The flying pangolin/ Das fliegende Schuppentier

Im englischen Original: <>, Lizenz: Andreas Canetti, Free21, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

“Professor Canetti”

Deutsch ganz unten!

Dear readers,

This issue of Free21 is exceptional, in several ways. It consists of a two-part article, as well as an interview with the author. He has asked us both to publish his work and to remain anonymous. He is an emeritus academic of international standing who fears existential consequences for publishing the article. This is how far the so-called “Free West” has come down, how much the conditions here resemble for intellectuals the conditions in the former Soviet Union. No further comment is needed.

The major media, almost all politicians in government and large sections of the academic and intellectual environment can continue to whitewash the conditions, which they partly accept and partly actively bring about, and present them as necessary measures in the fight against “evil”. In this case, “evil” is simply the information that deviates from the government narrative.

Denunciators and collaborators of the power state have never justified their actions otherwise. The present ones invoke unquestionable “science” with religious zeal when justifying the use of domestic intelligence against dissidents. A contradiction in terms. As if discourse and a constant willingness to test hypotheses were not at the core of the scientific method.

Publishing the article not only on the website but also in Free21 magazine is the only sensible decision because of the importance and quality of this work. We think it is the most important publication ever on the subject of COVID-19.

Canetti offered this essay to the US website “The Unz Review”, which published it for the English-speaking world and highlighted it as the main article for a few days – for the German-speaking countries he chose Free21. We feel honoured, it is a recognition of our journalistic work, but above all it is proof that we are considered fearless to blue-eyed enough to publish it as well. Ultimately, it is a journalistic duty if one wants to take one’s task seriously. And that is what we are doing.

This text is not light fare. Because of its wealth of information, it requires concentration and attention. I have read the text several times, and that is exactly what I would like to recommend to you. It is really worth it! As an introduction and for an overview – for a “pre-glow” – I recommend the interview with the author.

The Free21 concept of 10 copies per issue offers a unique opportunity: simply leave the magazine somewhere. At the bus stop, in the S-Bahn, in the waiting room – like a leaflet. Or you can specifically pass it on to your circle of acquaintances to make other potential subscribers and multipliers aware of Free21. In this way, we can pierce the filter bubbles that Facebook, YouTube and Co. build for us as “prisons of the mind” in order to gag us with censorship measures.

Even if some consider this work to be conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, others will begin to doubt in the face of the facts and sources. Doubt and curiosity, along with the bliss of knowledge, are the most faithful companions of truth seekers. We are happy to count you as a Free21 reader among them. And we are happy about every new one.

In this spirit! Your Dirk Pohlmann

Translated with (free version)

Wuhan, Bioweapons and “The Great Disconnect”
By Dirk PohlmannPublished On: 14 August 2021

Categories: Geopolitics
An interview with the author of the essay “The Flying Pangolin”. The essay will appear as a German first publication on 21 August 2021 at Free21!

This text is a first publication on on 14 August 2021 at URL <> Licence: Dirk Pohlmann, Free21, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
[cover august 2021 copy]

Dear Professor Canetti – that is what you have called yourself for the publication of this essay (it is a pseudonym) – you have written a long article, the best available overview of the Corona pandemic currently available. It is full of proven facts and offers information that is literally unheard of. I think giving readers an introduction with this interview will make it a little easier for them to decode the wealth of information. My questions will therefore address key aspects of your essay.

What do you say about the suspected outbreak of the disease in Wuhan?

In the last two days of December 2019, hospitals in Wuhan were informed by the local CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) that a virus had emerged, most likely explaining several cases of pneumonia. The hospitals then suspected that this virus came from a fish market where some wild animals were also sold. Several patients had contact with this market. However, a dozen cases of pneumonia in a city of 11 million people was not unusual.

On 26 December 2019, a couple was admitted to the hospital in Hubei province with symptoms. Zhang Jixian, a doctor, took a CT scan of the lungs, after which she notified the CDC in Wuhan the next day. The CT scan looked similar to the one she had experienced with the SARS virus in 2003. On 29 December 2019, the CDC in Wuhan found a new coronavirus called SARS coronavirus 2 (or SARS-CoV-2). On 2 January 2020, hospitals reportedly knew of 41 cases of pneumonia. Which is nothing alarming.

