Day 7 of the Grand Jury – Psychology & Propaganda and New Information On Wuhan

ER Editor: Our immense gratitude goes to Dutch journalist Michel van der Kemp for taking the time and trouble to create a transcript of the proceedings of Day 7 of the Grand Jury, recorded on May 19, 2022.

Two well-known speakers talk about the media & journalism, and propaganda and its effect on large populations – Drs. Matthias DeSmet and Mark Crispin Miller. Then medical professional Dr. Ulrike Kaemmerer has more to say about SARS-CoV-2 and the PCR test based on new findings. Note: there was NO DISEASE among Wuhan residents, only .003% (300) of whom tested ‘positive’ for Covid out of a whopping 10 million: none of those had anything that was capable of replication, so nothing was transmissible nor was anything in fact being transmitted! And ‘asymptomatic transmission’ simply didn’t exist.

Furthermore, influenza A and B were being found in a majority of people alongside ‘Covid’; pneumonia in the elderly was also being found, which is nothing unusual at all since many old people die of pneumonia every year.


Day 7 of the Grand Jury – Psychology & Propaganda


or ]

Watch the full Grand Jury sessions days 1-6 on Odysee HERE or on Internet Archive, with chapters and timestamps:

  • Day 1, Opening statements, 05 February 2022
  • Day 2, General historical and geopolitical backdrop, 12 February 2022
  • Day 3, PCR test, 13 February 2022
  • Day 4, Injections, 19 February 2022
  • Day 5, Financial destruction, 20 February 2022
  • Day 6, Eugenics, closing arguments and outlook, 26 February 2022



Day 7 gets opened by Viviane Fischer, who passes over to Judge Rui Fonseca E Castro, from Portugal.

Judge Castro: Thank you, Viviane. The members of this model Grand Jury investigation have been reviewing the testimony given to us by all the experts. The preliminary conclusion that is reached with the issue at hand, the corona crisis, is that there is very strong evidence showing that what the world has been experiencing for more than two years now is the result of a long-planned agenda designed by a small group of people. These people are following in the footsteps of those people and institutions who have been pursuing ideas of world control and eugenics for more than a century. These people and the institutions, global corporations and global NGO’s, seem to have played a crucial role in World Wars I and II using the financial system to finance both sides of both wars. Their ultimate goal is that, this is what all the evidence points to, is to create so much chaos that the population will ultimately give in to their demands of introducing a one-world government under their control and a digital currency issued by a one-world bank under their control. The testimony from, among others, former WHO-employees and advisers shows in addition that these people in institutions are using health to speed up their efforts of gaining control over the world’s population by using the WHO as a crowbar. The WHO, however, is an undemocratic organization, without any democratically elected officials who are accountable to no one but their private backers. The most influential of these backers is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with the chief protagonists of the ongoing campaign to inject the entire world’s population with experimental new drugs, which they falsely claim are effective. As the testimony of the experts that this panel has listened to shows, these experimental shots would, even if they could be qualified as vaccines – which they cannot – not be necessary the reason for this being, even though the preponderance of the evidence shows that COVID-19 was man-made and is a result of so-called gain-of-function experiments, it’s turning out to be no more dangerous than the common flu. It has a survival rate of 99.97% [99.997% ?] and an infection fatality rate of between 14 and 15% [sic – ER: we believe this should be .14% or .15%], which is about the same as of the common flu. On top of this, the injections are neither safe nor safer but rather extremely dangerous. In view of these preliminary results of this Grand Jury investigation, the panel has decided to take another closer look at the circumstances, apart from bribery and extortion, which made it possible for the people in the institutions who are the driving force behind the pandemic. The most important elements of the crimes that have been committed on a very grand scale, in our view, are: the psychological warfare that has been waged on the world’s population to manipulate them into obedience; the media, which were used to convey a constant message of fear and panic; and PCR-tests, which were used to artificially create cases, which was the sole and only basis for the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern […] is pronounced fake, and which ultimately, has a fake medical emergency provided by corona-measures, in particular the injections of billions of people with highly dangerous experimental substances. The three experts whose testimony this panel is seeking in order to shed more light on these aspects are: Professor Mattias DeSmet of Gent University in Belgium, who is recognized as the world’s leading expert on the theory of mass formation as it applies to COVID-19; Professor Mark Crispin Miller, who is professor of media studies at New York University, and one of the world’s leading authorities in this field; and Professor Ulrike Kämmerer of Wurzburg University, professor of human biology, immunology and cellular biology, who together with Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice-president of Pfizer, and Dr. Roger Hodgkinson, a medical doctor and PCR-test-maker from Canada, this is one of the leading experts on PCR testing. Due to time constraints, the hearing of Professor DeSmet has been pre-recorded, but Professor Miller and Professor Kämmerer will testify live before this panel. Now I give the floor to the panel.

