behavioural psychology is being used in the written word<\/em>.<\/p>\n To back that up, to reinforce that: we also have a government document where they are specifically boasting of being able to use psychology in written documents.<\/p>\n Viviane Fischer:<\/strong> So you think that also the leaked documents that we see [in Germany], like for instance this Panic Paper that was leaked by someone, or at least it was not officially put out\u2014I mean, this created a lot of fear, I guess, also, because some people could see through the whole narrative then, after reading through the paper, but actually even the fact that it came out, and that some people read it or heard about it who were stuck in the fear narrative: maybe it even put them into more<\/em> fear, just the way that it was designed.<\/p>\n I mean, that you get an outcry, that a lot of people were upset that the Government would use this picture of your Grandma basically being suffocated by you, the child who infects her with Coronavirus; but once this picture is kind of in the official realm, some people hear it and then have these fantasies in their head, and get even more afraid.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Well, that is absolutely correct. We can see here in the UK that particularly the BBC has been using applied psychology in this way: heavily emotive, distressing photographs with very little factual reporting to support the image, the idea given in the photograph.<\/p>\n This is deliberate. It\u2019s calculated. It\u2019s now very easy to see that this is taking place.<\/p>\n So, [with] the background of everything that\u2019s happened with the \u201cpandemic\u201d, we know<\/em> that every speech that\u2019s made, every document that goes out, is likely to contain a reinforcing psychological message.<\/p>\n But the other thing that I think that is important, from the UK at least; if we go back to 2010, when that Mindspace<\/em> document was released, within a year we started to see the first exercises which were going to prepare for a pandemic.<\/p>\n So, in 2016 [N.B.: Brian said \u20182011\u2019 by mistake, which was the year of the previous Pandemic Preparedness Paper]<\/em>, we had a thing called Exercise Cygnus<\/a>, which was the UK influenza pandemic preparedness plan.<\/p>\n That was followed by other official documents talking about a possible <\/em>future pandemic, and then in 2017, there was a very significant document called Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[N.B.: Brian generalised the name as \u201cPreparing for the Next Pandemic\u201d]<\/em>.<\/p>\n What was, and what is, interesting in reading these documents is that some of them\u2014not all, but some of them\u2014qualify the document by saying, \u201cWell, we can\u2019t predict that a pandemic will happen: we can look long-term over what\u2019s happened in the world; we can look back to 2018 and the flu pandemic and the damage; but we can\u2019t be certain of when there will be another future pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n But suddenly, in a very short space of years, we can see in the UK a flurry of papers\u2014and again, we can make these available to you\u2014where, suddenly, people are all talking about \u201cthe coming pandemic\u201d.<\/p>\n Now, these are UK political public documents. They are not even on the level of the SPARS Pandemic<\/em><\/a>-type documents, where these big exercises have been run in America and elsewhere, looking at the possibility of a pandemic coming. This is a cluster<\/em> of papers and supposed research in the UK which is quite extraordinary.<\/p>\n Is it a coincidence that in a few years, you have paper after paper warning that a pandemic is coming<\/em>? What I can see when I read these papers is very little fact but a lot of emotive language.<\/p>\n And, of course, people who had a job in the public sector, in the lower government system, would have been very susceptible to reading this material and then thinking, \u201cMy goodness, we need to make local preparations for this!\u201d<\/p>\n So I look at these documents, and I\u2019m pretty confident that what we are seeing is the seeding of ideas<\/em> of a coming pandemic.<\/p>\n Of course, those seeds were placed in people\u2019s minds, and then the moment we started to get reports of a pandemic<\/em> coming\u2014particularly, for us [in Britain], from the BBC\u2014people would have started to become worried, or would have started to think about that material and would have started to react in a way that the Government would want.<\/p>\n So we\u2019ve got the substantive evidence showing that the British Government will and does use applied psychology to get its policies across, that substantive evidence saying that they\u2019re going to go as far as making people fearful.