Verweis

Hier finden Sie Transkripte der Sitzung 107: Cancel Unculture.

Allgemeines

Wenn diese Seite ein Ergebnis Ihrer Begriffssuche ist wissen Sie, dass der gesuchte Begriff mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, deren Sitzungsübersicht oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt ist.

Wenn Sie nun eine genauere Angabe benötigen, wann genau der Begriff in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, nutzen Sie bitte die Browser-Funktion Auf dieser Seite suchen, die Sie folgendermaßen aufrufen können:

Windows-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [Strg] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
Mac-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [CMD] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
Mobilgeräte: Wie Sie die Suchfunktion auf einem Mobilgerät aufrufen, ist stark abhängig von dem Browser, den Sie verwenden. Bitte informieren Sie sich im Internet, wie Sie die „Auf dieser Seite suchen“ Funktion mit Ihrem Smartphone-Browser aufrufen können.

So finden Sie den Begriff in seinem Kontext und können über einen nahegelegenen Zeitstempel ermitteln, wann der Begriff ungefähr in der Sitzungsaufzeichnung zu finden ist.

Transkript

Im Optimalfall finden Sie nachfolgend ein „Überarbeitetes Transkript“. Das bedeutet, dass das Transkript durch einen Menschen geprüft, korrigiert und vervollständigt wurde. Dies ist ein äußerst zeitintensiver Prozess und wir können leider zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt nicht zu vielen Sitzungen sorgsam überarbeitete Transkripte zur Verfügung stellen. Selbst, wenn Sie ein überarbeitetes Transkript vorfinden, übernehmen wir keine Gewähr für dessen Korrektheit. Bitte prüfen Sie die jeweilige Aussage in einem weiteren Schritt in der Videoaufzeichnung der Sitzung, die über die Sitzungsseite verlinkt wurde. Sie finden die Sitzungsseite oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt und dort wiederum die Links zu den Video-Aufzeichnungen der Sitzungen.

Mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit finden Sie nachfolgend zumindest ein „Automatisches Transkript“. Automatische Transkripte wurden von einer speziellen Software, die Audiospuren auswerten und zu Text umwandeln kann, automatisch generiert. Solche Transkripte sind relativ leicht zu erstellen, bedürfen aber meist noch intensiver Überarbeitung, weil sie viele Fehler enthalten.

Solche Programme wandeln das gesprochene Wort meist auch nicht korrekt in Text um, wenn während der Sitzung zwischen zwei Sprachen gewechselt wird (was in beinahe jeder Sitzung vom Corona-Ausschuss mehrmals geschieht) und können das gesprochene Wort nicht immer den richtigen Personen zuordnen. Auch im unvollkommenen Rohzustand dienen automatische Transkripte aber bereits als Quelltext einer Archiv-Suche zur Ermittlung von Ausschuss-Inhalten über bestimmte Stichworte, wie wir sie mit diesem Ausschuss-Archiv ermöglichen - zumindest für alle Begriffe, die das Programm korrekt identifiziert hat. Außerdem bieten wir sie hiermit als Grundlage einer manuellen Überarbeitung an:

Wenn Sie dabei helfen wollen, das Transkript zu dieser Sitzung zu überarbeiten oder bereits über ein sorgfältig geprüftes Transkript zur Sitzung verfügen, kontaktieren Sie uns bitte per Mail mit dem Betreff: Unterstützung Transkription.

Überarbeitetes Transkript

Es liegt zurzeit nicht von jedem Gastbeitrag der Sitzung ein überarbeitetes Transkript vor.

Steve Kirsch (Englisch)

Transkript von Steve Kirsch.

Reiner Füllmich: [01:56:15] Okay, now we switch to English. I’m sorry to keep you waiting and hope it wasn’t too long. We have been talking to a very well known German comedian who was explaining to us how the… situation with German comedians is. Of course, it’s the same as in the United States, the same as everywhere. Some speak the truth. Some try to stay with one foot in the mainstream arena and with the other foot in the alternative media arena. And others are are completely against the resistance. I would like to give a very quick introduction. You’re a high tech entrepreneur and philanthropist, founded the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund to fund research into off-label treatments for covid-19. We just spoke with Tess Lawrie who explained to us about Ivermectin and how that led to the creation of the World Council for Health as an alternative to the WHO. You were one of two people who independently invented the optical mouse– I’m using one of them right now. And you are also the inventor of the first internet… search engine. What you’re going to talk about– I find this extremely interesting– is why you think that Todd Calendar misinterpreted or misrepresented data, since one can– one simply cannot have an 1100 percent increase in disease and only an 84 percent increase in all-cause mortality; about the VAERS analysis, evidence about permanently damaged immune systems, etcetera. But I don’t want to keep you from saying it in your own words. It’s a great honor. Thank you for joining us this morning, Steve.

Steve Kirsch: [01:58:01] Yeah, well, I thank… you for… doing what… you’ve been doing, which is absolutely phenomenal. So I’m, you know, I’m happy to be a part of this effort to get the truth out to people. And you know I’m… happy to to to dive into any topics that you want to talk about. I mean, we can… start with that insurance company data. And let me… just share the screen here with you. Hopefully… let’s see, we’ll go into slide show mode. I… and it looks like it’s working.