Mattias DeSmet

  • Professor Dr. DeSmet is a clinical psychologist, received a PhD in clinical psychology from Gent University, and worked there as Professor clinical psychology. DeSmet also has a Master Degree in statistics, but he is no longer involved in statistical research. DeSmet has about 120 publications, which focus on inter-personal relationships. DeSmet lectures on the phenomenon of mass formation, on which topic he also finished writing a book.
  • Mass formation is a specific kind of group formation, which has a specific impact on individuals, who show very specific characteristics. This has been described by scholars like Gustave Le Bon, Siegmund Freud, William McDougall and Hannah Arendt. They all described the very strange impact mass formation has on individual psychological functioning. Individuals becomes radically blind to everything that goes against what it believes in. People under the influence of mass formation typically believe in certain ideologically colored narratives, and in a strange way they become unable to take a critical distance and to see when these narratives become utterly absurd, or just wrong. That is a very typical characteristic. History is full of examples, of the extreme blindness, of individuals who are in the grip of mass formation. A second characteristic of mass formation is that people who are in the grip are typically willing to sacrifice everything that is important to them, they seem to have lost all interest in their individual interests, and are prepared to sacrifice everything. A third characteristic is that people who are in the process of mass formation become radically intolerant for dissonant voices. They typically tend to first stigmatize dissenters, then they give a sign to dissenters, and finally they become cruel to dissenters, as if it is an ethical duty, even if they loved these people before.
  • Mass formation can happen spontaneously, or it can be provoked. DeSmet gives The Dancing Plague as an example of a spontaneous event, people started dancing, even until death. A spontaneous event is often called mass hysteria. In other events a certain elite is first and creates the mass artificially. DeSmet gives the communist Soviet Union as an example for this scenario. DeSmet also points out that technology of the last centuries give better opportunities to convey a message through mass media.
  • Loneliness is the most important precursor to come to a state of mass formation. An individual needs to be disconnected from his natural and social environment. Hannah Arendt and scholars from the Frankfurter Schule call that a state of Social Atomization, people have to be atomized, disconnected. When a totalitarian state emerges it will actively start to isolate people further, totalitarian leaders do this in an almost intuitive way. Totalitarian states lead to a paranoid state in the population, social bonds deteriorate so much, that people are willing to report loved ones to the authorities, who not follow the narrative.
  • People in a state of loneliness are confronted with a lack of meaning making. Then they become disconnected from reality and the environment, that’s what we call free-floating anxiety, frustration and aggression, while NOT knowing why. All those emotions are freely floating in their mental atmosphere. When a narrative is distributed under these conditions, indicating an object of anxiety and a strategy to deal with that object of anxiety, then all this free-floating anxiety connects to this object of anxiety, and people are willing to participate with the strategy to deal with the object, because it gives them an illusion of mental control over their anxiety.
  • Then comes a second step. Because many people participate with the strategy to deal with the presented object of anxiety, people feel connected again. They no longer feel lonely. But this new social bond is not a social bond between individuals. They feel connected with the collective. This bond is so strong that it sucks all energy away from the bonds between individuals. The bond between individuals deteriorates more and more, the longer the mass formation exists. There is a paranoid atmosphere why people no longer trust each other.
  • Mass formation can lead to a new mass formation. DeSmet points to how the corona-narrative flawlessly passed over into the Ukraine-narrative. A mass formation prepares the soil for a new mass formation.
  • Once a mass formation emerges the leaders of the mass formation usually will actively try to isolate the individuals. Note that loneliness and isolation are not the same. A lonely population just feels disconnected. An isolated population is when people are no longer allowed to gather at the same time. The more isolated individuals are, the stronger their bond with the collective.
  • Cultural differences can explain susceptibility of societies to mass formation. Mass formation or totalitarianism is an extreme type of collectivism. But DeSmet thinks it will be very unpredictable where the effects of mass formation will be intense and where it will be less intense. In individualist cultures people sometimes become sick of their individualism. Freedom is hard to carry, it is challenging. Freedom comes with a certain responsibility. After a prolonged period of individualism, people can become so sick of their freedom and lack of direction in life that they start to long for a harsh, strict leader. Dissonant voices will have more effect in cultures where the phenomenon of mass formation is the weakest. It is always necessary for dissonant voices to speak out, even when people don’t wake up from their hypnosis. The dissonant voice will constantly disturb the hypnosis. Speaking out will prevent the hypnosis from getting so deep that people are willing to kill the people who are not willing to go along with the masses. Speaking out will plant a seed of doubt in the people who believe in the narrative. The masses and the crowd and totalitarianism is typically self-destructive, they exhaust themselves. “They devour their own children.” The only thing dissenters have to do is that they arrive at that point, before the masses become convinced they need to destroy dissenters.
  • Both the leaders and the public are under the influence of mass formation. Although DeSmet doesn’t rule out the possibility that there are leaders behind the leaders. Leaders who publicly talk the narrative, they are hypnotized by their ideology. They firmly believe their ideology is a solution to the problem. But, many of the leaders do not believe in the narrative they use, they know the narratives are used to further their ideology. Leaders are just as vulnerable to dissenting voices as the general public.
  • The COVID-19 narrative fulfils a mass formation objective, which DeSmet believes to have been created artificially. He points to the existing ideology of institutions who already wanted to change policies, for example concerning vaccines.
  • Spontaneous mass formation is when individuals feel very anxious but as a group start to look for an explanation for their distress and anxiety. A mixture of the two possibilities is very well possible.
  • The masses are always convinced that what they are doing is for the greater good, this contributes to the disconnection.
  • The best way to convince the masses is to speak in a quiet way, not trying to convince someone. Just making sure our voice resonates. Lawsuits, etc are also very necessary, even if those projects are not successful immediately. Humor is very powerful, but very difficult. Humor has to be used in a very sensitive way, because otherwise it will make people angry. If they become too angry, they will become more convinced of their narrative.
  • Rational understanding has replaced spirituality to a certain extent. Technology probably can be used to spread spirituality but it certainly destroys the human core of human interactions, it stops the resonance. Technology use and industrialization together with this rationalization thinking is the real cause of mass formation and totalitarianism. Only a very small part of humanity can be rationally understood.

