Press conference of the collective “Fräi Liewen”, 11.02.2021
In this press conference, six members of a new collective called “Fräi Liewen” presented their association and its motivations.
The first to speak was the lawyer Me. Radu Duta
The lawyer presented the collective as a non-political association of committed fellow citizens from different social classes and professions (scientists, lawyers, doctors, artists) in Luxembourg society who have come together, regardless of their vaccination status and gender, to campaign for the restoration of their fundamental democratic rights and freedoms, which have been appallingly compromised since the onset of the pandemic state of emergency.
In his introduction, the lawyer mentions the fact that many fellow citizens, due to the social and professional pressures involved, would be afraid to speak out publicly about these abuses, even though they are equally suffering health-wise, socially and economically from the current policies being passed off as health policies.
The “sanitary” measures of this policy have demonstrably not produced the desired results. On the contrary, the persistent, inhumane continuation of these policies, in coordination with some neighbouring countries, would have created more suffering than it generated solutions.
Me Duta then passed the floor to Dr Romain Blum, who continued the conference in Luxembourgish.
Dr Blum first welcomed the fact that for the first time in two years a kind of exchange, public discussion round was taking place. He said he very much regretted that for two years critical voices have been consistently excluded from public perception and was pleased that several members of the press had turned up at the press conference. Dr Blum revealed himself as the doctor who had recently accompanied the petitioners in the Chamber of Deputies to provide them with professional support.
He begins by commenting on the appeal, which was recently sent to a large part of the population by the Ministry of Health, entitled “Faites-vous vacciner s’il vous plaît“! He read out the letter and criticized that this letter is based on outdated information and humorously refers to the letter as “fake news”. In particular, he addresses the criteria of efficiency and safety of the so-called vaccine. He emphasises that the substance is in clinical test phases 3 and 4 and that, moreover, these test phases were carried out in a “telescopic procedure”, i.e. parallel to each other and not building on each other. This was already explicitly stressed in the Chamber of Deputies by the experts who had technically accompanied the petitioners. Dr Blum, who incidentally is “vaccinated” himself, expressly emphasises that he is not an opponent of vaccination. He explains that the current “vaccines”, however, are not comparable to the classical vaccines, but that it is a gene therapy which is being “tried out” on humans on a large scale for the first time. The risk-benefit ratio is questionable in healthy older people without prior physical and mental damage and unacceptable in healthy young people.
He explicitly addresses the disturbing accumulation of side effects – including severe ones – which, however, do not appear in the official statistics and speaks of the failure of the statistical work of the Ministry of Health, which, among other things, is also based on hopeless staff shortages. Dr Blum then mentions the expert report and points out countless errors, inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this report. The whole report is tendentious and he illustrates this with a concrete example. The report does not contain any scientific sources and does not deal with the issue of side effects. Moreover, the expert group consists of only five persons, of whom only two “experts” dominate the current “discussion”. He has a stack of documents in front of him that support and substantiate his general argumentation. He also explicitly emphasises that with these “vaccinations” we would be chasing the virus because new mutations are always being created. He explicitly addresses the disturbing accumulation of side effects – including severe ones – which, however, do not appear in the official statistics and speaks of the failure of the statistical work of the Ministry of Health, which, among other things, is also based on hopeless staff shortages. Dr Blum then mentions the expert report and points out countless errors, inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this report. The whole report is tendentious and he illustrates this with a concrete example. The report does not contain any scientific sources and does not deal with the issue of side effects. Moreover, the expert group consists of only five persons, of whom only two “experts” dominate the current “discussion”. He has a stack of documents in front of him that support and substantiate his general argumentation. He also explicitly emphasises that with these “vaccinations” we would be chasing the virus because new mutations are always being created. Expressis-Verbis was given access to these documents on request.. Expressis-Verbis was given access to these documents on request.
Mr Jean Huss took the floor as the 3rd speaker.