So. This is a post, a Twitter post that Pierre Kory did a while back, and these numbers are actually very believable to me. And the problem with the… numbers that you had from Todd Calendar is that they just didn’t make, they didn’t add up. They weren’t self-consistent. You can’t– I mean, most mortality is due to a disease; it’s not due to accidents. And so if you have diseases going up by a thousand percent, you can’t have all-cause mortality going up by 80, you know, percent. It just doesn’t make, it doesn’t add up, the math doesn’t work.

So– but these numbers do make sense. This is from a US group life insurance mortality survey. As you can see, the different– There are different mortalities in different age groups, and some of which are like 98 percent. This would be normal. But then 208 percent, this would be very abnormal. So you’re seeing these abnormal rates, abnormal increases, that are happening in very young people. And it’s only happening recently, and it’s only happening since the vaccines rolled out. So this is the kind of stuff that is really hard for anybody to explain. And so, of course, they don’t explain it. They they just say, “Well, you know, we have this increase, and it’s not due to covid. It can’t possibly be due to covid.” In fact, recently the numbers are… also very high. But the problem is that if you actually go and look at what covid is doing in terms of deaths– I mean, I go to the– I’m in, located in California, so to the California Department of Public Health website.

[02:00:33] And when you do that, you find that the numbers, number killed per day in California, is like 8 or 9 people a day. Now, my question is: how low does that number have to go before they stop a state of emergency in California? We’re in a state of emergency in California. And only 8 people a day are dying. If that’s an emergency…. You know, I mean, it is… just insane what people are doing here and distorting the reality, and you know, how many people in California know that the death rate is, you know, it’s… like– does the death rate have to go to, like four people a day, to end the emergency? To three people, to two people, to one [person]? I mean, do we have to actually, you know, people, we– do we have to resurrect people from the dead to become live before we end the state of emergency in California?

I mean not– and the thing is that nobody wants to answer that question. Like, they can’t answer this. So this is the– you know, I… think that the point of this… the mortality increase is that– yes, I agree with Todd that there is a significant mortality, all-cause mortality increase. It’s like 40 percent. You know I would probably say, you know, somewhere on the order of 40 percent overall. And I think part of that, you know, versus normal, about 20 percent of that might be due to covid, and probably another 20 percent is due to the vaccine. In other words, the vaccines are… killing people, as many people as covid. But that’s not really the main point here. You know, I… have a slide presentation called “The Elephant in the Room”, which is on my… substack here. I’m one of the the top misinformation spreaders on substack. This is a sort of proof of that. I’m sort of at the center of the misinformation universe on substack. And of course MIT has memorialized me as the… misinformation superspreader. So I’m not just a misinformation spreader; I’m a misinformation superspreader, according to MIT, which, of course, as you all know, is defined as someone who speaks out publicly when the official government mainstream narrative fails to match the reality in plain sight. I hope I’m… not talking too fast for the interpreter.

[02:03:00] But, you know, the most important thing, the single most important thing, you know, the– it’s not the mortality increase. The single most important thing that everybody needs to know is that if they’re open to questioning their belief system, then the unexplainable bcomes easy to explain. But once you’re– if you’re not open to questioning your beliefs, which is true for most people, then of course you have to scratch your head whenever you see data that I’m about to show you. Because there is no other way. There– you have to say, “Well, this is just simply unexplained.” But, of course, once you question your belief system, then… you can explain things.

So the question that I have to people is, what– if what they’ve been telling you simply isn’t true, when you check it out… and that’s what I’ve been doing. You know, I… didn’t start off being an– I wasn’t born a misinformation spreader. I only became a miss– a quote “misinformation spreader” when, after I’d been doubly vaxed, and after my family was doubly vaxed, then I started hearing from my friends. And my friends were saying– my friends were either dying or… or dead.

You know, you very quickly die from… these vaccines. Or– so they’re either dead or they’re in severe pain. And I’m not saying that this is happening to all my friends. I’m… saying that… there are people that I know that have died, and there are people that I know who have been vaccine-injured. So the only way you can explain this is– if you question or belief system, which is what I started to do after I started hearing these stories– and so I found out that, you know, the stories don’t match the facts. And so, so then I asked the question: is… it possible that what the– the vaccines are could be making things worse? What I discovered was very troubling: that overall, the vaccines appear to be killing more people than they “save”.

Now this is important. I’m not saying the vaccines have killed more people than covid has. What I’m saying is that vaccines have killed far more people than the number of people who are saved by the vaccine. So in other words the… the risks far outweigh the benefits. And I believe that it’s probably somewhere on the order of half a million or more people that have been killed by these vaccines, by these covid vaccines. And that’s just in the United States of America, not worldwide, just in the US. And I believe that the covid has killed somewhere on the order of a comparable number. And it’s probably less. Because when we look at the number of people that are actually killed by covid, and didn’t die with covid, or they didn’t die– a lot of people died in the hospital because of hospital mistreatment. They were given Remdesivir, and they died of liver failure. And so… you know, did covid kill them? I don’t think so.