Mark Crispin Miller

  • The media is the driving force of the psychological operation. Miller has an expertise in studying propaganda, he has written and taught about the subject for years, until he no longer was allowed to teach about it, which has everything to do with the pandemic. The crisis would never have been possible without the cooperation of the media.
  • Miller admires the work of DeSmet, and DeSmet raises more questions than he could possibly answer. One of the questions is to what extent are we witnessing something fairly new or peculiar to moments when mass formation is likelier, or have we seen aspects of this type of thing before. Have there been propaganda drives in the pre-totallitarian past that were just as successful at obsessing people, if not right out hypnotizing them, and Miller believes the answer is yes.
  • The COVID-19 blitzkrieg is unprecedented in as far as it is global. We tend to think of the history of propaganda as an episodic phenomenon, striking particular nations at certain times, and then when that episode is over, we look back on it as if we were under some kind of spell. When the propaganda stopped, the spell started to break, it would take some people more time than others, and some people never snapped out of it.
  • WWI was brought on and sold successfully to millions of people, who ordinarily would have been completely uninterested in participating in that slaughter. This was accomplished by a scale of propaganda the world had not yet seen. The governments of Britain and the United States used all means at their disposal, including the use of modern mass media, like cinema, to hammer home an infuriating message about the Germans, who were referred to as the Huns. That success was based on a really startling number of wild lies about atrocities said to have been committed by the Germans against the Belgians. It worked on a lot of sophisticated people. A lot of those sophisticated people took part in that propaganda, in all sincerity, because they believed the propaganda that they were propagating. The media has enabled, and largely driven, this disaster, because that’s what propaganda depends on. This catastrophe was a result of a dire failure by the professional classes worldwide, especially throughout the west, certainly the medical establishment, certainly the academy, and above all, journalism.
  • Journalism, at least in countries like the United States, enjoys its status as an institution, whose freedom is protected by the government, precisely because the framers of the Bill of Rights understood that the most important institution for the prevention of government overreach and the deprivation of people’s rights and liberty, is what we call the media. That’s why the first amendment includes the press for special protection, because it, ideally speaking, is the obligation of the media to keep the government honest, and keep the people well-informed, so that they know enough to take care of themselves, and protect their liberty. That civic mission that gives journalism a certain kind of protection and prestige has been consistently trumped by a number of factors, including careerism. It would be career suicide for a journalist to depart from the script. By and large journalists make themselves believe that what they say is the truth. Nevertheless Miller believes that journalists are culpable for a number of reasons.
  • Miller agrees that dissenters must use alternative media to keep speaking their opinion. Miller notes though that the term alternative media, before COVID, would refer to the left press. The press that would question the rush to war for example. The alternative media now is very different, it’s alternative to that old alternative. Nearly all the left press has been yodelling from the same songbook that the entire corporate media uses.
  • Since the press became a commercial entity, it has basically worked in service of its advertisers, and the most lavish of those advertisers from the start has been the patent medicine industry.
  • The left press has been just as bad, or even people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore have all been just as bad as their counterparts in the world of the New York Times and CNN. This has to do with the source of their funding. The left media has tended to be subsidized by brands from the Ford foundation, the Rockefeller foundation, the Open Society Institute. These outlets have long served as pass-throughs for the CIA, and so on.
  • The alternative media, where we are allowed to talk about the other side of the story, is very small and more or less an ad-hoc arrangement.
  • Propaganda is not just a generation of untruths, propaganda can be truthful, and factually accurate. One can even say that those who speak out against the narrative are doing propaganda, too. Propaganda also depends on censorship, propaganda does not want an argument.
  • Mass persuasion is often used as a synonym for propaganda, but that is a bit misleading. There is nothing persuasive in the way propaganda gets under people’s skin. Persuasion is more accurately used when we talk about ancient oratory. Propaganda is not a matter of mass persuasion, it’s a matter of mass suasion. It wants to move us, and to that end will engage in any kind of manipulation to get us with the program to the point of demonizing, slandering, libeling those who try to contradict the narrative. It is essential to silence the other side, not to rebut what the other side says.
  • Media should serve as a forum where we are all allowed to make our cases: proper democratic governance demands that we hear all sides of the issue, just as the scientific method demands that we hear all sides of the issue. The media is culpable for its deliberate, even conspiratorial efforts, to help the likes of Dr. Fauci, by defaming his critics. The press has served as a kind of handmaiden for these powerful bureaucrats, and therefore grossly and dangerously misinformed their audiences worldwide.
  • The high-level coordination of terms used by governments, like social distancing, build back better and flatten the curve could not possibly have occurred spontaneously. When you have that kind of unanimity, the global media is saying the same thing, to the extent that it becomes inescapable, you cannot not hear it. Every channel you watch, every paper you read they all hammer the same memes, they use the same language. It is likely that when you talk about a nation’s press, gripped with war fever, it is plausible that as you get carried away by the war spirit, and you’re eager to connect with your readership, that this is to some extent organic. It’s the natural response of a commercial media system to a war that is extremely popular. But when you talk about a media system all over the world saying exactly the same thing, and defaming the same people, and doing that in the same terms, it would strain credulity that this just happens.
