"So it wasn't the viruses, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you again, that we experienced."
"So we are constantly exposed to lots of new, foreign viruses.
We can do that. There's no need to be afraid."
"So you have to be pretty sure if you're scaring people or warning them about a disease that you really know what the disease is.
Sometimes it is also poisoning.
Imagine you warn people about some virus and they are so weakened by glyphosate that their microbiome is in a mess and they have
symptoms of poisoning and can no longer tolerate certain things.
And then you say, oh, but there's a virus.
People have only been systematically weakened by poisons of some kind. That can also be the case."
"When is health at risk?
How can you recognize this?
The only way to tell if she is at risk is with a PCR test. That's what the WHO says.
Defines how to recognize dangers and which dangers are imminent.
They have their people everywhere and now they're increasingly installing it everywhere, and if there's something to be
seen and they define it as something and then it's monkeypox."
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg made these statements during his lecture on 23 February 2024 in Reiden, Switzerland.
The title of his Swiss premiere was: "Pandemics instead of democracy - ruling with fear?"
Dr. Wodarg is a specialist in internal medicine, pulmonologist, social physician, doctor of hygiene and environmental
medicine and was head of a health authority for many years.
In 1991 he received a scholarship for epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, USA.
From 1994 to 2009, he was a member of parliament for the SPD in the German Bundestag.
He has been working as a university lecturer, health scientist and author since 2011. His 2021 book "False
Pandemics" was No. 1 on the SPIEGEL bestseller list.
You can now watch a summary of his 2-hour presentation below.
Wodarg explains why it was not the viruses that were to blame for the supposed coronavirus
pandemic, but the WHO's power of definition.
It wasn't the viruses So, now for the next one.
So it wasn't the viruses, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you again, that we experienced.
The viruses, when you see this, the many airplanes flying around the world in 24 hours, that's a period of time.
There are 200, 300 people on every plane and they are all full of viruses.
That's 10 million passengers every day who carry their viruses around the world and we exchange them.
Have you ever been through airport security and sat next to each other on an airplane?
- The mask doesn't help at all.
The viruses are there and they are being exchanged.
This has been going on for decades, and not just on airplanes.
This is normal, there are always new viruses, they are constantly changing, especially the RNA viruses, such as
the corona viruses, which change very quickly, constantly.
And what you are being told about the many variants is ridiculous.
This is a story that has somehow been picked out.
That is something selective.
Nature is much wilder, because the viruses have not spread, supposedly only from Wuhan.
But there were some here too.
In Switzerland, they have a lot of places where there were viruses, some of them probably even.
And they have spread from everywhere and are constantly changing and adapting.
And their immune system, we get to know them all.
And we have an insane amount of training, for example through tourism, through the
globalized economy, people travel all over the world.
They are all the people who fly there every day.
They learn about viruses from, I don't know where, some island in the east of Asia.
Come back, you were at the fish market.
And that's when they saw the beetles in Vietnam that you eat there.
And the caterpillars and things like that. And there were lots of people and it was crowded.
And that was a nice vacation, they say.
Nothing was.
So we are constantly exposed to lots of new, foreign viruses.
We can do that. There's no need to be afraid.
Insane industry
If you look at the data on where people fell ill in the past, like here for example, this is from Peter Doshi here, he once
did this, this is a rough summary of his graphs in Der Spiegel.
He took a look at flu deaths in the USA from 1930 to 2004.
And as you can see, this declined massively after the world war.
There is very little left. Hardly anyone dies.
Old people die, by the way. That's supposed to happen, isn't it?
Yes, they die and sometimes they have the flu.
Yes, and sometimes you suddenly started, after the war, in the 60s so to speak, what kind of viruses were they?
First you started looking for them and then you already knew five or six of the now 200 that you know. And only
those for which tests were available could be verified.
And then influenza was detected.
There was a particular focus on that.
Someone had also said that perhaps a vaccine could be produced.
And then you just looked to see if there were influenza sentinels everywhere in the countries.
How many influenza infections have been found and so on.
And then they said influenza A or B. Then there was HN1, H5 and all the subspecies again.
And that's why you have to have new vaccines every year, because they change.
And then you have to get vaccinated again.
It's an insane industry, the fact that you have these, oh, here we go again with the variants, they have to have a
new vaccine against Omikron and we're already preparing it.
And then . . . And then the fact that two or three are there at the same time, if you then only look for one and
the test is positive, influenza only or corona only for example, you haven't even looked at the others.
And the fact is that in most cases, around 40% of infections, there are two viruses that can make you ill.
Sometimes, if you have two viruses, you don't get sick, but only if you have one.
Sometimes two viruses reinforce each other.
It depends on which viruses come along and at what time.
In other words, this is very, very complex.
You actually need a differential diagnosis and a test, no matter how accurate it is, it won't
tell you anything, especially not a PCR test.
And if you want to assess such a risk, is it good to look at whether more people are getting sick than usual?
Or is it really, can the disease be clearly diagnosed? Corona?
And how can you rule out that these are not other viruses?
How can you determine that the symptoms are really caused by this infection if you had a
test that could reliably detect coronavirus?