But the fact that they appeared to be from a new coronavirus that was potentially contagious prompted China to notify the WHO and the Americans.

The disease was later named COVID-19.

CNN reported on a leaked document from Hubei’s CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Some cities west of Wuhan, especially one 300 km away, have had a large number of flu cases since early December. This flu outbreak may have been an early outbreak of COVID-19, but there is no evidence of this yet. After cases appeared in Wuhan in January, it was found that more than 260 people may have been infected as early as December. But so far we only know that the actual outbreak in Wuhan occurred in late December and that there have been a few cases from early and mid-December. The revelation of seven SARS-like cases on the Chinese internet on 30 December 2019 only underlines this fact.

Moreover, we know from several phylogenetic studies that the two SARS-CoV-2 viruses that appeared in Wuhan are two genetically very different SARS-CoV-2 types. And when cases appeared in Shanghai a month or two later, these two SARS-CoV-2 types had not really changed.

The mutation rate was low. Which means that the common ancestor of these two viruses may have appeared months or even more than half a year earlier.

It is also a very strange coincidence that two very different SARS-CoV-2 types (the “market virus” and the “non-market virus”) appeared in Wuhan at the same time. The first virus was found all over Wuhan and spread to many Chinese cities, so it dominated China, but it was not the virus that dominated Europe, the United States and the rest of East Asia. The second virus was found in East Asia, the United States and Europe, but there were other strains of SARS-CoV-2 that dominated those areas. It was not the same virus.

We can look at the Italian outbreak in northern Lombardy around Bergamo, which spread to Milan and Turin and later to all of northern Italy. This virus was genetically very different from the one in Rome, which came from a few Chinese tourists who brought the virus to Italy from China.

The virus in Lombardy was not identical to any of the Wuhan viruses. And in the Bergamo region, there had already been an outbreak of a strange pneumonia in October/November 2019, with hundreds of cases.

Before an outbreak was reported in Wuhan. SARS-CoV-2 was found in sewage samples from major cities as of 18 December 2019 in Milan and Turin (not for 18 November 2019), but there were no samples from the centre of the outbreak, the smaller city of Bergamo. The Italian National Cancer Institute in Milan found that several people screened for lung cancer had contracted COVID-19 before November. A few cases had already been infected in September. Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalent in France did not originate in China or Italy.

These are all facts. And the different strains of SARS-CoV-2 in China, in the rest of East Asia, in Italy, in France and in the USA seem to indicate that the common ancestor of all these viruses emerged many months earlier, perhaps half a year earlier. The prevailing view in the mass media is that SARS-CoV-2 spread from Wuhan and China to the rest of East Asia and on to Europe and the US, but they were not the same viruses. Some claim that China covered up an earlier outbreak. In doing so, they point to the revelations of a whistleblower, Li Wenliang, who, however, spoke of seven hospital patients infected with a SARS-like virus on 30 December 2019. There is nothing before that. If there had been something like COVID-19 in Wuhan before December, the hospitals would have known about it, but there is no evidence of that. However, there is evidence of the existence of SARS-CoV-2 in northern Italy months before. This, I believe, must be the starting point in the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Wuhan is only one of several places that must be included in this investigation.

Why did you decide to publish the work anonymously?

My areas of expertise are security policy, history and military strategy. I am an emeritus professor with a certain reputation in precisely these research areas. Nowadays, as an intellectual, one is not in a position to approach different areas of research. There is no public arena for such discussion. And SARS-CoV-2 has become an issue that is so politicised that anyone who deviates from the “party line” is blasted. The media world has changed, especially in the last 20 years. There is no longer a real public sphere, as there should be in a democratic country. I think it is extremely important to discuss these issues, but you have to do it as a dissident, as intellectuals did in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s.

Have Chinese officials tried to keep the world in the dark about the Wuhan outbreak?

For a few days, it may have been a cover-up in China. For local authorities in Wuhan, the outbreak came at the worst possible time: just before the Spring Festival, when tens of millions of people stream through Wuhan as China’s central transport hub. To those in charge there, a few cases of pneumonia may have seemed like peanuts compared to the tens of millions of people they had to attend to, the preparations for the provincial People’s Congress and the huge feast for 40,000 families before the festival. Li Wenliang, for example, was reprimanded for publishing the information about seven cases on the internet, but this had nothing to do with the origin of the virus.