[02:06:34] So when you actually look at the number of people killed by covid, I am very confident that the number of people killed by the vaccines [is] actually greater than the number of people killed by covid. But the more important comparison, which is a really important point, is to compare the number of people killed by the vaccine in terms of all-cause mortality, which I believe has been raised by at least 20 percent, if not more, in… the US, and probably worldwide, versus the number of people that have been saved by the covid vaccines. And the only data that we have that is reliable or semi-reliable is from the randomized clinical trials, which showed that we’ll save about one life for every 22,000 people that we vaccinate.

So if you vaccinate 220 million people, you’ll save 10,000 lives. So let’s give them… a factor of 2. And let’s say it’s 25,000 lives that they saved. They’re still killing. at least half a million people. Now that’s a ratio of 20 to one. And this is what I call the elephant in the room. And this is my famous elephant-in-the-room slide that I’m showing at the FDA meetings, that people don’t want to talk about. Because there’s no way to defend this. You can’t give an… intervention which is killing at least 20 people for every person that you might save from the intervention. I’m not saying it’s killing 20 times more people than covid is. I’m saying it’s killing 20, at least 20 times more people than the covid vaccines will save from dying from covid.

Now… it’s a little bit hard to justify giving a vaccine in California which is the most– is the largest state in the United States. We are 39,000,000 people in California. And eight people are dying a day from covid, and that may be overstated. Now how can you justify rolling out a vaccine in California if only 8 people a day are dying? And how many kids are dying in California from covid? Why are we vaccinating the kids? You know, I did a survey and I want to show you… let me just jump to this in the… presentation. And by the way, this presentation is available on my substack, SteveKirsch dot substack dot com. and if you go into the reference section of the substack at the top– I’ll show you how to do that later– you can go and find my presentations. And this is called “The Elephant in the Room”. And so all these slides that you see here, and all the references, are in The Elephant in the Room presentation, which is on my substack in the reference section.

Now I did a survey. I wanted to find out, for people, for… kids age 5 to 11, I surveyed my… reader base which is, it numbers in, you know– probably somewhere on the order of a million people see this stuff. And so I askedpeople, do you recall any deaths, ages 5 to 11, since 2020. And were those deaths either caused by the vaccine, or by the virus? Which would you associate those deaths with? Because you can see, you know the vaccine deaths are, they’re. it’s like they got the vaccine and they died two days later, they died a week later. So they’re pretty easy to spot. Well 100 percent of the responses– and one of them was a gamed response, but another response reported too. I mean, so I don’t just, you know, take these reports and say that they’re valid. I look at them, and… there is clearly a gamed response… in there. Which… is tragic, that that people would game something like this. But the point is that all the deaths that anybody could recall, in ages 5 to 11– which is what, you know, we’re approving the vaccine for– were caused by the vaccine, and nobody was dying from covid.

[02:11:01] If nobody is dying from covid in this age group compared to the number of vaccines we’re giving, then the number of people saved by those vaccines is infinitesimal. The risk-benefit makes no sense. It’s completely nonsensical. We have gone off the rails as a society, and of course that’s something that you guys know very well, so I’m not teaching you anything that… that you don’t already know. So you know the… one thing that I can– and we’ll get back to the discussion part of this– but I encourage everybody to, you know, to check this… the slide deck out. You know, the government-reported statistics can be manipulated to make the vaccine looked effective when it isn’t or data that’s not supportive from Medicare, DMED, VSD and the BEST system can simply be ignored, which is what they’re doing. They’re ignoring what they call their best data sources. In fact, one of the… best data sources actually called the BEST system. Can you believe that? They actually name it correctly. It is the best system.

But you know, you see, we’re not seeing any government numbers from the BEST system, because that would be the best data and would show that the vaccines are unsafe. So people should– you know, people who have critical thinking skills left, which is relatively few of us in America, should be asking “Why are we seeing– why aren’t we seeing any data from the BEST system?” Well… because it’s not supportive. And the CDC admitted that they’re not going to… let people know about data that doesn’t support the narrative. They’ve admitted that to the New York Times.

So people should be concerned about this, you know. And I get emails from– this email from Meryl Nass about the FDA’s new paperwork claiming myocarditis risk is surpassed by the benefit– I mean, this stuff just simply isn’t true. And, you know, she goes into some detail as to why that, that’s the case. I’m… happy to opine on that, but, you know, it’s basically, you know– the point is: you need to– you need to have a critical eye whenever you hear these assumptions. Because it might be true that Covid has actually killed fewer than 700,000 people in the US. Might even be under 100,000. It might be true that masks don’t work at all. We could find, I could find no evidence at all that masks work, and found– it in fact I found just the opposite. Early treatment with cheap repurposed drug combos prevent long-haul covid and death, nearly a hundred percent.

That’s stunning, but they don’t want to admit that. And the other thing they don’t want to admit is: all their interventions were bad. And they were never needed. You know, nobody wants to go and have a discussion with me on that. And then, you know, you have to ask: why are the most vaccinated getting the most number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths? No, and I go into detail into each one of these in the presentation with references. But the most important thing is the deaths. Have you ever wondered why they aren’t showing us the most reliable data that they have, which is the Medicare data? Have you ever wondered why they need liability protection if the vaccines are so safe? I’m about to show you. This is for the first time; nobody has seen this before.