<\/p>\n And I\u2019ll add that if you make people stressed and fearful, you\u2019re also going to give them mental health problems, and we now live in a country where there\u2019s a huge rise in depression and suicides<\/a>, none of which is being talked about in the mainstream press, because the increase in those adverse mental health effects has been so huge since the lockdown policies have been in place; this is an elephant in the room in the UK.<\/p>\n We have the evidence in documents of this type of calculated, destructive applied psychology; but then you can also<\/em> see, if you start talking to people in public services, to doctors and nurses in the National Health Service here and the hospital service, they are telling us that they\u2019ve also witnessed the sudden flood of these papers, effectively preparing them for a pandemic that was coming. Yet this was a pandemic that the papers said couldn\u2019t be predicted!<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> Brian, at the beginning of today\u2019s session, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg<\/a> and I discussed the fact that a new narrative has been put out into the mainstream media, probably starting out in the United States with Fox News, and they have a host by the name of Tucker Carlson, who explained<\/a> on one of his news shows that finally, there will be justice, because [Anthony] Fauci has been caught lying to the public about his involvement with the Wuhan virology lab, and how he had conducted gain-of-function experiments there, which was being financed behind the back of the American taxpayer, and against the will of the [US] Government, by US tax dollars.<\/p>\n But the real message wasn\u2019t, \u201cWe\u2019re going to get Fauci.\u201d\u00a0The real message was, \u201cFauci didn\u2019t tell us that there was a dangerous virus that escaped from the Wuhan lab!\u201d Now, in the meantime, we know that there was probably an accident at the Wuhan lab, but it didn\u2019t cause any real damage. However, those people who seem to have been preparing for this agenda<\/a> to be rolled out (as you just explained, and as others have explained to us before)\u2014those people took this opportunity and used this as a springboard in order to start rolling out the \u201cpandemic\u201d, which is really a plandemic, and which is really only a PCR test pandemic<\/a>.<\/p>\n Would you agree with that, that in reality\u2014and this is really important\u2014we do not have a dangerous virus, because the WHO, in accordance with what John Ioannidis says<\/a>, put the danger of this pandemic at about the level of a common flu: 0.14 or 0.15% infection-fatality rate; so would you agree that this is really not a pandemic but this is a co-ordinated effort?<\/p>\n As you said when you first started talking to us, this is not madness, it is a calculated effort which uses lots of psychology, NLP, in order to keep people in fear, in order to make them do things that they otherwise wouldn\u2019t do?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> I certainly do believe that. There\u2019s a number of points there in what you\u2019ve just said to me.<\/p>\n The first important one is: all of the evidence that\u2019s come in through the UK Column, and our analysis, has shown that even the Government\u2019s own statistics have proven that what is happening is effectively a normal flu season. And although they tried extremely hard to manipulate and skew, bend the statistics, the Office for National Statistics in the UK actually did its job: the statistics that that centre pushed out to the public were actually correct, and showed<\/a> that there was no pandemic. But the Government\u2019s interpretation of it was a blatant twisting of the facts and information.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> The same thing happened here.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Yes, and I can reinforce that statement by saying to you that we now have a stream of people<\/a> coming to us\u2014doctors and nurses\u2014saying that at the time when the British Government was claiming hospitals were full of Covid patients, they were not<\/em> full.<\/p>\n Even specialist facilities that were created in hospitals never had a single patient going through them, never mind the big centre set up in London for thousands of patients that ended up, I think, with about 63 patients in a multi-thousand [bed] facility!<\/p>\n In hospitals, we have had hospital consultants [senior treating physicians] <\/em>telling us that they were responsible for setting up specialist Covid wards, which they did, and when those wards were set up, they never had a single Covid patient in them<\/a>.<\/p>\n And while that was happening, the British Government sent elderly people, who clearly did<\/em> have flu\u2014they were in the hospitals and they had flu, they were ill\u2014the Government sent those elderly people in their thousands back into the care and residential homes<\/a>, where of course, in a closed environment, that infection spread.