The experience with the SARS virus in 2002/2003 made some Chinese doctors stay alert and they were able to interpret the first symptoms.

This was not the case in Italy, France and the USA, where there were outbreaks that were or could be traced back to SARS-CoV-2. In Italy, for example, there was no cover-up because no one understood what was going on. There was no experience of SARS in 2002/2003.

Why did you call your work “The Flying Pangolin”? What are the main arguments against the accepted hypothesis of a disease transmitted from bats and pangolins to humans?

The flying pangolin refers to the fact that the virus initially appeared to be a chimeric virus, “half bat” and “half pangolin”, or more precisely: the virus that most resembled SARS-CoV-2 was found in 2013 in a bat species called horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis) in Yunnan on the Chinese border with Laos. This virus, RaTG13, was much more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than the 2002/2003 SARS virus, which came from a different horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus sinicus). However, the spike protein or RBD (the “Receptor Binding Domain”) of SARS-CoV-2 was very different from the RBD of RaTG13 and more similar to the RBD of a virus found in a Malayan pangolin (Manis javanica). As if a virus from a bat had been fused with a virus from a pangolin and then transmitted to a human.

However, some experts (virologists and microbiologists) argue that it is not the result of mutations but a “chimeric virus” – a recombination of two viruses into one. Whether this happened in nature or in a laboratory is not clear from this fact. But the title “The Flying Pangolin” should tell you at least a little bit. Certain things about the virus suggest that it originated in a laboratory, while other things suggest that it may have a natural origin in Southeast Asia.

Some other viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Cambodia on the border with Laos. They are transmitted by a Southeast Asian horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus shameli), possibly suggesting a Southeast Asian origin for the virus. And the very few cases of COVID-19 in Laos and Cambodia may indicate some degree of immunity in those countries, at least to the early forms of the virus. But we still don’t know if the virus may have come from a laboratory.

You claim that China has been targeted by the US government. Do you think the COVID-19 outbreak is a tool of the US in the geostrategic conflict with China?

Please explain the term “The Great Decoupling” and describe the role of Robert Kadlec. He is the main US military mastermind in the field of bioweapons warfare and at the same time a key official of the US government in the efforts against the spread of COVID-19.

We know that the US has used biological weapons in the past. And that US biological weapons experts like Robert Kadlec argued that biological weapons are ideal in that they can be as powerful as nuclear weapons, they are cheaper than nuclear weapons, they can be used at any level of conflict (even in peacetime), and they offer “plausible deniability” to whoever uses them. In other words:

The one who uses biological weapons in a sophisticated way can deny that an attack actually took place. Kadlec argues that you can use a naturally occurring virus and make it more contagious or more deadly in a lab. And that it is almost impossible to find out whether it is just a naturally occurring virus or a bioweapon.

And that is precisely the point about a bioweapon, Kadlec argues. He has been a bioweapons advisor to US Special Forces, the US Secretary of Defence and the White House. In 2020, he was responsible for the US response to the COVID-19 outbreak. It is a fact that the US bioweapons community sees bioweapons as useful, not least for an attack that can damage an adversary’s economy. And such an attack was a stated US policy as of 2019. When several of the US’s top bioweapons experts play a central role in the US response force against COVID-19, one must at least ponder what is going on.

As of 2018, US officials realised that China’s high-tech development will overtake the US in five years. This was the conclusion of a study by the US Defense Innovation Advisory Board. China had benefited from close scientific ties with the US and the West. And the only way to change this trend is to “decouple” China from the West, these officials argued. In the US, top officials usually regard “the other”, like China, as an adversary and do not accept that another state is capable of overtaking the US in any field.

In 2018 and even more so from 2019, especially from autumn 2019, it became clear that China is seen as the new enemy of the US. When the White House appointed Matthew Pottinger as the new deputy national security adviser in September 2019, this became very clear. He is a “China hawk” from US military intelligence. He speaks fluent Chinese and has experience of the SARS virus outbreak in Hong Kong in 2002/2003. You don’t hire someone like that for no reason. And in order to “disconnect” China from the West, which was the US strategy, you needed a big event that could discredit any scientific cooperation with China. One could foresee such an event. And whatever the COVID-19 outbreak was now, it certainly had that effect.

