Deutscher Kanal von Dr. Reiner Füllmich
English Channel: t.me/ReinerFuellmichEnglish
Die Beiträge dienen als Informationsquellen für eigene Recherchen. Sie spiegeln nicht unbedingt die persönliche Meinung von Dr. Füllmich oder die des ICIC-Teams wider.
https://t.me/ReinerFuellmich

Source *.Pdf

DOC-20240516-WA0021.docx

DOC-20240516-WA0021.pdf

Dr. Fuellmich · Senderstrasse 37 · 37077 Göttingen

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Institut für Virologie

Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten

Charitéplatz 1

10117 Berlin

!!! Urgent, deadline matter !!!

by fax in advance 030 450 518911

Your sign Our sign (always specify) Date

C-99/20-rf/nw 13.12.2020

Green Mango GmbH, represented by Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten

Dear Professor Drosten,

We hereby notify you that Green Mango GmbH, Bülowstrasse 56, 10783 Berlin, represented by its managing director, Mr. Nils Roth, has commissioned us with the representation of its interests as shown in the enclosed power of attorney. Our client suffered and continues to suffer substantial harm as a result of the grossly disproportionate measures imposed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic without an evidence-based foundation.

You are personally responsible for this damage because, as one of the persons who intervened in a significant and decisive way in the provision of policy advice, you intentionally asserted and are still asserting false facts and - also intentionally - concealed and are still concealing material facts. In the name of and on behalf of our client, we claim you to rectify your erroneous contribution to policy advice in connection with the COVID 19 crisis, as well as to compensate our client for the damages already incurred.

In detail:

I. The basic assumptions of the Corona policy

The measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic (if it is a pandemic) are based on the following assumptions:

Rechtsanwalt

***Neue Bankverbindung***:

EthikBank und Volksbank

SARS CoV-2 is a completely new pathogen that has jumped from animals to humans, which is completely unknown to the human organism, to which no one is immune and which can therefore spread exponentially.
This pathogen is so insidious that it can even be passed on by people who have no symptoms themselves.
Therefore, the only way out is to diagnose the COVID-19 disease (noticed or unnoticed) by means of a PCR test.
If the state does not intervene consistently, there is a risk of massive over-mortality and dramatic overloading. and a dramatic overload of intensive care capacities.
The incidence of infection can be monitored by expanding the testing capacity. monitored. Accordingly, more than 1 million people are currently being tested for SARS Co.

people are currently being tested for SARS CoV2 by PCR.

3. The third misstatement: PCR-based diagnostics

And without the lie of a symptom-free risk of infection, no one would have had the idea of testing even healthy people for SARS CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics are afflicted with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them for symptomless people:

A PCR test cannot distinguish between lifeless viral debris from survived infection on the one hand and viruses capable of reproduction on the other. If, in this situation, symptomless people are tested en masse, this will have fatal consequences: since the vast majority of COVID-19 infections are inconsequential, many people will be tested who are perfectly healthy and whose immune system has coped with the pathogen, but who then carry these lifeless fragments. As will be seen, this is a source of error that will increase by itself in the coming weeks and months. And this source of error will not change even if your assertion in the podcast of September 29, 2020, that the full viral genome is still detectable even in the case of lifeless viruses, is correct.
No test is 100% accurate. At low prevalence, even minor deficiencies in the specificity of the test system used are enough to noticeably cloud the positive predictive value of a positive test result. Even the Federal Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, admitted this himself in an interview with ARD on June 14, 2020. Nevertheless, testing continues en masse - despite the still low prevalence of COVID-19. And not all test systems used are equally specific. For the simple reason that nowhere is it prescribed what the minimum specificity of such a system must be in order to be allowed to be used at all. Exemplary is an incident that became known from Augsburg, Germany, that among a cohort of 60 persons 58 tested false positive. And this happened close in time to the lockdown decision of the Conference of Minister Presidents. Such decisions are made on the basis of such incorrectly determined case numbers and therefore have far-reaching consequences.
If the test system does not strike until a large number of multiplication cycles have been performed, the viral load is so low that active infection is ruled out. You yourself referred to a study in the NDR podcast of May 7, 2020, according to which a patient is considered "less infectious" from 25 cycles. In fact, the authors of a Canadian study failed to identify any replication-capable virus beyond 24 cycles (Jared Bullard et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa638). Nevertheless, when the new case numbers are added up again, nowhere is it checked at which Ct value the cutoff was set in the respective positive test case. The result of a PCR test is thus highly susceptible to manipulation - and thus susceptible to political influence, if high case numbers are once again "needed" to intimidate the population. In any case, the values determined on the basis of a PCR test are not a sufficient basis for completely shutting down public life and to interfere with people's liberties in an unprecedented way.
A PCR test is not able to distinguish mere contamination from infection. As long as the viruses rest on the mucous membranes and do not penetrate the body's cells, a person is only contaminated but not infected. In this case, the viruses do not reproduce and therefore do not create a risk of infection. Nevertheless, a PCR test is also positive in these people. You yourself pointed out this problem in an interview with Wirtschaftswoche in 2014.
The significance of a positive PCR test also depends on which and how many primers are searched for. The less specific these are for SARS CoV-2, the lower this significance.