[02:14:31] This is the Medicare data. You can’t get this data. You can’t get it publicly; it’s not available publicly. I have a whistleblower inside the Medicare system. They gave me this information. This is the most reliable database. How can you explain a 50-percent rise in all-cause mortality after the vaccines and boosters rolled out? That’s the problem. They can’t explain it. You can’t explain a 50-percent rise in all-cause mortality, after the intervention that’s supposed to reduce all-cause mortality was rolled out. They don’t want to explain it. That is why they are never going to show you the Medicare data. They have the Medicare data. I got access to the Medicare data, because I have a whistle-blower, who gave this to me. Now this is striking. They’re basically suppressing the data showing the vaccines are killing massive numbers of people.

Now, this should be the end. I mean… but the press, the mainstream press, is never going to pick this up anywhere in the world. Nobody will even ask the question, like “How come we’re not seeing the– people don’t want to know. Whenever I bring up any information that is counter-mainstream, what happens is that people refuse to read it. And they say, “The vaccines are safe and effective. What’s wrong with you?” So people just simply don’t look at the data. They don’t look at– they don’t survey their friends and ask, “Hey, how many… kids you know died from covid, versuss the vaccine?” I know a lot of kids in this age range, been killed from a covid, from what I read and because I’m… at the center of this. Of course, you know, the– how do you explain the insurance data? How do you explain the deaths in Massachusetts, where the deaths in Massachusetts– and we have the death data, because it was obtained by Freedom Of Information Act request, not because the health authorities want you to know this stuff. You have to find it out on your own. And when you do, you see that the deaths in Massachusetts shifted from being ICD J codes, which means a respiratory virus, which is what covid was in 2020. And you see the shift where– Oh, in 2021, people are being killed from circulatory issues.

It’s unambiguous. And again, you know, the references are here. But do you see any health official in America– this is in Massachusetts– see any health official in America, you know, bringing out these, this data? Not a single one. Not the CDC. And not the– I guess there… are somewhere around 1400 public health officials– none of them want you to know this data. Why not? Because it doesn’t support their narrative that the vaccines are safe. And it makes them look foolish, because they’re, they are foolish. They are… killing people. And in Massachusetts, where we have this death data. Do you know how many kids died under 16 from covid in Massachusetts in 2020 and 2021? Zero. Yeah, it’s zero. Zero.

[02:18:31] So why would we have a vaccine, where we’re giving it to all the kids to protect them from dying from covid, when there are no deaths? See, that’s the problem. That is the insanity of this. And the FDA says “Look. We’ve approved this. Because we’ve given you the perception the kids are dying when they’re not.” And they’re not telling you the numbers. They’re saying, “Oh, covid is a huge risk. You should get it.” Are you kidding me? The death rate from all omicron is… virtually nonexistent, compared to these other variants. Why would you vaccinate your kids? You would vaccinate your kids because you believe the narrative that covid is dangerous and you need to protect your kids. Where the reality is we’re probably killing somewhere on the order of 300 or more kids for every kid that we might save. And I’m probably underestimating that. It’s probably more likely to kill a thousand. Because we’re not saving any kids with these vaccines. We’re basically killing kids. It is horrible. You know.

[02:19:45] So. I did my own survey of… people, of people that follow me, and I did various surveys. And one of the really striking surveys I did is I asked people: how many people do you know who died the month they were going to get the covid vaccine and, darn it, they just expired the month before they were going to get that covid vaccine. And you know, just bad luck. I mean, it was out there, it was there, and they were just so close, but they died before, the month before. And how many people do you know who died a month after.

Now, the number is like, depending on the dose, is like four-to-one difference, six-to-one– it’s like six-to-one on the second dose. Now, how is it that the death rate can be different 30 days before the vaccine dose, versus 30 days after? So I repeated this. I went to audiences without– that weren’t my followers, large audiences. And I asked the same question. I said, hey, how many people know somebody who died, you know, 30 days before they were supposed to get the vaccine? Of course, that’s kind of a harder date for people to know. So you’d expect that fewer people would raise their hand. But, you know, you’ll get, like, maybe one or two hands. And then you’ll get like 20 hands raised for “How many people know somebody who died 30 days after they got the dose?” Now… there’s no way you can explain that if the vaccine is not causing the death. I mean, it’s… crazy. So in the course, you know, we have the athletes. I’m sure you’ve gone into to that. And then we have the UK all-cause mortality data that nobody wants to explain. Nobody wants to go on camera. You know, there’s a guy, Jeffrey Morris, who has been, you know, he’s got his gun set on me to try to kill me, but he won’t go in a video debate with me. So the only guy that wants to defend this graph will not do so on camera, you know. And that’s true pretty much for everything.

No, I’m the guy that nobody wants to talk to, because I have a list of about a hundred questions that nobody can answer. And my first question that I ask people is: Hey, I got a list of a hundred questions. Is there any… one of those questions that you can actually answer? That we can have a discussion on? The answer is no. Can’t find anybody who can answer even one of the questions that I have, and that’s the main point. It’s not– you know, I don’t have to get into 500 questions or 100 questions. Nobody wants to talk about this stuff on camera, because nobody can defend this. It shows that the– you look at the all-cause mortality rate versus the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated is the line one here. Look at what happens after you’ve been vaccinated six times, all-cause mortality rate. Now that’s not the 10 times that your insurance executive said. This is the UK Office of National Statistics, showing up to a six times increase in the all-cause mortality rate after you’ve been vaccinated.