So you have to be pretty sure when you're scaring people or warning them about a disease that you really
know what the disease is. Sometimes it's also poisoning.
Imagine you warn people about some virus and they are so weakened by glyphosate that their microbiome is in a mess and they have
symptoms of poisoning and can no longer tolerate certain things.
And then you say, oh, but there's a virus.
People have only, people have been systematically weakened by some toxins. That can also be the case.
Differential diagnosis is not only essential for individuals, it is also essential for epidemiologists.
Yes, and then you could look at the Robert Koch Institute, they always look at how many cases of flu there are.
They have 600 medical practices that report every week.
In my case, there are so and so many. There is a certain standard and then you can compare the longitudinal
section over the years to see whether there are more or fewer.
And that's what I looked up first, it's practically the same thing I did with my wife Thomsen.
The Robert Koch Institute does this with 600 medical practices throughout Germany.
And then I looked and I saw - you can see this line here, that was 2020 - and suddenly in March there was a lockdown, nobody
was sick anymore, the pandemic was raging and nobody got sick.
And that surprised me.
I know why that has declined, because nobody went to the doctor's office anymore.
You had to wear the mask and you had to be tested and people said, no, because now they believe me, I don't
need a sick note, so I don't have to go to the doctor.
And then, if they had the flu, they cured it that way.
And that continued the next year.
That's 2021 - also nothing, nothing at all, nothing the whole year.
There wasn't even a flu season yet.
Yes, well, I always thought that a pandemic like this was a disaster, that hospitals were overloaded. - That wasn't
the case. I don't have the data now, you probably know it, the hospitals have reduced beds during this time.
The PCR test will make or break the pandemic (China)
And this is from China. That's what made me so sure when I checked with the Chinese CDC
at the beginning of March. What data is there?
And these were the cases, these were positive PCR tests.
And you see, there were only a few thousand cases every day.
And then suddenly, on March 1, as ordered, it went down.
That was the end of the pandemic in China. They simply shut it down.
Think of the airplanes, think of all the people, it's teeming with people everywhere.
They had a few viruses. They just shut down the pandemic overnight and stuff like that.
They simply stopped testing. It was gone.
We could have done the same here.
And this disease has been defined.
And the WHO did this before it started, i.e. in 2019.
They defined the disease according to the ICD code.
That's what the WHO can do.
It can define the diagnoses.
Defining means you put a fence around it, what's inside belongs to it.
That is a definition.
And they defined it by saying that there is Covid-19, which is the new dangerous pathogen from Wuhan, they said.
And this can be determined with a test.
This is Mr. Drosten's PCR test.
That's what we have recorded.
And if it is positive, then it is Covid-19, and there are asymptomatic courses.
This means that the people are healthy, but the test is positive.
And then they have a second diagnosis.
That means Covid-19 virus not identified.
They didn't even have a PCR-positive result.
These were people who had contact with someone who was PCR-positive - and had a cold.
So they had to have symptoms and had contact with someone who tested positive on the PCR test.
That was also Covid-19, because it ... got a different ICD number, a slightly different one, 7.2. Yes, and these
two things, so they both always depended on the PCR test.
If there was Covid, then this is the PCR test.
And if long Covid or post-Covid is now being discussed, then these are people who are ill after having
been diagnosed with these two conditions at some point.
Which are completely meaningless. They are irrelevant.
People who previously had chronic fatigue syndrome.
But they had a positive PCR test in between. This is now Long-Covid.
And, of course, apart from the fact that they came up with Long-Covid to hide the side effects of these injections.
That is the main function.
Here's this great guy, Kary B. Mullis. That's the inventor of the PCR test.
So he says that with the PCR test you can find everything in everyone if there is any molecule.
And we have molecules of all kinds of things in us.
Do you know that you excrete tetanus pathogens in your bowel movements? A lot of people
don't even dare to go to the toilet anymore.
Well, I used to inspect sewage treatment plants. Even as a public health officer, you have to check drinking
water and sewage treatment plants and make sure that they work and that they don't stink.
And then we measured how much salmonella was in the wastewater from the sewage treatment plant.
There were quite a few of them, then I thought, you shouldn't swim for more than ten minutes. Then you have a dose for infection.
These standards, you try to orientate yourself and these things that you are looking for,
you only find things that you are looking for.
And the other things, that are, look, with tetanus, nobody looks that up anymore, they could play that up again.
They could make something out of it, you can't tell them that.
But here, here you can see the number of tests. This is when it started at the beginning of 2020, there were more and more tests,
the blue here are the tests and suddenly there were a lot here.
Once they made a lot of them here.
That was in the fall of 2020, where they tested in the nursing homes and everywhere and sent the staff home, where the elderly
were then without care and came to the hospital, were intubated at 80, were treated with
Remdesivir, were killed, so we see victims of Covid-19.
The red in the curve, that is the scale here, that is the percentage of positive tests.
It was quite high at the beginning.
There was nothing here in the summer.
They tested them at the airport, but nothing came up. Here.
And then it started, then the percentages increased, then it went up to 10 %, here
roughly, and the tests were positive up to 10 %.