Conclusion: Not all positive PCR tests have the same significance. We do not know at all what happened in the respective laboratory. It is not surprising that Mike Yeadon, former Chief Medical Officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, urgently advises against the use of PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a recent article (

4. The fourth false claim: Impending overburdening of the health care systems

Model calculations to the effect that millions of intensive care patients and hundreds of thousands of deaths are to be feared in Germany alone have never come true. And the politicians themselves apparently did not believe in the impending apocalypse in the healthcare system. How else to explain that the lockdown went into effect on March 23, 2020, and then on March 24, 2020, just one day later, it was reported that they were now accepting COVID-19 patients from France and Italy (

All the actors who have campaigned for cuts in public life, who have imposed and enforced such cuts, have thousands of lives at stake, including you, Prof. Drosten.

And if the upcoming winter should indeed bring to light a large number of intensively medically relevant respiratory diseases, this will not be due to the danger of COVID-19, but to the Corona policy: Social Distancing, preached even as late as spring, keeps us from exercising our immune systems. And the bombardment with panic messages from home and abroad has done its part: fear has a negative effect on the human immune system. Immunosuppression, however, has never been a suitable instrument for fighting infections.

6. The interlocking of the lockdown lies

It is remarkable how conspicuously the lies behind the Corona measures are interlocked and interdependent. It is important to take a look at this, because in this way we can see in the overall view that the entire measures are designed to be perpetuated completely without regard to the actual occurrence of infection.

Only because one assumes against better knowledge that a person can infect others with SARS CoV-2 without being ill himself, mass tests for this pathogen are carried out:

The doctrine is that each and every one of us could be the unrecognized carrier of the deadly virus.

Now, in autumn and winter, when all respiratory pathogens are increasing their activity again, SARS CoV-2 will also affect many people. For many, the viruses will sit on the mucous membranes and not enter the body's cells at all. For many others, the viruses will enter the body's cells but will be overwhelmed and killed by the immune system. These groups of people will form the clear majority. Positive test results will be found in all of them - and in those infected without consequences for up to three months after infection. If these people then test positive, they will be listed as "new infections" against their better judgment. The number of people whose immune system kills the virus will increase during the cold seasons. Therefore, the number of people who test positive will also increase – without any healthcare resource being taken up because of it.
The accumulation of "new infections" will therefore increase and be used by politicians to justify further cuts. Since positive tests are equated with new infections against better knowledge, the increase in the number of "new infections" declared in this way will in turn nourish the lie that the virus is highly contagious and that no one is immune, and that there is therefore a threat of collapse in the healthcare system.

The way the infection event is currently being presented, it is purposefully designed to ensure that the lockdown will never end.

1. On the question of basic immunity

In your statements in the NDR podcasts, you yourself pointed out the genetic relationship of SARS CoV-2 with the old SARS virus. You also know that the question of how high immunity is in the population depends on how well known a pathogen is to the human organism.

2. On the risk of infection without symptoms

At this point, you are guilty of a particularly serious and momentous misconduct. To put it bluntly: After you yourself had recognized that the allegedly asymptomatic source of infection from China did in fact have symptoms, there would have been only one adequate reaction for you and your co-authors: You should have immediately withdrawn the case study. That study should never have been published as a Letter to the Editor in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the meantime, the study has been cited over 1,000 times. You have thus contributed significantly to creating the appearance of evidence that does not exist in reality.

3. To the PCR test

Until recently, you defend the current practice of diagnosing COVID-19 using a PCR test. You know a great deal about laboratory medicine. It cannot have escaped your attention that a PCR test cannot distinguish between replicable virus and live virus fragments and cannot distinguish between contamination and infection. In connection with the Ct value, you admitted in the NDR podcast of September 1, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 54, transcript p. 15) that the significance of the test result depends on the viral load. However, they argued against setting Ct = 30 as an upper limit because of differences in the quality of test reagents and machines. They themselves concede that one positive test result is not equal in meaning to another positive test result. However, you do not accept the consequence that no diagnostic conclusions can be drawn from such a test result. And how do your statements of September 2020 relate to those of May 7, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 39, transcript p. 3), when you still referred to a study that advocated Ct = 25 as a "magic limit"?

4. Your Lockdown Recommendations

As early as in the podcast on March 18, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 16, transcript p. 2), you called for a drastic intervention (which could only be a political one) to stop the alleged exponential rate of spread of SARS CoV-2. And shortly before the second lockdown was decided on October 28, 2020, you followed up in the NDR podcast of October 27, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 62): In view of the number of cases, you recommended a temporary lockdown to politicians (ibid. transcript p. 5); this would simply be enforced above a certain number of cases (ibid. transcript p. 6). You attribute the low incidence figures of today to the lockdown in spring, although you know very well that even the figures and graphs of the Robert Koch Institute do not provide this analysis.

