https://odysee.com/@Corona-Ausschuss:3?view=content
I have, as far as possible, made my own assessment of the Corona Committee,
as at present there seems to be a dissolution of the Committee in its existing form and Committee members (including those who acted as permanent assessors/advisors) have fallen out and it is unclear whether the fronts now formed will remain or not.
(Side-note: Scroll down the above video-plattform to see how many sessions there are, hundreds upon hundreds recorded sessions)
What Füllmich refers to in this video is different from what Fischer, Fischer and Hoffmann talk about in this video.
But first I want to say that
there is always something to both accusations,
as they have been and are being made by the now opposing sides. I say this from the experience of my life. If one accuses the other of dissatisfaction about a certain matter (due to an emotion, for example) and the other focuses only on the emotional criticism, but not on the content, both sides lose their mutual trust.
Without getting lost in the details, I would assume that both the concern (due to the great publicity of this platform) about
A. collected funds and
B. the concern of how one deals with interview partners,
I find both quite worthy of consideration. Both have an external effect.
I say this not because I am taking a solid position on A. or B. (like A is justified and B is not), but to point out the importance of the platform in and of itself. If one supports or has supported the movement behind the persons, to regard it now as a failure because of the quarrels that have arisen is detrimental to the whole thing.
The movement on the whole
I maintain that whoever says that within the CIC one has only stuffed his pockets and the other has merely babbled, once again proves how easily people can be upset and prove to have very short breath. As always, the laughing third party is happy, whoever that may be.
The "who" will laugh I will not focus here in my discourse, everyone may think his or her own part. Giving the movement up to ridicule because one has become either too impatient, too pessimistic or insecure is not a good idea. And it has never been a good idea, because the forces against which one is supposedly pitted only profit from it.
Personally, I feel it un-needed when the work as a whole, which has undoubtedly been time-consuming, nerve-wracking and demanding, is now thrown out like the baby with all the bathwater.
Even if I did not always agree with some of the details, reactions to interviewees or even internal reactions that one could follow in the numerous videos, I would refrain from focusing precisely on mistakes. I would refrain from focussing on those and concentrate on what this committee actually stood for and what it has achieved, apart from its weaknesses.
I understand that everyone has their favourite freedom fighter
and does not appreciate it if he or she did not get the air time, stage or recognition they would have hoped for them. I also understand that one would have liked to have seen some questions asked of each other or of the interviewees, and that one would have preferred to intervene. Many times I thought: "Now ask the essential question!" and it didn't happen.
Now, would you recommend stick to the failures, the missed opportunities? I wouldn't. So I say getting over it will benefit what can be done instead of what was not done or gone wrongly.
Things never go perfect or smooth, some things break, get lost or show weakness. That's normality.
In my view, the CIC website had and still has considerable information deficits. But to improve this site, to make the information available in a clear and understandable way, you need professionals and talented people who can do that.
Füllmich, who addresses this in the above linked interview (in German), is right in this respect, that you can't do it on a voluntary basis and that people who do it well have to be paid well for it.
Further course?
Now, how committed the respective committee members will continue their work despite the discrepancies remains to be seen. Whether they no longer feel like actively pursuing the matter themselves because of their personal differences, or whether they feel they have come closer to their original goal and think that is enough and pass on the baton to others, all this will also remain to be seen.
Füllmich has at least explained that the class action lawsuits, which were once addressed with a full-bodied combative attitude, have been launched, but unfortunately did not produce the hoped-for results. I wouldn't have made a positive bet on it. Not enough time has passed since the lawsuits have been made. Society needs to catch up, this includes also the bodies which have to decide on cases.
The class actions were dismissed in two important cases. Does this mean that no one will continue? Does that mean "it's lost"?
No, why should it? It will be that some lawyers involved or witnesses considered as experts may throw in the towel out of frustration. Or else they will be even more incited. Some will be depressed, others provoked. But anyone who believed that the whole affair, where it has only arisen since 2020, would succeed all at once - a lawsuit filed - apparently knows little about people.
People are always underestimated in the sense that it is not so important what "those up there" say, order or strategise. When the people are fed up with the measures, the folk will simply not want to care any more. But as long as the people still care, it will remain difficult. And so I think we will have to deal with this whole sorry business for years and decades to come. But does that mean that the movement has to be considered a failure? I don't see it that way.