It was a blow to any technological and scientific cooperation with China, and from the American point of view, Wuhan would be the ideal target. Because an outbreak in Wuhan would make it possible to blame the virus on the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies bat viruses. Supposedly, the original SARS-like viruses have been studied there, but not viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2. However, the US could claim that the new virus escaped from the institute’s lab, and such a leak from a foreign lab was already the focus of the US strategy in 2018. That strategy was written by Robert Kadlec.

In other words, it is US policy to attack China, weaken the Chinese economy and “disconnect” China from the West.

Those in the US government argue that the use of bioweapons (occurring as a natural epidemic or a leak from a laboratory) is the cheapest and most efficient way to attack an adversary. In 2018, Kadlec also led an exercise simulating the spread of a deadly virus – originating from a foreign laboratory. In 2019, he led the Crimson Contagion exercise (in January, April, May and August), in which the US Homeland Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local state governments simulated a pandemic emanating from China with half a million US citizens dead. US authorities were apparently fully prepared for what would happen the following year, even if they were not.

It was stated US policy to contain China’s economy and scientific development, and US officials considered the use of an epidemic the cheapest and most efficient means to achieve this. They trained for such a scenario throughout 2019. In November 2019, US intelligence claimed that there would be a viral outbreak in Wuhan, a “catastrophic event”. Before anyone in China knew anything about it. Much points to a US attack on China, and one has to ask: How is it possible that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that supposedly originated in Wuhan was actually two genetically very different viruses? How could these two very different viruses appear in one place at the same time? At the seafood market, the Chinese authorities did not find any contaminated animals or contaminated cutting boards. They found the virus in sewage, waste and on doorknobs.

What did you learn from the investigative work of Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva? Why do you think her work is not very well known?

Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has done a lot of research on US bio labs or bioweapons labs.

There are some labs in Africa, but also in almost all neighbouring countries of Russia and China. In these labs, US military and scientists have been able to do things they cannot do in the US for security reasons. In several of these facilities, they have studied viruses that resemble SARS.

They have studied corona viruses from bats, even the very deadly MERS virus, which is supposedly derived from a bat with a dromedary as an “intermediate host”, but there are no dromedaries in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. So they obviously studied the viruses in these laboratories. Many of these labs, in about 25 countries, are apparently under the control of the US military. Some of these countries also use former Soviet bioweapons researchers. After the Cold War, all these competencies were to be taken over from the Soviet Union as part of a huge US Department of Defence programme. The US is probably the only country (perhaps besides Israel and the UK) that has an ambitious bioweapons programme. And the special thing about these bioweapons is that they can be used without anyone knowing about them. The point is that they should occur as a natural epidemic or as a leak in a laboratory.

In the second part of your article, you go into detail about the available phylogenetic studies. What are these studies about? You seem to think that the importance of phylogenetic studies is underestimated, e.g. also by Ron Unz, who in his excellent report concludes, similarly to you, that SARS-COV-2 is the creation of a US laboratory. What do we need to understand about the evidence regarding the origin of SARS-COV-2?

I think that the phylogenetic studies are the most important thing to unravel the mystery of COVID-19. These studies give us an analytical tool to understand the possible origin of the virus. Several studies show that there was a dominant strain of the virus in Wuhan in December 2019, but at the same time there was another strain of SARS-CoV-2 that was not closely related to the first. This seems an almost impossible coincidence. Moreover, these two strains were not closely related to either the Italian or the French strain, nor to some other strains. In Shenzhen (Guangdong), with its many international contacts, there were strains similar to those found in East Asia and the USA, but there was no real outbreak in Shenzhen before Wuhan.

In New York, the virus was found to be similar to the SARS-CoV-2 type in Europe, but not to the Chinese viruses. This has to be taken into account when discussing the origin of the virus.

After Ron Unz published my article, there were a number of comments, but almost none of the 350 comments addressed what I wrote about in the article. Most people had their own private agenda that had nothing to do with the article. No one discussed the phylogenetic studies, almost no one discussed US bioweapons policy and Kadlec’s contributions. And almost no one mentioned the biolab study by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva. No one talked about the US policy of psychological operations and perception management.

I think this is not only because the article was hard to read. But also that many people don’t want to read it because the scientific studies I presented are not compatible with the dominant discourse. They are not compatible with what the media tell us.