How do you explain that one? Well, they don’t. They don’t show you, they just simply don’t show you this data. But you can get this data, because it’s published by the UK Office of National Statistics. Now they’re not running newspaper ads showing this: “Hey, get vaccinated, increase your all-cause mortality by up to six times. For some reason, those don’t make it into the newspaper ads. But you know, that doesn’t mean that the data is not there, you know. And there are all sorts of interesting data points, you know. Here is a… survey that I did. So we got 47 votes, so you can dismiss it as not being statistically significant. But why is it, you know– so I asked, “Do you know anyone who died from omicron and their vax status? I mean, you know, if it’s more… than one death answered for the person you know best. Well 94 percent said they died from omicron, and they were vaccinated. There isn’t a 94 percent vaccination rate in the United States. So it’s basically saying you’re more likely to die from omicron if you have been vaccinated. I mean, there’s no other way to explain this poll. So, you know, cases, you know, everybody knows in the UK, you you get three times more– you’re three times more likely get infected if you, if you’re three times vaccinated. Triple-vaxed, three times more likely to be infected. That’s what the UK data is. And they can… try to spin it so that it’s not a problem. But they can’t spin it, so they just stop publishing the data.

And, you know, in the least-vaccinated country– so what’s happening in the least-vaccinated countries? There re no cases. See that’s the thing. People think that– you know, here’s the… graph. Here’s the graph of the most highly vaccinated cases and highly vaccinated people versus Africa. This is Africa. It’s the entire continent of Africa It’s a flat line. It’s a flat green line. That’s Africa versus highly vaccinated. What’s going on? You know, people will say, “Oh. Well, that’s because the reporting in Africa isn’t very good. And it’s just a reporting problem.” That’s bullshit. Because I have a friend who’s in Namibia. African nation, [nobody?] pays attention to Namibia. Right. So here he is. His name is a Keletso Nyathi. He’s an MD. So I called him up, on What’sApp. “Hey. How’s it going in Africa? How’s it going?”

He says, dropped to near zero. He said covid cases were through the roof in early 2021. Dropped to near zero in September, 2021. Remain very low since then. Very small numbers are dying now. They’re not vaccinated. They stopped– now here’s the… thing. In Namibia they stopped breaking out cases and deaths by vax status shortly thereafter, shortly after they rolled out the vaccines. They stopped breaking out cases by vax status.

[02:26:22] I wonder why. If the vaccines were so safe and effective, why would they stop breaking out cases and deaths by vax status? So, you see, the same thing is happening in Africa, but in Africa, people are much smarter than in developed countries. They figured it out. They figure out they’ve been lied to. So they’re not taking the vaccines. And they’re not getting– they’re not dying or… even getting– you know, their vax rate is 20 percent, because people are like, forced to do it. The cases, you know, and deaths– you know, total, this is 2.5 million population. You know, tragic the number of deaths, because they didn’t allow these doctors to prescribe the drugs that would save the people. They said, “No, no. You can’t use these. You can’t use drugs like ivermectin.”

Right? So the stuff is hard to get. Biloxamine– hard to get. They know about it. You know. xxxxxx you know. And, but they’re, the thing about these unvaccinated– this is something that Pierre Kory told me– is that if you go into the Epic system– and Epic is the system that’s used throughout the United States for hospitalization– there is a… box when you admit a patient: either they’re Vaccinated or they’re Unknown. There’s no Unvaccinated column. So “That’s the unvaccinated who are dying.” We don’t know that it’s the Unknowns who are dying were probably mostly vaccinated. And so little details like this– those are kept from the public, so that they can hear about all of these people who are unvaccinated dying. It’s just not true. This is why none of these health authorities– not even for a million bucks for four hours.

I’m not talking about “You win a million dollars if you win the debate.” I’m talking about a million bucks just to come to the table, have a discussion with me. Sit down for four hours. Answer some questions. I’ve got a lot of questions I want to ask, because I don’t want to be a misinformation spreader. I just want answers to my… questions. No authority… will debate me on camera, on any of these topics, even for a million bucks.

And so after they turned me down for a million bucks– and this is the outside committees of the FDA and the CDC– after these guys turn down a million dollars just to sit down with me for four hours, and let’s have a discussion, I said, okay I guess a million bucks wasn’t enough. Name your price. Name your price. What? Five million. Ten million. A hundred million dollars. If I paid you a hundred million dollars, will you sit down with me for four hours and answer some questions? The answer is no.

Now, you got to wonder. Someone’s turning down a hundred million dollars to sit down with you for four hours just to answer some questions. You think they might be hiding something. Yeah, it’s possible. Or maybe they’re just really busy, and a hundred million, an extra hundred million bucks– no problem. I mean, you know, these people are important people. Maybe they don’t have four hours to spend to win a hundred million bucks, just to sit down and answer questions. I guess that must be it. I guess they’re like really busy.

