David, this was the first interview of yours that I have found uncomfortable to watch and very troubling. It follows on from the red flag concerns I felt during the Alex Jones interview a few weeks earlier.
Are you being slowly lured into compromising Camp 2 territory that is designed to muddy and malign your Camp 3 status? (Camp 3 being the truth).
I'm just thinking out loud and am feeling alarmed. Maybe I "didn't get the memo" and have simply lost track of things in the fog of this war, 4 or 5 years on.
There's nothing wrong with your high quality interview performance and all the crucial assertions that you expressed, as always, which I fully support.
However, my concern is regarding the standing of the Corona Investigative Committee and one or two of its members (or operatives). Can anyone really trust this group any more? Are they state actors feigning a continued concern in the absence of Reiner?
There are many elephants in the room. Is this group not a liability, a dead-end distraction? Does it ever produce any results or any real traction? What of Reiner Fuellmich? Is he not still rotting in prison - under stifling totalitarian rules? And for what?
What's next? An interview with nurse doctor John Campbell or perhaps Russel Brand? Or maybe even the Piers Morgan show? This is not good, surely? Or have I lost the plot?
This is not intended as a criticism of you, David. I'm merely openly expressing great concern and raising questions over this. Alarm bells are ringing in my head. This is divisive and troubling.
When the CIC had its big bust up in 2022, I was enormously disappointed. I listened to both sides, and found both to be credible. I still don't know which side was in the right and which side was in the wrong. The matter is far from clear cut. If you read Uwe Alschner's work, for instance, you will see there are aspects that few people consider. That is not to say that I think that Alschner is right or wrong, just that it's a complex affair and I don't know what really happened.
A few people have written to me asking why I would appear with "these criminals." I have asked them to provide evidence of criminal malfeasance, and predictably I have received no reply. I am not aware of any hard evidence of Fischer and Wodarg having done anything wrong, but I am aware of a lot of evidence of Wodarg in particular having done a lot right down the years.
Is the CIC a "dead end distraction"? Or has it put together a valuable repository of information? It is true that it has not formulated a position statement or taken any kind of legal action, but what exactly is reasonable to expect from it?
Then there are pragmatic considerations. This was a way to reach a new audience, in particular a German audience, and Howard Steen has kindly helped with that. I only have a tiny audience, so it is worth taking certain opportunities to try to spread my message.
Richie Allen sometimes says that just because he has a particular guest on his show, that doesn't mean that he agrees with, sides with, or endorses that guest. The same holds true in reverse: just because I appear on the Alex Jones show, for instance, that does not mean that I endorse Alex Jones. You will note that Jones asked me two or three times during that interview to come back on in the next few weeks, and I chose not to do so.
As for Russell Brand, his father wrote to me saying that he had subscribed to my Substack and I did not reply.
I agree with your pragmatic reasoning of trying to reach another audience. On reflection, I suppose any new audience is worthwhile. Of course, if even the BBC approached you for an interview it should be very carefully considered. Although, I'm sure they'd heavily trim down the interview and nobble you through an edited ambush.
I'm just wary of engineered sideshows cropping up. There might be an emerging pattern of forces trying to steer you into the sludge of Camp 2. (Alex Jones's mention of Piers Morgan in your interview was a red flag). It's interesting that you declined further interviews with Alex Jones. Probably a wise decision.
To be honest, I really don't have a conclusive opinion regarding the events of 2022 with Reiner Fuellmich and the Corona Investigative Committee. I got lost in the long unravelling saga, probably like most people, and eventually had to let go of it. However, a dark cloud was left hanging ever since. As a result my trust in it is very low, as the whole thing was not resolved and so remains tainted and compromised for many of us.
I was not trying to suggest that you had sided with any show host. My concerns were a fundamental gut reaction of consternation, that's all. Cautionary alarm during the fog of war.
I appreciate that it's a tricky decision to appear on certain shows and I respect your decisions and judgement. Of course, you can't please everyone whatever you decide.
Was this an interview for Camp 2 Television?