For a long time, the media said that the virus came from the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan and the conclusion was that one should not sell wild animals, while the Chinese authorities already concluded at the end of January 2020 that the virus did not come from this market. In fact, the first cases in Wuhan had not been linked to the market. In recent months, the media have been talking about a lab leak in Wuhan, much like President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo did more than a year ago. However, scientists in China concluded as early as January 2020 that the lab could not have been the source of the virus, as they had studied completely different viruses.

Some Italian studies were mentioned in the media, but then dismissed with the argument that the samples could have been contaminated. Ron Unz also came to a similar conclusion. He doesn’t think the evidence for an outbreak before Wuhan is strong enough, but there is certainly a difference between an early sample in Spain (which could possibly be explained by sample contamination) and the samples in Milan and Turin on 18 December 2019, especially when combined with an outbreak of strange pneumonia in the Bergamo area with hundreds of cases and with the blood cancer tests that supposedly revealed COVID-19 as early as October-November or even September. There were many more known pneumonia cases in northern Lombardy than in Wuhan in autumn-winter 2019.

Most importantly, the SARS-CoV-2 strain from Lombardy was not closely related to that from Wuhan. The SARS-CoV-2 imported from Wuhan to Rome was very different from the virus from Lombardy. One cannot discuss the origin of the virus without talking about the phylogenetic studies: the fact is that the main strain in China and in Wuhan is very different from the second Wuhan strain (which also occurs in Yunnan, Vietnam and South Korea). None of these strains is closely related to the Italian strain or to the dominant strain in France or the one in New York. It was not the same virus that was dominant in Wuhan and Taiwan or in South Korea, Italy, France or New York.

This is apparently not discussed outside the scientific community because it does not fit the idea of a “Wuhan virus”. Neither to a virus that arose naturally in Wuhan nor to a laboratory leak there. Accordingly, no one is apparently willing to discuss it.

They argue that the pandemic looks like a US operation. But the US has the most victims of the pandemic. Why would they make themselves the No. 1 victim and not, for example, China?

There are several reasons to believe that this is an operation carried out by the US elites.

First, there is no indication that China knew about the pneumonia in Wuhan and a new virus before the end of December 2019, while US intelligence agencies apparently had prior knowledge. The US Defence Intelligence Agency spoke of an imminent virus outbreak in Wuhan as early as mid-November and “concluded that it could be a catastrophic event”. This would indicate US responsibility or foreknowledge.

Second, the US is the only state that has declared China an economic-technological security threat. And the US is probably the only state with an ambitious bioweapons programme willing to use an engineered virus to damage an adversary’s economy under the guise of a natural epidemic. US bioweapons experts claim bioweapons are cheaper and more useful than nuclear weapons. They could be used in peacetime without the enemy knowing.

Third, if you wanted to hit China with an epidemic, you should hit Wuhan in early January, because Wuhan is the central transport hub for millions of people going home for the Spring Festival. So the blame could easily be placed on a laboratory leak in Wuhan. Such a leak has been part of US strategy since 2018 and US exercises focused on a lab leak in the process and in 2019 they focused on a pandemic, originating in China.

Fourth, the elite in charge in the US may also have preferred to meet President Trump, who has been an unpredictable and untrustworthy president. The above pandemic exercise reckoned with a loss of half a million US citizens. As victim number one, President Trump would demonstrate his incompetence. This would possibly be enough to reduce Trump’s ability to be re-elected. So you would kill two birds with one stone.

Professor Canetti, thank you very much for this interview.

Translated with (free version)




Liebe Leserinnen und Leser,

diese Ausgabe von Free21 ist außergewöhnlich, in verschiedener Hinsicht. Sie besteht aus einem zweiteiligen Artikel, sowie einem Interview mit dem Autor. Er hat uns sowohl um die Veröffentlichung seiner Arbeit gebeten, als auch um Anonymität. Er ist emeritierter Akademiker von internationaler Bedeutung, der existentielle Konsequenzen wegen der Veröffentlichung des Artikels fürchtet. So weit ist der sogenannte „Freie Westen“ heruntergekommen, so sehr ähneln die hiesigen Verhältnisse für Intellektuelle den Zuständen in der damaligen Sowjetunion. Es bedarf keines weiteren Kommentars.