And you know, when I have these slides, these elephant-in-the-room slides, and I’ve offered to give them the source data for all of these, you know, anything that I find, they’re not interested. They– I never get a call to see any of the source data. They have the data. You know, we know… that the covid vaccines have killed more people than saved for all ages. I did the analysis. And I did the analysis two ways on this. I’ll probably end the slides here. I encourage people to look at this deck. It’s really interesting. I’ll probably just end with the myocarditis statement. But this is the VAERS data. And the analysis that I did on the VAERS data. The hyperlink here, VAERS, will show you the analysis that I did. You can repeat that analysis yourself. And I also did the… risk-benefit analysis using the UK data. So completely separate datasets.

[02:30:55] And I found pretty similar numbers. Surprisingly similar numbers… for the number of people killed versus the number of people saved. And of course, when you get really young, the numbers just shoot off the… they’re off the charts. You know. But for older people… it’s like there’s still not a benefit there. In fact, I know– there is a… elderly care facility that is two miles from where I live, and I heard a story from one of the people who– from the family of one of the people who died there. There was– there were nine people who were given the vaccine, the booster, and six of them died within a week. How do you explain that! Six people die in a week, of the nine people that you gave the booster to? You know, I think these numbers may be much higher than than I suspect.

So they never do– they never do the risk-benefit analysis for any of the vaccines. I talked– I talked to Andy Wakefield about this. He says, “Yeah, there’s no risk-benefit analysis done for any of the vaccines.” Oh, and you know, pregnancies. I asked him: do you know anyone who was vaccinated and subsequently had a pregnancy and either a healthy baby or not a healthy baby? Look at all five options: were the good numbers greater than the bad, bad greater than the good? Look at this: 39 percent of people said all the people that they know had a hundred percent bad outcomes, after they got vaccinated.

[02:32:20] Now of course, the CDC knew all this… data very early on in January, but they’re like, you know, Sergeant Schultz on– I don’t know if you guys see “Hogan’s Heroes” in Germany, but, you know, he was the guy who says, “I know nothing.” And, you know, even the best-case paper shows the all– overall mortality for the mRNA vaccines is zero. So they’re saying that their best guess is: it doesn’t increase– it doesn’t improve all-cause mortality at all. Why are we giving a vaccine which doesn’t improve your death rate? This is admitted; this is in a published paper. And… of course, the people don’t want you to know that the Pfizer data, that they killed more people than they saved, and they never investigated any of the deaths.

So these 21 people who died in the Pfizer study compared to 15 people in the placebo group– that’s 40 percent more in that group. They never investigated any of those deaths. They just said, “Ah, it wasn’t the vaccine. Those people couldn’t have died from the vaccine.” But what proof do they have? They don’t have any proof at all. And nobody is asking for any proof, because the mainstream medical community doesn’t want to know the truth. They just want to… believe that the clinical trial was correct, and nobody died. And there’s this VSD study, that’s the Vaccine Safety Datalink. It’s one of the… “best”– it’s one of the better databases that they have. And they show here that your all-cause mortality risk after taking the vaccine drops… like, it drops precipitously. I mean it is– it drops such that you can’t die from accidents after you’ve had these vaccines. Which we all know is… complete bullshit.

[02:34:08] Anyway, I tear apart that study as well on my website. But here’s the– well, I’ll end this with this, because I’ve been going on for… too long here. And, you know, let’s get into the dialog. But… this is a paper. It was published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. It was published by two people who are very trustable: Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. Peter McCullough. It’s published in a medical journal. And what happens is that the medical journal, the publisher, not the editor, who’s supposed to control the content, but the publisher, Elsevier… decides to unilaterally revoke this paper, after it has gone through peer review, published in the journal, out there. Somebody sees it, complains to the publisher, and the publisher unilaterally decides to revoke the paper.

Now you would think when something like that happens, that the medical community would bond together and say “This is unacceptable. You can not modify science and arbitrarily choose which papers you want to appear and which papers you don’t want to appear, just to fit your point of view. Because that’s what the– an honest medical community would do. They would say that science should never be tampered with. And they would be defenders of science, and they would be up in arms against Elsevier. “Why are you retracting this paper?” There should be complaints through the roof. Everybody should be writing a letter to Elsevier, saying, “Why was this paper revoked? You never told us. You never gave us a reason why this paper was revoked. It passed peer review. How can you ‘edit’ science?”

Not a single person in the medical community complains about this.

Reiner Füllmich: [02:36:27] Yeah. You know, Steve, you said you– a little earlier, you gave us the numbers on– here in California– the children. And you’re asking why do they vaccinate children? Because they want to believe the narrative. And now you’re saying, yeah, the medical community wants to believe the narrative. I spoke with Paul Merrick yesterday, and he– I– he told me about something that I wasn’t even aware of, which may have a lot to do with this. Because there is a bill under way, I think it may have even been introduced to the legislature here in California. And this bill– you probably know about it. I haven’t been able to read it yet but I will– this bill in essence says that any doctor who is not in line with the official narrative will lose their license. Maybe that has something to do with that.

Steve Kirsch: Well, it’s certainly part of it. So, you know, if you– I’ve talked to a lot of physicians about what’s going on. And what I find is that there are physicians who are completely blue-pilled, meaning they’re… sheep. They follow what they’re told, and they do what they’re told, and they believe what they’re told. And I think the vast majority of physicians fall into that category. And they’re trained this way. And they’re also trained to believe anything that’s in a phase-III clinical trial, that’s published in a peer-reviewed journal, cannot be argued with. It’s correct. And so they’re trained to think that all of these– that… the vaccines must be safe, because it– the safety signals didn’t come out in a clinical trial. And so therefore, they’re trained to think that “Ha! this must be just anecdotes”… right?