  • The press is structurally concentrated to an unprecedented extent. The corporate concentration of the media has been ongoing since the sixties. In the U.S. it was accelerated first under president Reagan in the eighties and then under Clinton in the nineties, and now we have five multinational corporations that are basically responsible for 90% of all the material we take in. We have a media cartel in the west, certainly in the U.S. Under which they all own each other. The people that work in the media are more easily brought on board and persuaded to use the script they’re handed, because of their employment by these big corporate multinationals.
  • At the same time there has been an ever tightening cooperation between media corporations and intelligence agencies. This takes us back to the history of the CIA which in the 50s started what it called Operation Mockingbird, which was a systematic attempt to get the media onboard with their program. The CIA has always been involved in every propaganda since WWII. So all of this has helped to prevent the media from doing its proper job of sampling differing opinions, observing all due skepticism toward official claims, and so on. The media has been incapacitated for that kind of proper work, by its corporate structure, its sources of revenue.
  • On top of all that, there has been the use of PR-firms. Any thorough indictment of the media for the lies that it has told would have to take account of how the world’s 10 biggest PR-firms have also participated in the propaganda drive from the beginning. And the CDC has its own well-funded press outreach apparatus, just like the Pentagon.
  • Miller gets asked what the baseline ethics is for journalists. Miller says it would be nice to have an ethical code defined by journalists themselves. That is something Miller would like to work on, to pursue, and help find some expressions of ethical guidance. Because he believes that what has happened is the institution of journalism, like the academy and the medical establishment, has undergone a moral collapse. The media system now is so corrupted by advertisers, revenues and corporate concentration that in journalism schools that what they teach is how to get a job in journalism and how to keep that job. Journalism students tell him that they don’t get taught how to run a story that goes against the grain. The implication of that is that teachers don’t encourage them to do that. The behavior of sticking to your guns and finding the truth doesn’t seem to get rewarded, it’s not rewarded in journalism, it even tends to be punished. Journalists are proud of the job they are doing, the prestige matters greatly to them, you sacrifice all that in the twinkling of an eye when you join the so-called conspiracy theorists, or the anti-vaxxers, or the 9/11-truthers. If you are a journalist, you do not learn what you should have learned on day one of your journalism training, which is that you don’t dismiss a story because someone says it is outlandish, you don’t dismiss a story because the authorities don’t want to hear it, or don’t want the public to hear it. You do your due diligence, and you follow the evidence wherever it may lead, until you come up with the truth. There is no incentive to do that. There is actually a positive disincentive, because investigative journalism has effectively been defunded. Investigative journalism is very expensive. There’s tons of click-bait, and slander, that costs relatively little.
  • Propaganda has succeeded as well as it has, because a lot of people don’t want to believe conspiracy theories could be true. This recalls what Hitler and Goebbels both understood about the Big Lie. Small lies are harder to put across than big lies, because people cannot believe they would have the gall to tell lies so big. People are eager to believe the authorities, but that is breaking down. We can hasten that break-down by continuing to tell the truth. When people encounter a reality that is antithetical to what they have been told by the propaganda, from that point on the propaganda is doomed, it cannot withstand that contradiction. The death count of the vaccination program is in that respect the most powerful weapon to break the hypnotization, just as the Vietnam war was ended by the casualty rate, not by people marching in the street protesting the war.
  • The regulation of the press in the U.S. is non-existent, and when there was press-regulation, it referred entirely to broadcast news, TV and radio. All they stressed in those obligations was the civic obligation of station owners. They had to do a certain amount of public interest programming, they had to do a certain amount of educational programming, they had to cover elections, they had to give some airtime to religions. On the whole such regulations were a good thing, but over time those obligations watered down to non-existence.
  • The same people who are behind the drive for vaccination seem to be behind the drive for propaganda, although it may need further work to nail it down to certainty.
  • The propaganda and censorship is ultimately self-destructive. People no longer get their information from mainstream media, but from alternative media.
  • The media failure, or refusal, to take due notice of various facts that complicate the official narrative has been inexcusable. There is no excuse to even now parrot their claims that the vaccines are safe and effective. They are definitely co-responsible.
  • Miller gets asked what is wrong with people like Noam Chomsky, who are on the wrong side of the fence during this pandemic. Miller says that when Chomsky came out with the statement that the non-vaccinated should be detained, and the food supply is their problem, he found that a shocking statement. Chomsky has served some very dubious purposes for a very long time. Those subjects on which Chomsky has done his most important work are only subjects that matter to the left. There have been subjects that matter to the entire population. Subjects around which a really honest investigation had the potential to stoke widespread resistance, like the Kennedy assassination(s). On all such topics Chomsky has been outspokenly dismissive, even derisive.
  • Miller gets asked about the moral collapse in journalism he referred to, and perhaps broader to other institutions. Those who are on the right seem to be more resilient, and many of those people claim to be God-led or Christian or faith-based. Does Miller agree that journalism is dividing along spiritual lines. Miller agrees. It is much easier to talk to people on the right, and religious people, it’s much easier to talk to libertarians. It’s easier to talk to people who are advantaged by people who have a certain skepticism towards state power. The left has never been leery towards state power. People need to recognize that all the authorities, all the people they have trusted are actually malevolent. There is malevolence driving this. People can not wake-up until they face that.