<\/p>\n Even the wider press\u2014certainly the newspapers in the UK: the Daily Express<\/em><\/a>, I think the Daily Mail<\/em><\/a> and the Daily Telegraph<\/em><\/a> and the Guardian<\/em><\/a>\u2014all reported at one stage that the evidence was that tens of thousands of elderly people had died unnecessarily<\/a>. Now, the experts that talk to us at the UK Column say the figure is not tens of thousands; it\u2019s hundreds<\/em> of thousands.<\/p>\n So, we have the lie over whether it was a pandemic, and one of the tricks that the British Government and <\/em>the BBC have used is that they talk about the statistics relating to Covid-19 in a cumulative<\/em> sense. They keep adding the figures together.<\/a> But, of course, flu is always logged as a seasonal<\/em> occurrence.<\/p>\n A flu season comes, people catch flu, some people die\u2014that\u2019s always the case\u2014and then, as the weather gets better, flu disappears. And then, next winter, that is a new<\/em> flu season, and the statistics start again. But with Covid, the statistics have been added across the two seasons<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now, this is the use of psychology to manipulate people\u2019s minds. It\u2019s absolutely blatant<\/a>.<\/p>\n You mentioned Fauci. I believe that what you\u2019re seeing at the moment is a smokescreen. Yes, there are questions that need to be asked about what was happening in the Wuhan lab, and certainly we know that it has been standard procedure for many years that if a vaccine is to be created, the pharmaceutical companies will enhance a virus strain as part of their techniques for producing a new virus; so we can imagine that in any laboratory, dangerous enhanced viruses might be created.<\/p>\n So we know that laboratories are doing what is essentially dangerous work on the enhancements of viruses, so it is of course possible<\/em> that something escaped.<\/p>\n But I think that the timing<\/em> of the suddenly turning of attention back to Fauci is very interesting, and I believe that this is being done because they know that the wider public is starting to ask the right questions about what has been done as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination policy. So, to try to distract people away from asking the key questions about vaccination, they\u2019re now coming back to Fauci.<\/p>\n And the other man who has suddenly disappeared from the public arena is Bill Gates. Now, why has Bill Gates disappeared? Well, there are a number of interesting questions, but the first problem he faced was that it became known that he had a friendship with Epstein<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, all of a sudden, Mr Bill Gates has gone from being the squeaky clean, well-behaved entrepreneurial philanthropic businessman to being smeared with the fact that he had a very questionable<\/a> friendship with [Jeffrey] Epstein<\/a>. And Melinda Gates has now said that she warned her husband about that relationship many years ago.<\/p>\n So, suddenly, Bill Gates has been exposed in the wider media. That happened first, and now suddenly we\u2019re getting attention focused back on Fauci. My feeling is that the people who are responsible for this despicable plan have now started to think that the public is beginning to look in the right direction, and so they need something to distract them.<\/p>\n And I think we\u2019re going to see a ramping-up of accusations that it was the Chinese who produced a bioweapon, that Fauci was involved. This is all emotive media stuff; this is not proper analysis of what\u2019s been happening. That\u2019s my personal opinion; I could be wrong.<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich:<\/strong> Actually, I think we agree with that, and everyone who we\u2019ve spoken to agrees with that. It looks as though those who are responsible for this agenda are beginning to throw people under the bus, but\u2014obviously\u2014only for this very purpose: to distract the general public\u2019s attention from what they\u2019re doing. They\u2019re asking the right questions.<\/p>\n So, in a way, I think this shows that they\u2019re losing control, to a degree. They\u2019re not losing complete control, but they\u2019re losing <\/em>control. What do you think about this?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> I agree with that, and if we want to inject some good news into our discussion, the people we are up against, the people we are fighting, are inherent liars. They tell lies<\/a>; they do not tell the truth. And the problem with that is that eventually, they become caught in their own lies. So I think this is a big part of what\u2019s started to happen.<\/p>\n I can give you another example, from within the UK, of where we see that there has suddenly been some emerging fear in the system. The UK agency which is responsible for the safety and regulation of medication is called the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That is the organisation which has been collecting data on vaccine adverse effects, and for you and anyone who\u2019s ultimately watching or listening, their latest reports are that within the UK, there have been 859,481 adverse reactions \u2026<\/p>\n Reiner F\u00fcllmich: <\/strong>Did you say 850,000?!