And so that’s the… problem, is that when these physicians are seeing all this stuff that’s happening, they say, “Ah! My brain says clinical trial showed no safety signal. Therefore these– I’m– it’s just me that’s seeing this. It’s just that I’m seeing bad luck.”

And so I talk to these physicians who legitimately believe that there are more cases of myocarditis before the vaccine than after. You know, none of these… people who believe this a cardiologists who have case flow. They all are in their own silo, where their– they have their blinders on. And they are only seeing– they’re not even seeing any of these myocarditis cases. They just know about the papers. And the papers, when they talk about the comparison group in terms of number of people who have died, they never multiply by the under-reporting factor of the VAERS system, which is 41 or more, depending on what the particular adverse event is.

[02:39:45] And so… yeah, if you compare sort of background myocarditis death rates, versus the uncorrected numbers in VAERS, you might see that one’s less than the other. If you correct the number in VAERS to be the actual number of expected cases, which is 41 times higher than the number that’s in the VAERS system. It is, it’s dramatic. And this is why we– I– you cannot find a cardiologists anywhere in the world who has actually fewer cases of myocarditis after the vaccines have rolled out. I mean, I defy you to… name me one cardiologist in the entire world who had fewer myocarditis cases after the vaccines rolled out. You know, unless they quit their practice. I mean, that would be the only… case.

Reiner Füllmich: This is, you know, I guess this is called cognitive dissonance, when doctors see what’s going on, but at the same time they don’t want to believe it. It may have something to do with the suppression of real evidence and of reality. One of the things that we just learned is: in that trial, in that case that Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, who was… in charge of– 25 years of experience, and I think she participated in the trials of Bentavia, which is one of the CROs [Clinical Research Organizations] that pharmaceutical community turns to when they want clinical trials done. And it turns out in that case, one of the most important aspects was that she had evidence showing that Pfizer didn’t care one bit about good clinical practice. They falsified data, they destroyed their own control group, etc. etc.

And now it turns out, the defense Pfizer’s defense is “Oh, we don’t have to worry about any of these guidelines, because we were under a special contract with the DOD [Department of Defense].” They call it the OTA, Other Transaction Authority. “And under this Other Transaction Authority, we can do whatever we want.” That’s basically their defense. I mean that’s going to have to explode in their faces. But that’s one of the things that the doctor who you’re talking about probably doesn’t even know anything about, because this is kept from the mainstream media, it’s kept from– They… just don’t think, they must not know about this. Things will probably change once this is… going into the public realm. But we’re going to have to wait a little while. And it’s probably, I’m afraid, a body count that’ll ultimately make the difference.

Steve Kirsch: Well, I, you know, I… hope so, but, you know, they have, the CDC has been very successful in a suppressing information for decades. And thimerosal is a perfect example of that. We knew 20 years ago that thimerosal accumulates in your brain. You know, okay, it goes– it gets injected into your [body] from the vaccines, and it goes on to your blood. It gets deposited inside your brain. We’ve known that since early [2000]. 20 years later, you go on the CDC website and it says, hey, thimerosal gets eliminated from your body, you know, in days. It’s perfectly safe. They’re lying about this– it’s in the peer-reviewed literature, you know, at least 13 papers. I think there may be even over 20 papers on this. It’s accepted science. We know where thimerosal accumulates. But they’ve been lying about it for 20 years. And they’ve been getting away with it, too. You know, so,

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah.

Steve Kirsch: So all of these deaths that have happened. They could say, “Oh, you know, unexplained. Athlete deaths, unexplained. Just never were able to explain it. You know, some things in medicine, you can’t explain.” Of course you can’t explain them when you rule out the most obvious cause. Then of course it becomes unexplainable. But– you know, this is, the whole thing is… all about accountability, you know, Reiner. The one thing that you don’t have, that you want, is Tony Fauci, somebody from the CDC, or someone from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to appear on your show. Now I’ll bet you’ve reached out to those guys and… said, “Hey can we have you appear? I mean, we’re going to give you some great press, because you’re going to be able to… appeal to all of these vaccine-hesitant people. And you’re going to be able to convince them. But, the quid-pro-quo is– we will give you access to all the vaccine-hesitant in the world. The quid-pro-quo is: we get to ask you questions.” Now do you think they’ll take you up on that offer, Reiner?

Reiner Füllmich: No way. No way.

Steve Kirsch: No, NFW.

Reiner Füllmich: You know what–

Steve Kirsch: And that’s all you need to know, isn’t it.

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah. What we do, I– I’m just reading a book, one of the books that was published by Dr. Judy Mikovits and her mentor, who is in his late seventies now. His name is Frank Rossetti. It’s called End of Plagues, and it tells you in great detail– mostly written by, I believe, Frank Rosetti– it tells you in great detail about their interactions with people like Robert Gallo and Tony Fauci. And they come across as real bad crooks, people who do not care about human lives, who only care about money and self aggrandizement, that kind of thing.