You are one of the signatories of the Leopoldina paper of December 8, 2020, recommending a hard lockdown after Christmas. Already the description of the alleged need for action shows that you, as well as all co-signatories, have completely abandoned the principles of evidence-based science:

"More people died with coronavirus in the last 7 days than died on the roads in 2019."

The crucial thing is the preposition "with". The preposition "from" is not used. Thus, the authors of the paper themselves admit that they are talking about deaths for which the causality of SARS CoV-2 is not proven. However, in connection with the rest of the text in this paragraph – clinics at the limit of their capacity, health offices overburdened, etc. – the impression is created by clever framing that the problems in the clinics have something to do with COVID19. Such an approach is light years away from the imperative of informed policy advice. And as far as the paper compares the "new infections" between Germany and Ireland, this is again based on positive PCR tests, which without sufficient data for the interpretation of the test results say nothing, but also nothing at all about the infection occurrence.

You have co-signed the Leopoldina paper dated December 8, 2020. You are fully responsible for its content. Your lockdown recommendations were never in actuality designed to promise people liberation again after weeks of deprivation. Your deliberately false advice in the sense of deliberate immoral damage is driving us all - worldwide, not just in Germany - into a permanent lockdown, for which you will be held liable in full under criminal and civil law.

5. Causality and attribution

You cannot escape your personal responsibility for all this damage by pointing out that it was not you, but elected politicians and duly established authorities who decided on all these measures leading to ruin. Rather, the damage is entirely attributable to you and your work. It cannot have escaped you, and it has not escaped you, that your advice has a decisive influence on the political decision-makers and that those decision-makers consult you because they do not see themselves in a position to correctly assess the risk posed by SARS CoV-2. To give such an authoritative input is the genuine task of any policy advice.

No one - so far - is protecting the public in general and businesses in particular from the misinformation that underlies the lockdown policy.

And for that misinformation, you, as the one whose advice those in power listen to most, are personally liable, both criminally and civilly.

IV. Legal consequences

Now that we have listed, cursorily and without any claim to completeness, the damage caused by the non-pharmaceutical interventions of politicians in the Corona crisis on your advice, we now look at our client. By deliberately giving scientifically baseless recommendations to politicians or by promoting such measures from a position of influence, you have also deliberately caused her immoral damage and are therefore liable to our client under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for the damage already caused. In addition, you personally must correct the misinformation you have given to the world in an equivalent manner and in this way avert further damage to our client.

22.12.2020

In addition, we request that you correct the following statements to those politically responsible and to the public:

Clarify that there is no basis for suggesting that SARS CoV-2 could cause an uncontrollable number of deaths and ICU patients!
Clarify that the case study in the New England Journal of Medicine of March 5, 2020, in which you were involved and which supposedly proves an asymptomatic contagion risk, is based on a false data basis and therefore should have been retracted long ago!
Clarify that a positive PCR test cannot detect active infection and is therefore not suitable to establish a COVID-19 diagnosis on its own!
Clarify that collective restrictions of freedom offer no assurance to contribute anything to the containment of the spreading event, but cause verifiably massive collateral damage!

We also call on you to refrain from making statements to the contrary in the future. Politicians must no longer be advised with scientifically inadequate information. And the public must no longer be unsettled with such information.

22.12.2020

to submit the declaration to cease and desist and the declaration to undertake, which is enclosed with this letter.

Andrea Salvatore Buffa Denunce Pubbliche

Dr. Fuellmich to Professor Drosten

The HOLY BIBLE

HOMEPAGE

ITALIANO יהודי 中国人 FRANÇAISE ESPAÑOL

DOWNLOAD THESE PAGES

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

ASTENERSI DAI fArmAci e dal rivotarli

La magistratura, una farsa della CIA di Hollywood

La magistratura e i suoi complici derubano e privano di giustizia gli ignari!

MANIFESTO, il meDicO uccide!

LA MAFIA DEI PEDOFILI

CAPACI A TUTTO: 《 CORONA BUSINESS VIRUS – ITALIA ALATA

Arrestate Matteo Salvini e Giorgia Meloni !

I gesti di riconoscimento segreti della Massoneria

Hamas, what guarantees or rather what can we offer in exchange for the hostages?

La Palestina di ISRAELE PROPRIETÀ

ISRAELE, PALESTINA, METTETE FINE ALLE GUERRE!

GAZA CITY

POT TOP ApPs per tutti/©

Cappotto termico! Agricoltura sui tetti in caso

DEBITO ODIOSO, DETESTABILE, LOCKDOWN TECNICO, SIGNORAGGIO

Dr. Fuellmich · Senderstrasse 37 · 37077 Göttingen

Dear Professor Drosten,

3. The third misstatement: PCR-based diagnostics

4. The fourth false claim: Impending overburdening of the health care systems

6. The interlocking of the lockdown lies

1. On the question of basic immunity

2. On the risk of infection without symptoms

3. To the PCR test

4. Your Lockdown Recommendations

5. Causality and attribution

IV. Legal consequences

22.12.2020

22.12.2020

Discussion about this post