<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> 859,481. And there have been 1,213 deaths. Now, those statistics are the UK Government\u2019s own statistics; they\u2019ve not come from me, they\u2019ve come from the UK Government, and they come from the MHRA Yellow Card system.<\/p>\n This is supposedly the safety system by which anybody who comes into contact with an adverse vaccine reaction\u2014whether it be something you experienced yourself or you witnessed as a family member or friend, or indeed if you\u2019re somebody in the medical profession\u2014you should log a Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction message, and it is the MHRA that holds that database.<\/p>\n Now, in the MHRA\u2019s own documentation, they stated in 2018<\/a> that to their knowledge, for any<\/em> medication, including vaccines, less than 10% <\/em>of the serious adverse reactions were ever recorded. Less than 10%! And for more minor vaccine adverse reactions, they said that the figure recorded would be between 2% and 4% [of the actual total].<\/p>\n Now, if we consider that statement against [the record of] 859,000 adverse reactions and 1,213 deaths, we could<\/em> be looking at 12,000 people who have died.<\/p>\n We as the UK Column have reported a great deal about this data, and on the ukcolumn.org website, my colleague, Mike Robinson, has provided a search engine<\/a> so that you can search the MHRA\u2019s own data. And this is very interesting, because you cannot<\/em> search the data on the MHRA\u2019s website; it simply provides it as sheets of data. This is very confusing and misleading for the public.<\/p>\n But the caveat that maybe only 10% of serious effects got recorded is very significant. In the last couple of weeks, the MHRA added a new paragraph in relation to that caveat about the low reporting of adverse effects. They said, \u201cOf course, the figure of 10% and 2\u20134% does not apply to Yellow Card reports of Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n So, once the UK Column started to draw the public\u2019s attention to the fact that the MHRA already had 859,000 adverse effects recorded and 1,200 deaths, and that this might only be a very small proportion of the total number of adverse reactions, the MHRA attempted to deceive the public by posting a notice saying that this 10% [rule] did not apply to adverse reactions as a result of Covid-19 vaccination.<\/p>\n Viviane Fischer:<\/strong> But did anyone buy this?<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> Well, some<\/em> people will inevitably buy it, because members of the public who read this information without having a fuller understanding are still in the psychological position that they believe<\/em> what the Government tells them. And this is a very big mistake, of course. So some people did <\/em>believe them, but some didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Now, we as a media organisation challenged that very strongly, and then something very interesting happened: the MHRA suddenly announced, in the last few days, that it was going to have a special initiative for patient information and safety. And when you look at the documents they produced, there\u2019s words on the paper, but the documents do not actually say what<\/em> they are going to do to improve patient safety.<\/p>\n The other part of the story in the UK is that the MHRA has overall responsibility for logging vaccine adverse effects, but what they are not doing<\/a> is then investigating to produce the final conclusion on whether an effect was indeed created by a vaccine or not.<\/p>\n Viviane Fischer:<\/strong> The same here.<\/p>\n Brian Gerrish:<\/strong> And if it\u2019s the same in Germany, then we are starting to see that there\u2019s a pattern emerging. This cannot be an accident; this cannot be a coincidence.<\/p>\n Viviane Fischer:<\/strong> And it\u2019s amazing: we just discussed this earlier on in this session that they\u2019re not doing autopsies. They\u2019re really refusing: it\u2019s either coming from the state prosecutors or it\u2019s somehow being hindered behind the scenes, political decisions, whatever. They\u2019re not doing any autopsies on the people who were registered or declared by their relatives that there might be a causality with regard to the vaccines. They\u2019re not looking at it, and if they do<\/em>, they say, \u201cOh, there\u2019s no connection.\u201d Even after doing a minor, cursory inspection, they say, \u201cOh, there\u2019s no connection; it cannot be.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nAuch auf Deutsch erh\u00e4ltlich.<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n