Ulrike Kämmerer

Professor Kämmerer has a media-presentation that expands on her previous testimony before the Grand Jury. There have been new publications that are important for the legal aspect.

  • Wuhan is the official start of the situation. The first lesson from a very large study of 10 million people that were investigated for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR was published in Nature Communications, and the main message from this is there is neither asymptomatic infections nor infectivity (transmissibilty) from persons without clinical symptoms. They only found 300 out of 10 million residents being positive, which corresponds to 0.003%, so they had a very clear testing strategy, with very good controls. Of the positive cases none of the persons had a replication competent virus. And none of the detected positive cases of their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed COVID-19 during the isolation period. So there was no disease, and no transmission of disease of PCR positive only cases in this very large study. This indicates that asymptomatic positive cases were unlikely to be infectious. Therefore there’s no need to isolate positive cases from the rest of the population.
  • Another publication from the Lancet shows that fatal cases can occur, but predominantly in older patients with preexisting comorbidities. This was well-known early in the pandemic.
  • The third publication from the lessons of Wuhan asks where did the influenza go? So here it is: the majority of COVID-19 patients had a co-infection with influenza viruses. So it’s often not only one virus per person, but it’s two or even more viruses, which can be found if you search for it. In this publication only 42% of patients with typical symptoms had SARS-CoV-2 only; 50% had influenza type A in addition, so two viruses; and 7.5% had influenza type B in addition. So you can’t decide on the symptoms whether they come from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the influenza virus. Patients who had the influenza type B virus had the worst outcome.
  • What the old patients had in common is that they all had pneumonia, and this is the situation where they die from. Pneumonia is nothing special for SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Old-age people always had a high-risk of getting pneumonia, nothing special.
  • Every year about 200 million cases of viral community acquired pneumonia occur every year. Viral pneumonia is not a real disease, caused by this SARS-CoV-2 virus, it’s a very common situation in viral respiratory diseases. SARS-CoV-2 fits completely in the symptoms for other respiratory viruses.
  • A lesson from Bavaria, because in middle-Europe the COVID-cases started here in Bavaria. There’s a publication, which I want to point out that samples that contain less than 106 copies per ml never yielded an isolate. You need a remarkable amount of copies in the starting samples that this patient sample can be correlated to a virus isolate which is successful.
  • What can a PCR do? A PCR is a powerful, highly sensitive molecular laboratory test to amplify small amounts to detectable amounts.
  • Even Anthony Fauci, the main player, gave a crucial statement about the PCR-test that it is not able to do what we always thought, or what the public thought, that it can’t say anything about infectivity. Another important testimony comes from Marion Koopmans, co-author of Drosten, and expert adviser to the WHO. In November 2020 she was on a Dutch radio station, where the presenter asked her about the PCR-test. He heard that it is not able to show there is a replication competent virus, and her answer was: exactly; the PCR shows if you have the virus RNA. That is literally what the PCR does. And whether that virus RNA is contained in a virus particle that is still intact and is also infectious, or whether it is simply leftover RNA that you can demonstrate for a while after someone has been infected, you don’t see that distinction.
  • Kämmerer said that before, the PCR can only detect the genetic information, not the whole virus. Now a short video clip from Anthony Fauci plays.

Anthony Fauci: Well, PCR doesn’t measure replication competent virus. It measures viral particles, nucleic acid. So in other words, I could be infected, have cleared the replicant capable virus from me, but I can continue to be positive with a PCR for several days after recovering, and not being transmissible at all.

Reiner Füllmich: That is the point. He pointed it out, that is why people are confused. I am convinced that this points to that the confusion has been created deliberately. That’s why I think it needs to be made very clear that a PCR-test alone can not tell us anything about infections in the sense of being contagious. It can tell you that you have survived the common cold or the flu, or maybe even a corona-infection, if that corona was part of the common flu, but it can not tell you by finding the fragments from this immune fight against the common cold or some other respiratory disease, it cannot tell you that this is still alive, and able to replicate and able to infect other people. Is that correct?

Ulrike Kämmerer: Well a virus, per definition, can never be alive. Because being alive – by definition – needs to have a metabolism, and viruses are without their own metabolism. But only viruses which are complete, intact, with a complete genome, which has all the information, that can go into a cell, can replicate. So copy it, and then send it out. Only this is a virus that can infect another person.

Reiner Füllmich: Whatever you test positive to is just fragments of the sequence that are found in the virus, but it doesn’t mean that you are now contagious. I know that Mike Yeadon distinguishes between hot and cold infections. A cold infection is what you just described, it may be the left-overs from your body’s fight against the common flu or something. A hot infection, this is when you find the sequence of the virus, and that virus is capable of replicating. That’s when you are contagious. But that is also when you have symptoms, right?

Ulrike Kämmerer: So normally you have the symptoms, you can either detect the intermediate RNA, but the only proof is the isolation of the virus. Or you can bring an uninfected person together with the infected person, and the other person, under controlled conditions, got the infection. But with molecular tests you can only do correlation.

Reiner Füllmich: So three follow-up questions. It doesn’t make sense to mass-test, mass-screen asymptomatic people.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Exactly.

Reiner Füllmich: If someone tests positive, with this PCR-test, because it only looks for the corona-virus. If someone tests positive, with symptoms, this does not mean that he or she is infectious in the sense of being contagious. Is that correct?

Ulrike Kämmerer: That’s in part correct, because if you have a high-viral load, as they showed in the publications, so a real high-viral load, then it’s needed to do the correlation. But you really need to have a controlled high-viral load, and a lot of symptoms, and then you are contagious.

Reiner Füllmich: Is that true by itself, or do you have differential diagnostics first?

Ulrike Kämmerer: You have to do differential diagnostics… (interrupted)

Reiner Füllmich: That’s what I mean. I need a clear answer. Because a court of law will not want to be confused. That’s why I am saying, the second question is: if you test positive, it doesn’t mean that corona is the cause of the infection, even the CDC says that. But third question to really find out what causes the symptoms you have to do differential diagnostics, or multiplex testing, right?

Ulrike Kämmerer: You have to do multiplex testing for viruses and other pathogens, yes.

Ana Garner: In the government’s description and numbers that they put out in cases, they never define a “case”. And that’s for a very good reason, because it can include many healthy people and people that we don’t need to be afraid of. But it seems to me that the government also is capable of manipulating those numbers that they are using to promote fear in everyone. One of those ways is mass-testing, including healthy people. Is that correct?

Ulrike Kämmerer: Well, you can play with the numbers in mass-testing depending on the PCR you use, and depending on the conditions under which you perform the PCR. That’s very easy to manipulate the data. If you need more positive data, you can say to the lab, well accept only one gene, if the kit has even three genes as a target, well if one gene has more than 35 CT then accept it as positive. And if you need less cases, then you say well everything above a CT of 30, and you need at least two positive genes to make this probe positive. So you can easily play with this number.

Ana Garner: So it’s not just that mass-testing the entire population, including healthy people, but you can do it by putting more than one infectious agent in the PCR-test itself that is picking up and also tweaking the cycle thresholds of the testing itself. Correct? And the cycle threshold just means the number of times that it is doubled.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Yes, and threshold means not only the number of times that it is doubled, but you define it as a threshold where this light signal crosses a line, which is higher than a clearly negative sample.

Ana Garner: So above what cycle threshold would you get a high number of false positives?

Ulrike Kämmerer: So for sure, more than 35 would be the upper line, depends a little bit on the kit and on the controls.

Ana Garner: Are you familiar with the cycle thresholds used in the United States, being primarily 40 and above?

Ulrike Kämmerer: Yesterday I asked several MD’s and they still get lab samples positive with a CT of 40, with one target. Which is a no-go, but they still use it here in Germany. So it might be the same in the U.S.

Viviane Fischer: So in the Corman-Drosten paper, and also the test-protocol that was published by the WHO, they even pointed to a CT of 45, wasn’t it?

Ulrike KämmererNo, they didn’t define the threshold, that was the problem. In the beginning they accepted labs who had a CT of up to 42, which is completely nonsensical.

Reiner Füllmich: Can I ask two more questions with reference of publications of the CDC. The CDC itself says, and this is in a publication, dated July 13th, 2020. There’s a number of bullet points but the most important ones are these. I quote directly: ‘detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.’ In my mind, in my view, if you test positive, because the test found fragments of the sequences, it doesn’t mean that this is what caused the symptoms. You test positive and even the CDC says it doesn’t mean that’s what’s causing the symptoms. And the other thing that it says you need to have symptoms, if you don’t have symptoms then it’s completely useless. Is that correct?

Ulrike Kämmerer: This is exactly the point. Because on one hand, you can have several agents which induce the symptoms, and due to the basic technology of the PCR you never can say this is a replication competent virus. And they all knew it.

Reiner Füllmich: This is very important. Because they wrote it down, so this shows wilful intent. Here’s the second bullet point: this cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens. Again, this means that in order to find out what really caused the symptoms – and again you need symptoms – you have to differential diagnostics or multiplex testing. So again it doesn’t make any sense to do mass-screening of asymptomatic people, because these people are presumably healthy. Is that correct?

Ulrike Kämmerer: Yes, and there was a testing on healthy tourists in New York several years ago, and they randomly found all the viruses in those healthy tourists visiting a tourist point in New York. So this makes no sense.

Virginie de Araujo Recchia: For me the new point is that there is dual viral infections. In France they told us that the common flu had disappeared. So now it demonstrates very well there is a false narrative, and that they were looking for parts of the COVID-19, that patients were probably sick from other flu-viruses. So a lot of people could have been treated. I don’t know if it was true in all countries that they said that the common flu had disappeared, but we learned now that this was not the case.

Ulrike Kämmerer: This is true, none of those other viruses disappeared. Before 2020 all those diseases were simply labeled influenza, and they were not tested, they could have been caused by several types of viruses. All mild diseases were called common cold. So since we started testing for SARS-CoV-2 only, then nobody tested for influenza and all the other things. If you label everything as COVID, then clinicians oversee all the other aspects.

Reiner Füllmich: One more question. Is it correct to say that if you use a test that only looks for the corona-virus, then the only thing you are going to find is the corona-virus and nothing else. And is it also correct to say that is a mistake in diagnostics.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Well, normally as a biologist I cannot rule in the medical treatment, but normally there is no difference in treating viral pneumonia diseases or respiratory diseases. Because there is no specific treatment so far. The differential diagnosis only makes sense to say if it is a virus, or bacteria, or fungus, or amoeba, or chlamydia infection, because then between the different groups of pathogens, then you have different treating protocols.

Viviane Fischer: In Germany we had this laboratory-testing the robin test. There they tested basically with just a water probe, and probes with other corona-viruses, harmless corona-viruses inserted. Just to see how efficient this test was, and then it turned out, that water turned out 1.6% positive, seemingly showing the ‘harmful’ virus SARS-CoV-2; and I think on the harmless corona-virus you had 7.6% positivity rate. That shows that in addition to the people maybe not having SARS-CoV-2 at all, the tests test positive against other viruses, which adds to the confusion.

Ulrike Kämmerer: One important point – those other corona-viruses are not harmless. You can die of them as well. You can even die of normal rhinoviruses. The normal corona-viruses can harm as well. But this is a matter of contamination, and of course reactivity. This is on one point the design of the PCR-test, it is cross-reactive, but the most source of false positive results is the so-called handling procedures. The mass-testing produces a lot of false positives.

Dipali Ojha: What is the difference between rapid antigen tests and the PCR? The reason is there was a time in India the government allowed people to use rapid antigen tests, when the results came in very fast, maybe the next day, and it was easier for people to continue their activities. But then there was a new rule when using this rapid antigen test, it said that if the antigen test is positive, one could go in for a PCR-test, and the result of the PCR-test would overrule the result of the antigen test. Could you share your views on this?

Ulrike Kämmerer: This is the same in Germany. So antigen is a protein. So the virus has a nucleic acid inside and then it has a protein corner, the spike protein for example. And then the proteins covering the nucleic acid nuclear proteins. Parts of such proteins are called antigens. Rapid antigen tests detects protein parts of the virus. So, you have this lateral flow system, these plastic cassettes, where you drop in your sample, and then you have antibodies in this chamber, which then binds the protein of the virus if there is a protein. This gives a color reaction on the test area. The fast antigen test detects protein. You need a higher load of protein to get this test positive, and if this antigen test is truly positive, because there are a lot of problems with this test, if you have an acid like cola, this test will show a positive. So as a confirmation test they will ask for the PCR. Like the PCR, an antigen test cannot prove a replication capable virus.

Dipali Ojha: In India we, for most of the time during the last two years, we had this strategy adopted by the health agencies, which said test, trace, and treat. Then when they had a positive case, they were tracing all the people who came in contact with this person who tested positive, during the last 4-5 days. My question: it’s very likely that it’s not possible to review all the contacts, some will be forgotten, or missed out. So how effective is this strategy, which is still being used, particularly when we see a rise in cases.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Normally you should ask an epidemiologist, but this doesn’t make sense. Because you have from person to person the same problems, as I have shown from the publication from Wuhan, these are PCR-positive asymptomatic persons, there was no case of transmission of the virus, even to very related persons even in the same household. Since we know that you have to have symptoms, this makes no sense. If you had symptoms, okay, you can ask who they had contact with, and inform them that they stay at home.

Dexter L.-J. Ryneveldt: I looked at your previous evidence, first time around, you have focused a lot on Wuhan, just as you did today. So to me it seems like, is it correct for me to say, in order for one to understand SARS-CoV-2 the virus, we are going have to go and look at Wuhan, specifically because we are now talking about 10 million people that were tested in the study of which you made reference, that ultimately, without a shadow of a doubt, confirm that there is no asymptomatic transmissions. So the question that I like to ask: when it comes now to Wuhan, that by your own evidence Wuhan had already a PCR-test on January 11th 2020 before Drosten invented the PCR-test. Could you explain that?

Ulrike Kämmerer: The only difference is that they had other target sequences, and they stuck more to the rules-design of the primers. And they had the advantage that they had the positive patient they could prove the specific testing this patient. This is what the Europeans, and even the American CDC did not have in the beginning, because they tested unspecific samples from other viruses. So to compare exactly the primers that I can’t do this in parallel speaking here, we would have to do that in written testimony, because this is just about the target genes and the design of the primers.

Dexter L.-J. Ryneveldt: So what I like to find out from you, I’m going to read from the exact same document Reiner read from, the CDC document: [quotes] the CDC saying that they don’t actually have a genome itself, but we have to come up with a test. In order to come up with a test we are gonna make use of the in vitro transcribed RNA […] What is wrong with this approach, professor?

Ulrike Kämmerer: The problem is that every institution, every country created its own test. So since the virus started in Wuhan, which is the story now, the Chinese scientists were the first to have access to patients and to the original virus. So they could isolate the virus, create a PCR, do the sequencing and everything. And then they transferred the knowledge about the nucleic acid sequence into the international sequencing databases. If you create a PCR, you don’t need to have the organism you want to detect. You only need the information about the nucleic acid target you are searching for. As soon as it was in the international data bank of information, everybody could use it to create primers for the PCR. But the disadvantage of the Europeans and the Americans was, they could create the PCR, but they didn’t have a positive control, because they didn’t have patients, and they didn’t have the correctly isolated virus. Therefore the trick they made is, nowadays you can create nucleic acid if you type the sequence into a computer, which can create a nucleic acid for you, according to the sequence, in this case the sequence the Chinese scientists obtained from the virus from the patient, which was in the database. The American CDC used this computer sequence, which was based on the original virus to create its own nucleic acid, which then served as the so-called in vitro transcribed. This served for them as a positive control. This is not a good idea, because normally you need the real positive control to get the cell culture, which contains the actual virus to start to specificity of the PCR.

Dexter L.-J. Ryneveldt: Can one then say that in the absence of your positive controls, although yes you got the sequence in the database and it is available to each and every laboratory in the world. However, in order for you to say this PCR-test can be used successfully, you cannot actually make that statement in the absence of the positive controls.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Yes, you definitely need the positive control. What all the scientists could have done, they could have sent their primer sequences to the labs in China, ask them could you use our primer sequences to perform a PCR with your positive controls and tell us if it’s working properly. Then we can use it in case the first patients arrive in our country.

Dexter L.-J. Ryneveldt: That is provided they had actually done that. If they had done that, they had sent it to China.

Ulrike Kämmerer: No, they did not have to transfer material. You only transfer the information, the Chinese could have created the primers based on the data from the American CDC, and tested on their samples. This was not international-wanted interaction. So everybody created their own PCR and waited for the first samples. Normally they only could have asked their Chinese colleagues your PCR is working, give us the sequence from your primers, we then create those primers here. Then they have the same PCR the Chinese used.

Dexter L.-J. Ryneveldt: OK, I would like us to quickly go to SARS-CoV-1 and I’d like you tell us what they used to diagnose SARS-CoV-1? Did they use the PCR-test?

Ulrike Kämmerer: In the beginning, I think so yes, because that was 2003. I don’t know exactly the history, but normally they had the patients with the viral pneumonia. They isolated the virus and then they created the molecular test in the normal way, since the PCR is known. If you need it exactly, then I have to check it in the literature.

Reiner Füllmich: Just to drive home the point that PCR-testing is crucial for this entire pandemic. Even Drosten admitted that without PCR-testing, we wouldn’t even have known about the corona-crisis. Here’s a brand new report from The New York Times. It says that CDC-advisors recommend vaccines for 5 to 10 year olds. This is all based on PCR-testing, because all of the measures are based on this. Two questions: If Fauci, or Drosten came to your lab, and said ‘look I have this positive test-result from someone who doesn’t have any symptoms. Therefore he must have COVID, he must be infectious.’ What would you tell him? Go back to med-school, or oh yeah I can confirm this?

Ulrike Kämmerer: I would say give me the sample, and I do my own PCR and show if it is true or not. That was the starting point for me, because we wanted to do a PCR on pregnant women with COVID. I tried to do just a PCR with common Drosten primers, because it was simple. If someone created and published it, you don’t have to do that part yourself. And then we saw that that PCR is not good, and we had to create our own. So that was the starting point.

Reiner Füllmich: Second question, what if Fauci or Drosten came to your lab with a positive test-result from someone who also had symptoms. What would you tell them? This is not enough, you need to do more, is that the answer you would give them?

Ulrike Kämmerer: Are the symptoms something specific which point to this pathogen? If not, then do multiplex testing. So the decision on the disease should always be in the hands of the medical doctors, and not on the lab. The lab should only be a helping instrument for the MD’s who decide on assumption, and not the other way like it is now.

Dipali Ojha: One more question. Can the PCR-test differentiate between variants? Can it detect the delta-variant and can it detect the omicron-variant?

Ulrike Kämmerer: That depends on the design. If you know the sequence of the different variants, you can create your PCR-primers in a way that they only bind to the sequences of the special variant. So you can detect omicron, but not delta. This is a little bit tricky and in some cases it works, but it always needs a confirmation by sequencing so that you are sure that your PCR is detecting this variant, and nothing else. If there are distinct differences, which is specific for this sub-variant, then it’s possible.

Viviane Fischer: So when a new variant popped up, do you think the old kits were immediately withdrawn, or they were adapted to the new variant. Like when omicron appeared they reported delta and omicron in parallel for a time.

Ulrike Kämmerer: The vast majority of the tests are in an area where there are no mutations. So the mutations are only in very specific regions, the normal targets are in regions that are the same for all the viruses. You detect the whole spectrum, the group of the virus. And then you have to do subatomic PCRs, but still there are old kits who detect the old variant, but not the new variant. They have seen that some genes are no longer positive, some targets and other targets are still positive. Therefore they noticed there must be a new variant and then they sequenced the genome and then they had to create a new variant-specific PCR.

Viviane Fischer: You know in a certain point in time, there were only reports about omicron everywhere, that can only be like a propaganda aspect, that we are now dealing with a new variant, and it’s everywhere.

Ulrike Kämmerer: Normally one wave comes after the other, this is normal virus as well, but nobody does sub-typing. It’s the same as mass-testing, normal corona-viruses have mutations as well, but nobody labels them as sub-type 1 or 2, it’s the same group of viruses. So everything is new in this corona situation now.

Viviane Fischer: Ok, then we reached the end of our session. We will have another session soon, and we will inform when that is going to be.

Judge Rui Fonseca E Castro: The final session will be informed on somewhere in the next two weeks, including the final arguments, and the vote from the public.

Reiner Füllmich: So we will hear in the next few days, probably within the next 14 days or so, when this final concluding session will be scheduled. That is when we will give our closing arguments and afterwards there will be voting by the jury. Thank you very much everyone.


Published to The Liberty Beacon from

Day 7 of the Grand Jury – Psychology & Propaganda and New Information On Wuhan