And so we do have some real witnesses, not secondhand or hearsay witnesses. They’re is still around. I know that Luc Montagnier died. We had him on our program, on our session shortly before he died. But there are some other people who are still around. There will be a reckoning, Steve. There will be a reckoning, and very soon, too.

Steve Kirsch: [02:46:26] Yeah. Well, I’m certainly doing my part–

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah.

Steve Kirsch: to try to accelerate that day of reckoning. And one of the things that we’re doing and… my– there is this thing called the PREP Act [Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act] in the United States. And the PREP Act basically says, “Hey, give the vaccines, you’re not liable.” But you see, there’s one thing that they don’t tell you about the PREP Act and the liability: is that once you know that these– that you’re giving a vaccine which is killing people, or should have known– once you know or should have known, the liability protection goes away.

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah.

Steve Kirsch: So we– all we need in America to stop this is one Attorney General of the– state Attorney General, or one medical examiner. One medical examiner in the United States of America. All they have to do is say, “Oh. This guy was killed by the vaccine. He died from the vaccine. The vaccine was his cause of death. And in fact, these people who are injecting people are killing people.” Now this isn’t just like one person out of 200 million, which they could say, “Oh, well, you know that’s not really killing people. That’s like– it’s risk-benefit.” When I talk to embalmers and they– the embalmers range from a 60-percent rate of finding these telltale blood clots in people, to a 93-percent rate of finding these telltale blood clots.

So we’re talking– now, if this were heart disease, it would be 25 percent of people die from heart disease. You can’t have an intervention that kills 60 percent or more of the people who are dying, due to that intervention. Now, I don’t think it’s 93 percent that are being killed by the vaccine. I think that’s an extraordinary number. But the fact that you can have an embalmer who has, you know, for a month, a 93 percent positivity rate in finding these clots… I mean, that’s even bigger than the– 93 percent, of course, is bigger than the, you know, percentage of people who are vaccinated. Right, but you see, it’s the vaccinated people who are dying at a disproportionate rate. So that’s why the rate that they’re finding these clots is higher than the vaccination rate: because the vaccinated people are dying.

And so what is the CDC doing about investigating these blood clots that are clearly killing 60 percent to 93 percent of people? They’re doing absolutely nothing. They’re not reaching out to these embalmers, to seeing the data and the videos that they have. The CDC is doing absolutely nothing to look at these embalmer deaths. So you know what?

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah.

Steve Kirsch: If you’re an embalmer anywhere in the world, you need to go and talk to your medical examiner, the local medical examiner. Now I don’t know if it’s… different in… different jurisdictions. In the United States, though, it’s the– you know, you don’t go to the coroner. The coroner is… you know, elected. He doesn’t even know… he doesn’t even know anything about medicine. The medical examiner is the one who’s the licensed forensic pathologist. All… of the embalmers who see these clots– because they’re the ones who are going to find it when they trying to embalm the body. The medical examiner typically doesn’t find these clots, because he’s not looking for them. He basically– the medical examiner goes in and he just cuts out organs, and then he takes the tissue samples, and so forth. And he never sees any of these clots, because he’s not looking for them. But once the embalmer puts the medical examiner on notice that they are seeing these clots– 50 percent or more of the deaths. And the medical examiner has to go and look for these, because if they don’t, they are an accessory to involuntary manslaughter, which is a crime.

So medical examiners are now given a choice: they can either go to jail… or, they can do the right thing. So. Once they find these clots, they rule that the death was caused by the person who injected them. So they notify the people who are injecting people to say, “You’re murdering people. And if you don’t stop, you’re going to be charged with a crime.”

What do you think the pharmacist at Walgreens is going to do, when he hears the information that these clots are killing people and the medical examiner has ruled these things as homicides? Well, if he’s smart, he’s going to stop giving the shots. And if nobody wants to give the shots in America, there won’t be any vaccinated people in America, and nobody’s going to get killed.

Reiner Füllmich: Yeah. That will be the turning point. Well, Steve, I, I’m very grateful. Thank you very much for taking the time. We… will have to dig deeper, and we’ll have to make sure that all of this evidence, the stuff that you’re talking about, the things that we’re learning from the Brook Jackson trial– we have to make sure that this enters the mainstream narrative, because so long as it stays within our own echo chamber, it’ll… you know, confirm what we’ve been thinking, but we’re, we have to make sure that other people understand what’s going on, not just to save lives– that’s the most important thing– but also to make this whole thing stop. We’ve got to do that. So again, thank you very, very much for taking this time. We’ll be in touch, because we have lots more to talk about. But at this point, have a great weekend. The weather is nice here in California, in most places.

So thank you very much again, Steve.

Steve Kirsch: Yeah, thank, thank you for the opportunity to appear on your… broadcast and get… the message out. And thank you again for… what you’re doing, to get the message out. We will– we will win.

Reiner Füllmich: Thank you very much.

Steve Kirsch: Thank you.

Reiner Füllmich: [02:53:26] We will win, definitely. Take care.

Vielen Dank für die Überarbeitung des Transkripts an das Team von corona-ausschuss-info + Ed.

Steve Kirsch (Deutsch, maschinell übersetzt)

Die folgende deutsche Version des obigen englischen Transkripts wurde maschinell übersetzt und könnte dadurch Fehler aufweisen.