David, this was the first interview of yours that I have found uncomfortable to watch and very troubling. It follows on from the red flag concerns I felt during the Alex Jones interview a few weeks earlier.
Are you being slowly lured into compromising Camp 2 territory that is designed to muddy and malign your Camp 3 status? (Camp 3 being the truth).
I'm just thinking out loud and am feeling alarmed. Maybe I "didn't get the memo" and have simply lost track of things in the fog of this war, 4 or 5 years on.
There's nothing wrong with your high quality interview performance and all the crucial assertions that you expressed, as always, which I fully support.
However, my concern is regarding the standing of the Corona Investigative Committee and one or two of its members (or operatives). Can anyone really trust this group any more? Are they state actors feigning a continued concern in the absence of Reiner?
There are many elephants in the room. Is this group not a liability, a dead-end distraction? Does it ever produce any results or any real traction? What of Reiner Fuellmich? Is he not still rotting in prison - under stifling totalitarian rules? And for what?
What's next? An interview with nurse doctor John Campbell or perhaps Russel Brand? Or maybe even the Piers Morgan show? This is not good, surely? Or have I lost the plot?
This is not intended as a criticism of you, David. I'm merely openly expressing great concern and raising questions over this. Alarm bells are ringing in my head. This is divisive and troubling.
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your concern.
When the CIC had its big bust up in 2022, I was enormously disappointed. I listened to both sides, and found both to be credible. I still don't know which side was in the right and which side was in the wrong. The matter is far from clear cut. If you read Uwe Alschner's work, for instance, you will see there are aspects that few people consider. That is not to say that I think that Alschner is right or wrong, just that it's a complex affair and I don't know what really happened.
A few people have written to me asking why I would appear with "these criminals." I have asked them to provide evidence of criminal malfeasance, and predictably I have received no reply. I am not aware of any hard evidence of Fischer and Wodarg having done anything wrong, but I am aware of a lot of evidence of Wodarg in particular having done a lot right down the years.
Is the CIC a "dead end distraction"? Or has it put together a valuable repository of information? It is true that it has not formulated a position statement or taken any kind of legal action, but what exactly is reasonable to expect from it?
Then there are pragmatic considerations. This was a way to reach a new audience, in particular a German audience, and Howard Steen has kindly helped with that. I only have a tiny audience, so it is worth taking certain opportunities to try to spread my message.
Richie Allen sometimes says that just because he has a particular guest on his show, that doesn't mean that he agrees with, sides with, or endorses that guest. The same holds true in reverse: just because I appear on the Alex Jones show, for instance, that does not mean that I endorse Alex Jones. You will note that Jones asked me two or three times during that interview to come back on in the next few weeks, and I chose not to do so.
As for Russell Brand, his father wrote to me saying that he had subscribed to my Substack and I did not reply.
I agree with your pragmatic reasoning of trying to reach another audience. On reflection, I suppose any new audience is worthwhile. Of course, if even the BBC approached you for an interview it should be very carefully considered. Although, I'm sure they'd heavily trim down the interview and nobble you through an edited ambush.
I'm just wary of engineered sideshows cropping up. There might be an emerging pattern of forces trying to steer you into the sludge of Camp 2. (Alex Jones's mention of Piers Morgan in your interview was a red flag). It's interesting that you declined further interviews with Alex Jones. Probably a wise decision.
To be honest, I really don't have a conclusive opinion regarding the events of 2022 with Reiner Fuellmich and the Corona Investigative Committee. I got lost in the long unravelling saga, probably like most people, and eventually had to let go of it. However, a dark cloud was left hanging ever since. As a result my trust in it is very low, as the whole thing was not resolved and so remains tainted and compromised for many of us.
I was not trying to suggest that you had sided with any show host. My concerns were a fundamental gut reaction of consternation, that's all. Cautionary alarm during the fog of war.
I appreciate that it's a tricky decision to appear on certain shows and I respect your decisions and judgement. Of course, you can't please everyone whatever you decide.
It's a tricky business. We must remain vigilant.
Apologies, David. I originally confused Camp 1 with Camp 3 in my comment - which I've just edited and clarified.