Die Großmedien, fast alle in Regierungen agierende Politiker und weite Teile des akademischen und intellektuellen Umfeldes können sich die Zustände, die sie teilweise billigend in Kauf nehmen, teilweise aber auch aktiv herbeiführen, weiter schön­reden und als nötige Maßnahmen im Kampf gegen „das Böse“ darstellen. In diesem Fall ist „das Böse“ einfach die vom Regierungs­narrativ abweichenden Informationen.

Denunzianten und Kollaborateure des Machtstaates haben ihre Aktionen noch nie anders begründet. Die gegenwärtigen berufen sich mit religiösem Eifer auf eine unbezweifelbare „Wissenschaft“, wenn sie den Einsatz des Inlandsgeheimdienstes gegen Dissidenten rechtfertigen. Ein Widerspruch in sich selbst. Als wenn nicht gerade der Diskurs und die stetige Bereitschaft zur Überprüfung der Hypothesen der Kern der wissenschaftlichen Methode wäre.

Den Artikel nicht nur auf der Webseite, sondern auch im Free21-Magazin zu veröffentlichen, ist wegen der Bedeutung und der Qualität dieser Arbeit die einzig vernünftige Entscheidung. Wir meinen, es ist die bisher wichtigste Veröffentlichung zum Thema COVID-19 überhaupt.

Canetti hat diesen Aufsatz der US-Webseite „The Unz Review“ angeboten, die ihn für die englischsprachige Welt veröffentlichte und für einige Tage als Hauptartikel heraushob – für die deutschsprachigen Länder wählte er Free21. Wir fühlen uns geehrt, es ist eine Anerkennung unserer journalistischen Arbeit, vor allem aber ein Beleg dafür, dass man uns für furchtlos bis blauäugig genug hält, ihn auch zu veröffentlichen. Letztlich ist es eine journalistische Pflicht, will man seine Aufgabe ernst nehmen. Und das tun wir.

Dieser Text ist keine leichte Kost. Wegen seiner Informationsfülle erfordert er Konzentration und Aufmerksamkeit. Ich habe den Text mehrfach gelesen, und genau das möchte ich auch Ihnen empfehlen. Es lohnt sich wirklich! Als Einstieg und zur Übersicht – zum „Vorglühen“ – empfehle ich das Interview mit dem Autor.

Das Free21-Konzept der 10 Exemplare pro Ausgabe bietet eine einzigartige Möglichkeit: Das Magazin einfach irgendwo liegenzulassen. An der Bushaltestelle, in der S-Bahn, im Wartezimmer – wie ein Flugblatt. Oder Sie geben es gezielt in Ihrem Bekanntenkreis weiter, um andere mögliche Abonnenten und Multiplikatoren auf Free21 aufmerksam zu machen. So können wir die Filterblasen durchlöchern, die uns Facebook, YouTube und Co. als „Gefängnisse des Geistes” bauen, um uns darin noch mit Zensurmaßnahmen zu knebeln.

Auch wenn einige diese Arbeit für Verschwörungsgeschwurbel halten, andere werden angesichts der Tatsachen und Quellen zu zweifeln beginnen. Zweifel und Neugierde sind neben dem Glücksgefühl der Erkenntnis die treuesten Begleiter von Wahrheitsuchenden. Wir freuen uns, Sie als Free21-Leser dazuzuzählen. Und wir freuen uns über jeden neuen.

In diesem Sinne! Ihr Dirk Pohlmann

Jetzt der Artikel des Interviews:

Und eine Reaktion eines Freundes, wie Fauci “gegrillt” wird…:

Über admin

Hausarzt, i.R., seit 1976 im der Umweltorganisation BUND, schon lange in der Umweltwerkstatt, seit 1983 in der ärztlichen Friedensorganisation IPPNW ( und, seit 1995 im Friedenszentrum, seit 2000 in der Dachorganisation Friedensbündnis Braunschweig, und ich bin seit etwa 15 Jahren in der Linkspartei// Family doctor, retired, since 1976 in the environmental organization BUND, for a long time in the environmental workshop, since 1983 in the medical peace organization IPPNW ( and, since 1995 in the peace center, since 2000 in the umbrella organization Friedensbündnis Braunschweig, and I am since about 15 years in the Left Party//
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Blog veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert