WHO under the spotlight: irregularities and conflicts of interest

25.11.2022 | www.kla.tv/24223

On Saturday, May 29, the newly formed “Alliance for Justice and Democracy” held a press conference at the Geneva Press Club titled “Democracy threatened by the centralization of the WHO’s power.” The “International Alliance for Justice and Democracy” is a group of international legal experts who have come together because of concerns about the deterioration of human rights and democratic procedures. The goal is to stop the efforts of the WHO, which is advancing its own monopolization of power. The inquiry aims to provide complete transparency on all legal issues. This is because the WHO’s goals are in conflict with the national and individual sovereignty of peoples. In the following, lawyers explain the development of the WHO in their countries and the current ambiguities in the field of legal certainty regarding the “health” of the measures proclaimed by the WHO. Diane Protat, a lawyer from France, reports on France in her statement. Although the WHO only issues recommendations, they are adopted and implemented in this way. This is unlawful because they were not decided on with the participation of the democratic bodies. Since the WHO recommendations are based on expert reports and these expert reports cannot be challenged in court, there is no legal recourse in France for this. In France, there is a women’s movement asking, “Where is my period?” after the Covid-19 vaccination has been completed. Approximately 15,000 women have been affected and have not had their periods for a long time. So far, there has been no response from the WHO to these reports. The European Medicines Agency of the European Union EMA, which is responsible for the evaluation and monitoring of medicines, is also not responding. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, the legal representative of the Afro-Asian Sovereignty Coalition, speaks for Asia and Africa. She sees conflicts of interest within the architecture of the WHO. The controversial proposed changes to the 2005 health rules were made without public input from countries; she says that is unacceptable. There are changes in the definition of a pandemic and in observations and analyses. It is about a centralization of the WHO, the partnerships with the WEF and influential investors working on the centralization measures and on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The WHO and the UN are not built democratically, but on a monopoly of corruption. Countries are now turning on the WHO for its conflicts of interest. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed highlights the key conflicts of interest. 1. WHO is predominantly funded by private money and actors: GAVI, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. These organizations are closely linked to BlackRock, the world’s largest U.S. asset manager. 2. The WHO receives direct contribution payments from the large pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson & Johnson or Pfizer. 3. Vaccine manufacturers were exempted by the WHO from compensation payments in the event of vaccine damage caused by defective vaccines. 4. WHO has entered into long-term partnerships with the vaccine industry and major banks such as J.P. Morgan, which have signed on as funders for the pharmaceutical industry. 5. WHO has established a governance board for the global vaccine plan, consisting of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and WHO itself. All of these organizations have invested in and benefit from the vaccine industry. 6. WHO’s funders include investors who own patents or shares in vaccine manufacturing technology products. 7. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Director General of WHO, was accused by the people of his home country Ethiopia of mismanagement of Ebola, abuse of office, and supporting the civil war. However, the indictment brought no result and nothing happened. Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse explores the question: What further competences would the WHO acquire in addition? These amendments would allow WHO to declare a public health emergency without the voice of national governments. It would give WHO the power to impose surveillance systems, compliance and consent measures, and implementation of medical responses worldwide, violating the inalienable rights of individuals and the sovereignty of nations. It would eliminate both transparency and accountability, as WHO is immune to any form of judicial process. Phillip Kruse calls for real investigations into the effectiveness of the WHO measures enacted in 2020 and 2021 to see if they have been worthwhile. The appropriate consequences must be drawn from this. The importance of accountability and the suability of dubious measures can be seen in the example of India. Dipali Ojha, lawyer in India reports: India’s highest court “Supreme Court India” has invalidated all vaccination laws and established the fundamental right for anyone to refuse vaccination. The court has ordered the government to register vaccination related damages and make them available to all people in India. The court ordered the government to release the data on child vaccination trials in India, documenting how the government acted illegally by not following the law. At the end of the press conference, Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse summarized what had already been heard. He said it was a call to action first and foremost to lawyers to protect people’s rights and health and democracy. Those responsible at WHO and those politically responsible should be held accountable. See now Philipp Kruse’s five-minute quintessence:

from A.

Sources/Links: https://hallmack.de/pressekonferenz-der-internationalen-allianz-fuer-gerechtigkeit-und-demokratie-presseclub-genf/