Everyone, no matter where they stand, is just a human being who makes mistakes, who reveals attitudes and opinions that are never quite the same as mine. I don't have the claim that they do. If I did, I would make my life miserable.
So it may well be that the donations collected have not been managed one hundred per cent accurately and it is very possible that Viviane Fischer has a point here. And that Wodarg, as their main bystander and consultant, also asks questions which the septic viewer also was or is asking. He follows the germ theory? Yes. So what. I cannot expect a person to throw over board his whole work life and world view, if it is so strongly rooted within.
It may also be a justified question why an interview was not streamed even though the person asked for it and this might not be an appropriate decision on Fischers side, a complaint made by Füllmich. One point for him.
You see, it's a process in progress. Where people work together, conflicts arise, it's normal.
Even to make the whole thing public may not be so worse, as it is seen or judged.
It really depends what we, the viewers, the people, make from it. If we ridicule one party or the whole party, this will set signs towards other parties, which may not play in favor of the movement. If we, as the viewers and the peoples, stay cool, on the other hand, and avoid emotional or mocking reactions within our own ranks, we might be viewed by those higher forces as reasonable and intelligent. Possible, right?
Don't play down cynicism or irony.
It may seem that it's "just mockery" but those who took or take their works serious can easily become demoralized when receiving too much of it.
When I look at people in general as dumb, sheepish, stupid, without intuition and reason, I may very well be looked upon in the same way.
To make a case, you have to have cases
The important thing that people forget is that in order to reach a plaintiff group, people have to come together in the first place who are willing to file such a lawsuit or to act as a plaintiff. From that point of view, the whole committee was and is an event for potential plaintiffs. Some people were just waiting or waiting for this opportunity and even got involved in legal proceedings intentionally or at least at the risk of violating the measures.
For these, it was good to have an address, such as the committee, i.e. to get knowledge of who wanted to take action in this matter in the first place. Hence the network. Also the moral support, if only that. One has to look at the CIC as one overall effort among many. Others would never dare to take this step. If I were asked to give an estimate, I would say that it is always the minority who dare to do this and go to court or expose themselves with their clear names.
Challenge me, if you find, that the public attention about this or other movements shall go in the direction that
"funds were mis-used" or "vanities were served" (maybe, probably funds were mishandled and vanities were served but did it nullify the work done?).
Or, if you find, that after reading my text, you find it smarter to remain patient, if confidence is not what you feel?
Edit:
What was important as "work done" by the CIC is reflected in my comments (excerpts) earlier this day:
I would say that the networking with other lawyers who presented their own findings on camera and gave insights into their respective work, as well as other professionals, were worth it in themselves that the committee existed at all. Had it not existed, I think the scene would have been a lot poorer. If you measure a thing only by its legal outcome and not by its social impact, I think you leave too much out of the equation.
the work of the committee has been worthwhile, if only for what I have heard and experienced from those interviewed.
Not only me but thousands of viewers have taken in the given information, for the most part Germans, I guess. I would never have thought that they would talk to so many people, also abroad. They had a wide range of guests, from the single social worker to the entrepreneur and all kinds of professionals from different fields. One of the streams I enjoyed the most was actually with a hard nosed guy from the United States who owns an Italian restaurant - if I remember correctly - and provoked some funny associations right from the movies.
(After a deep dive into my hard drive, I finally found his name - He initiated a website "Make restaurants great again." :D - but the website is not loading, so I cannot link it and maybe he does not like to be found by name, either, despite of his John Wayne attitude. Not sure. So I will not reveal his name, in case, things have changed. If you want to know it, hit me with a DM on discord.
Or, go to
https://truthcomestolight.com/
and search for Italian mask free restaurant in CA
The end justifies the means is basically what you are saying in that the committee gathered together lots of 'evidence' for a class action laws suit. But is the lawsuit still going ahead now that Fuellmich is out? If it's not then the 'end' is no longer there to justify the means.
Did they gather evidence that no-one else knew of? No. Everyone they interviewed had already been having their say online and if anything they watered down the 'evidence' at the committee interviews by not asking the most needed questions.
Personally I never held out any hopes of anything being done by going through the system either. Lawyers do not work for us they work for the Bar, their oath is to the Bar and real justice is never to be found within the legal system. The only thing to be found there is MONEY.
I did have a look at the 'he said she said' video's they put out after the fact and found Viviana to be quite respectful of Fuellmich while his video's were FULL of ad hominem and ridicule towards Viviana, her clothing and her 'look'. When a top lawyer resorts to public ridicule he loses all credibility.
I do wonder what they'll do next tho, my guess is something like vultures all scrabbling for the pickings of a dead project.
It's a shame but some of us were not invested in it anyway, I feel sorry for those who were but lessons may have been learned on their part too.
To ask directly and to fabricate less text:
Do you therefore think (according to your comment) that the whole committee has no meaning nor has it brought anything to those who have been interviewed in this format? Nor did it give anything to the viewers?
Why is it important for you to discuss one person on the committee as better than the other?
My point in making it clear that if the Committee is ridiculed as part of a counter-movement (which we ultimately count ourselves as part of here, don't we?), if negative attributions are attached to it, doesn't this allow others, third parties with opposing interests, to profit? According to the motto: Look, they don't even agree among themselves!
How do you think third party readers and those from the mainstream department view "us"? Do we appear intelligent when we foul our own nest? I know, a rhetorical question. ;)
I'm sure it gave a lot of hopium to a lot of people. I also was hopeful for the first few weeks but it soon became clear to many of us that it was going nowhere.
It's not and I didn't. I just pointed out the 2 different reactions after the fact. I actually thought Viviana was a bit kooky (her style) but would never use that as ammo like he did. Disgusting and low.
Yes we are both part of a counter-movement I guess but I would never put all my eggs in one basket or leave the fight up to someone else. As for what people think of us do you think that bothers me after they made the words 'anti-vax' into a dirty word. When it first started I was the only vegan in a sea of anti-vegans trying to fight along with them. I'm used to being the black sheep. having been in a few movements I can tell you people rarely agree within the ranks. If they did it'd be more like a cult.
I'm not fouling any nest, the committee shat all over their own show and the people who supported them. Not my nest. I'm sure the mainstream are laughing their socks off. Not at us tho if we distance ourselves from the thing they are laughing at which is that committee.
I don't care what people think of me in general as an anti-vaxxer. What matters to me is what the people I deal with personally think of me. If they see that I don't pay lip service but accept the consequences of my actions, I am assured of their respect in the long run. I must not expect them to be like me.
Well, that's what I've been talking about all along! The movement is made up of very many, different people and focus issues. You can only determine or influence that the destruction of the virus theory is the only means (ergo your only basket) to succeed, if that is what your group has decided in the first place.
Other groups have not, or have come up with something else. There are many paths that lead to where everyone is going, but you are quickly disappointed and pissed off when someone doesn't want to take the direct path or deems it too risky or doesn't see the importance yet. You talk about people as if they are not worthy of credit for what they have accomplished just because they don't do and say exactly what you want them to.
This is not about you, I would think. If you have taken on such a challenging task in your life, you are little suffered and the black sheep, yes.
Yes, I agree with you that people within the ranks rarely come to terms with each other, quite normal. Why can't you say the same for the committee? It's a very very good realisation that conflict is normal and you don't hide it. If we as a movement stay cool and don't react with scorn and devaluation to mistakes in the movement, the others will respect us in the long run. Otherwise they won't.
Distance myself? Just because someone fucked up at some point? Then I am no better than those who work with contact guilt. I don't need to distance myself if I didn't get too attached to something first and now disappointed hope is like my sword, which I ram into the back of those who have stepped up to take up the fight. To imply that these people did not fight but only enriched themselves or delivered nothing, I oppose.
Great that you comment.
No, I did not say that the end - the anti-measures movement as an actor within the larger movement (i.e. everything else) - would have sanctified the means. Nor would I know what to say against the means without getting fully and intensely involved in where the errors are to be found.
I said something else, I said: don't look at the weaknesses, because you will find them everywhere, no matter where you look. But reflect on what the Committee as a whole was and is for those people who were looking for some form of counter-movement to the mainstream. They had been able to find it with the Committee. Didn't that become clear?
Also, I said that it is probably the case that there will be a grain of truth in each of the mutual accusations, but that I do not want to put the focus on those quibbles, but on what the committee has done overall. I would never have come across the interviewees shown in the committee on my own, so it was also a good format because I would have had to painstakingly research all the people myself. I thought that in itself was a good service.
It is easy for me to value these aspects and to weigh them against those I valued less or where I listened critically.
In the video I linked here on my article, Füllmich did not comment in the way you have just shared here. In fact, I am more interested in how the class action lawsuit continues and Füllmich has announced that he will not stop with it and wants to continue the work. We will see if he keeps his word.
Ms Fischer may seem to be less aggressive, but that does not make her statements less drastic just because she acts more diplomatic or cautious than Füllmich. Those who speak out loudly naturally make themselves more vulnerable, that much should also be clear. Ms Fischer's caution is good for some things and certainly was in the context of committee work, while Füllmich's aggressiveness was definitely also needed and welcome. They were the draught horses.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Here, however, neither is the victim of the other, I would consider that very exaggerated.
I don't share your opinion that the project is dead or that the whole thing is a disgrace, it is simply normality among people to have conflicts. But if it dies, it has had its effect and its audience and for that reason alone - especially in this country - it has significance.
I don't care who is going to fuss like vultures over what. I file it under the usual gossip.
It was my and many others opinion from the start that ignoring the 'no virus' issue was a red flag for any such legal project as it takes a dagger to the very heart of the whole debacle. There is no need for the hundreds of interviews they did if they had just taken that one huge evidence on board. They did not. Despite having spoken to Lanka over a year before they deigned to bring him in they chose to completely ignore the issue because it would have ended their case there and then so no steady income from donations.
If you were compiling a case against someone would you ignore the most damning witness?
This was our problem with that committee. They were milking the situation for all they could get. If I'd donated I'd be asking for my money back.
That is one view among many that you can have, but it does not speak for all those who have thanked the committee for their work week after week, month after month. I have followed the committee every Friday for a long time and looked at the comments below. I don't have as harsh a judgement as you do because I wasn't or don't want to be focused on Lanka and the "there are no viruses" (even though it interests me and I often advocated for questioning the germ theory).
Going into the commission with that approach would have been a risk, I'm not even sure that the members of the committee themselves, until they met Lanka, didn't take it for granted, as so many do, that the virus theory was correct. I myself never considered it a theory to be proven, but simply believed it was. You are very unforgiving with people who have not dealt with the issue years before and are freshly confronted with it.
That aside, the committee chose Wodarg as a partner and medical advisor/expert and it was clear that he was totally convinced of the virus theory and was a very firm member of the committee from the beginning. How realistic is it to bring in Lanka? He fits better with other formats that accommodate less convinced people. It seems to me sometimes that you don't accept that reality.
I don't have an emotional view on that because I think you have to put people where they fit best and you can't wish them into something where the positions are already filled.
Yes I know I'm unforgiving, it comes with being in a movement for years and seeing it going nowhere because of dogma and money (as in making money FROM the movement not for it). Having Wodarg on their team was also a red flag for me even tho he's retired hes still part of the hellth establishment so could only hold them back or keep a tight hold on the reins so to speak.
That's a problem, if you think it is all wasted.
I think that the movement does have impact and that it goes in the right direction. Though not as fast, not as strong and not as successful you like it to be.
Why do you bother when you have your own circle of movement, your friends from other organizations and media where you have greater control of the co-workers, contents and guests invited?
Is it because they or you do not have that range of distribution? Then you have to work harder to make it so if that is your aim. You have to take in more people, more money and more guests. Some of your guests and co workers will not give their expertise and time if they don't receive adequate salary resp. compensation. Others, who do it voluntarily will not be available to your disposal and might not work the way they promised they will. All kinds of problems, unforseeables and also conflicts will arise within. Not even talked about the audience and viewership/readership from without.
exactly
if we believe our only hope is in "the legal system" then heaven help us
Amen to that
Re🤬eD
its all by design...
🥓
How does this refer to my text?
Good question...
everyone who talks about these things is contributing
In which sense do you say that?
bringing attention to a problem is the first step to solving a problem
Still not sure. What would be the problem here and what the solution?
the "problem" is "civil rights violations"
the "solution" is "public awareness and vocal support"
I see. Yes, this is what I go along with.
Hi! I just curated your content!
Please take a moment to vote for my witness. 🗳️ https://blurtwallet.com/~witnesses?highlight=outofthematrix