The ex-Green politician first addressed the recent demise of Nobel laureate Prof. Dr. Luc Montagnier, who was still in Luxembourg on 12.1.22 to provide expert support for the two petitions around compulsory vaccination and the vaccination of children. Mr Huss dedicated the press conference to this high-ranking medical doctor, researcher and scientist, with whom he had personal contact.
Mr Huss also mentions the recently deceased Mr Stéphane Hessel, diplomat, essayist, political activist for more democracy, ecology and a better human future, author of, among others, the books “Engagez-vous!“, and “Indignez-Vous!“, and particularly recommends reading the latter.
Mr Huss speaks of three crises:
He mentions the loss of confidence of many people in politics and of the greatest democratic crisis since the Second World War. He talks of a serious crisis of freedom and the erosion of basic democratic rights by political authority.
The crisis of the (print) media was self-inflicted and their survival mainly dependent on state press aid. As a result, something that is essential for the press has been lost: press pluralism and pluralism of opinion in newspapers, although he nevertheless stresses the importance of state press aid, provided it does not compromise the neutrality of the press.
He talks around virological tunnel vision and the risk posed by virtually ALL viruses to immunocompromised individuals. He puts the statistics related to compromised individuals in the context of their overall health. In particular, he points out the well-known problem of modern medicine: the steering and influence of doctors, laboratories, and faculties by the pharmaceutical industry. Over the decades, he says, there has been a steady deterioration in our general state of health as a result of this unacceptable connection.
He also mentions the countless international projects that are currently working at full speed to expose the current abuses and wrong decisions within the framework of Corona policy and that aim to hold those responsible accountable.
Finally, he addressed the issue of side effects and reminded the audience that there is a form on the website of the Patient Representation, an association of which he is the vice-president, on the basis of which injured persons can report their vaccination side effects. The topic of side effects and their systematic cover-up is a matter that has preoccupied Mr. Huss for decades, which is why he also addressed this issue at length in the press conference. He criticised in particular their cumbersome statistical recording, the lack of transparency and points out that Santé has even asked the patients’ representation to take the forms off the site, a request that the patients’ representation will not comply with, as there is no justified claim for this. This would be in line with its corporate purpose and, moreover, it would have offered Santé transparent cooperation. He stresses that the patients’ representation is there for the patients and not for the politicians.
Mr Huss also point out the statement of the Minister of Health in the famous debate in the Chamber of Deputies around the two petitions that no alternatives to “vaccination” had been mentioned. He repeats the statements that Professor Christian Perronne listed in that debate and that Ms Lenert had obviously overheard: that there are actually effective remedies in both classical orthodox medicine and orthomolecular medicine that are being used successfully (in this country and also abroad) in the fight against the virus and that these remedies are being excluded because the patents have expired. It is much more lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry to “vaccinate” 100 % of the population than to treat 0.5 % of the population with a drug with which no more money can be earned.
Finally, Mr Huss mentions that it is important and urgent to get rid of the taboo regarding the origin of the virus, as there are indications that it could indeed be a laboratory accident. If this were true, urgent steps would have to be taken to ban research laboratories that experiment with viruses (including gain-of-function experiments). Mr Huss is aware that these statements are often associated with conspiracy theories and are thus ridiculed without being examined. At the same time, he states that current lawsuits and investigations, especially in the USA, seem to at least indicate that where there is smoke, there might also be fire.
The retired psychologist Roland Kolber took the floor as the 4th speaker.
He presents the current issue with the help of the book “On Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt and draws interesting, partly amusing parallels to the current situation around Corona politics. Although his lecture is formulated rather humorously, it does not lack seriousness. Mr Kolber mainly addresses the impact that the political measures have had on our mental well-being, which has primarily caused damage to children that can no longer be repaired, or can only be repaired with difficulty. The rest of his lecture deals, in a pleasantly humorous way, with the absurdity and incoherence of the measures that have been making our lives unnecessarily difficult for the past two years.
Briefly back to Me Radu Duta, who now specifically addresses compulsory vaccination.
He stresses that such an obligation would violate several laws and directives, including European Parliament resolution 2361, and highlights the myriad legal hurdles, for example in the context of informed consent, the right to physical integrity and anti-discrimination laws, and emphasizes the disproportionality of a potential vaccination obligation to the lethality of the disease caused by the virus. Me Duta points out that the novel vaccine is neither necessary (based on inflated figures), nor efficient (viral mutations, infections), nor safe (side effects). Considering these findings and the existing alternatives, the risk-benefit ratio is unacceptable. He also points out that possible sanctions for refusing vaccination are hardly feasible, as it is likely that many people will challenge them and sue for their right to physical integrity in court. The lawyer is clearly against compulsory vaccination and ends his presentation with the question of the civil liability of the people’s representatives of a state apparatus that introduces discriminatory laws based on a state of emergency that does not seem justified due to the obviously inflated statistics and errors.
The penultimate speaker
Ms Antoinette Welter, probably the only person on the panel who can be described as a convinced vaccination sceptic, introduces her speech with 2 well-known advertising slogans “My body belongs to me” of the women’s movement and “No is no!” of the MeToo movement. She illustrates current discrimination with some concrete situations of people being discriminated against because of their vaccination status. She also talks about the natural capacity of an organism to deal with external pathogens and thus continuously strengthen its immune system.
The final speaker
Pianist and composer David Ianni captivated the audience with a moving and very personal account of his situation as an unvaccinated artist. Although he has recovered from his recent Covid-19 illness, he refrains from giving a QR code out of integrity and protest against this humiliation. Towards the end of his talk, the musician becomes more emotional and specifically addresses the “work” of the press. RTL, for whom he had composed a piece of music in 2019 as part of Télévie, had called him persona non grata because of his outing as an unvaccinated person, with the accusation that the young, healthy man was responsible for the overcrowded hospitals.
At the end of the press conference, the different press offices were given the opportunity to ask questions. A lady from Quotidien started with two questions, where mainly the first question caused Mr Ianni to lose his composure a bit: the question was whether the collective would commit to the anti-vaccination movement. This question was indeed surprising insofar as there was at least one vaccinated person on the panel, and it had been explicitly emphasized several times during 1.5 hours that the collective was not a fundamental opponent of vaccination, but against this new type of gene therapy as well as compulsory vaccination, for which there was no basis whatsoever. Possibly, the questioner had not understood this because of a language barrier, as she is obviously a French speaker and most of the press conference was conducted in Luxembourgish. But it may also be an indication of a more profound problem in the press, which seems to revolve in a kind of endless loop around the theme “critical people are automatically anti-vax” and can no longer or will no longer allow any other possibility or perspective.
The surprising, emotionally charged moment culminated in the infantile-seeming reaction of the offended journalist, who was obviously unwilling to question herself. The corresponding reporting of the newspaper in question does not lack coherence in this respect.
Hardly any further relevant questions were asked, perhaps also because the conference was hopelessly over-scheduled. Nevertheless, we were surprised that, apart from Expressis-Verbis, no one seemed to be interested in the documents that Dr Blum had brought with him for review after the conference. Shouldn’t an interested, curious, investigative journalist have pounced on it? Dr Blum gave us the opportunity to look into these documents a little more closely. We have indeed discovered interesting information that is worth reporting on, which we will do in the coming weeks and months. As you may have noticed, Expressis-Verbis does not participate in short-term headlines, which we lack the manpower for anyway. We prefer to write articles from an emotional distance, without time pressure and regardless of the expectation of others. After appropriate analysis and discussion.
Addendum on 11 April 2022:
Better late than never; it would have been advantageous if the “Fräi Liewen” collective already had contact details or an internet presence at the time of this press conference. In any case, Expressis-Verbis will keep an open mind on this movement, just like the many other movements that are stubbornly ignored or defamed, especially by the leading media.