Of course, depending on the number of tests, that's quite a lot.
Look, it's almost here, then you have almost, yes, that's 1.5 million tests per week, have been done here in Germany.
These are the figures, aren't they? These are the figures, 2.5 million tests were carried out
here in April 2022, 2.5 million tests per week.
And look how many were positive.
Up to 50% were positive afterwards.
It's completely absurd, utter nonsense.
Not just a waste of resources, but a sell-out of the entire population.
And we have institutes that actually know better.
We have the Paul Ehrlich Institute, we have the Robert Koch Institute, smart people at the universities.
Why did they keep their mouths shut during such a circus?
But what was it that we experienced?
I then looked again for something else.
I had a look to see how much, there were always the notes, the blue light people, they were already in the years, so in 2021.
You can see these different dashed or continuous lines, the continuous line from 2021,
the others are the two years before that.
And these are the respiratory reasons for whether or not you are sent to the emergency room as
an emergency because of a respiratory illness.
And they are counted, the stakes.
These are the assignments that are spread across Germany.
At that time, there were only six such locations where these emergency operations were registered.
And now there are more of them.
You can see that there has been no change.
Respiratory diseases don't matter, what was that about - what else is it, Corona?
This is supposed to be a respiratory virus.
There was nothing to see, I was surprised. Well, what's that?
And then I looked again afterwards: What was it like with the other assignments?
These were the cardiovascular presentation reasons due to emergency, i.e. cardiovascular history.
And then you suddenly see, parallel to this one underneath - I did it myself, I put them one behind the
other - these two things, precisely synchronized in time.
And then you see this gray line.
Look, there's one.
These are the people who got the first vaccination, the first injection.
And these are the ones who got the second injection.
And here, especially with the start of the second injection, but even here, this curve suddenly goes up, and to a completely
different level, is overdoubled, twice as much action due to cardiovascular complications, parallel, in time, to the
administration of these RNA substances, this gene therapy.
They weren't sick at all. You can't treat sick people - this poisoning.
And the same applies to neurological diseases, which also exist.
You can also see here how it suddenly went up here, and massively so, with all the strokes, all the neurological disorders
that were there: People went blind, all that sort of thing.
It went up at the same time as the syringes. And that really alarmed me at the time.
I saw that as soon as it started.
That was around 21 when the data was available.
And that made me pretty sure that the syringes would become toxic.
Excess mortality
And now there are evaluations that show that excess mortality is completely independent of any
diagnosis. They simply looked at how many people die.
As the population gets older, more people will naturally die.
When the population is younger, fewer people die.
And people who have already died once cannot die again.
You actually know these things.
And you have to represent that mathematically.
If you want to evaluate this epidemiologically, you have to age-standardize it. And Cooper has done that very well.
And then he established, here according to the age groups, that nothing had happened with the children, here in the 21st century.
And the fact that young people from the age of 15 suddenly, there was nothing here, was under-mortality in the pandemic years.
But when the pandemic was already subsiding, they suddenly died.
And the young people died here.
The excess mortality rate of 8% among 40-49 year olds.
That is a lot. That is extraordinary.
And then there was an age group here that died, I don't know why.
Mr. Cooper can't explain that either, I don't know.
The 50-59-year-olds did not die as often.
Whether it was a group that somehow managed to avoid the syringe, I don't know.
And it continues here. In 2022, things got worse, extremely bad among the very young, 10% excess
mortality among young people in all three groups.
And the same goes for those aged 70 and over.
That is something that is really alarming.
That's a lot. And that is watertight data.
Total mortality, which does not say what they died of.
But they didn't die in the year of the pandemic, but when the injections were administered across the board, to
over 80% of the population, twice or three times, they died.
And I think that's enough. That's why these syringes should have been taken off the market immediately. So much earlier.
Even when the first side effects occurred with VAERS, which was also clearly visible in America, the authorities
would have been told to stop immediately, in the past when we could still rely on them to some extent, I hope.
And they didn't do that.
That is intentional.
There's no other way to explain it.
Someone must have made sure that people were not protected.
Someone had evil in mind for the people.
And yes, so that was what we called the pandemic ...
Here you can see the whole thing again over time. Here you can see the young people.
They had died less than usual.
Here too, even up to 30, nothing happened.
And then here, when it started here, it also started here with the young people with excess mortality.
And here was just the excess mortality at the time when people were being killed in old people's homes and in hospitals.
There were only the old people. That's not typical of a pandemic, sometimes only the young and sometimes the old.
You have to decide so much about how and who you wanted to kill here. That's not possible.
So that didn't fit in the back and front.
I don't even want that anymore. It's so ridiculous.
This is the image that virologists present to us: There is, there is Wuhan, the dangerous thing.
And then half of society and science realize that this must have come from the laboratory.
They say the analysis came from the fish market.
Nothing came, nothing at all. Tests came there.
There were no dangerous viruses spreading, none at all.
And this discussion about ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine is a sham, a diversionary discussion.
We have never needed this for any form of flu.
And the people who used it and then said they were successful: But we saved people with Ivermectin.
They didn't even do a differential diagnosis of what else was there.
No! There were no new viruses.
And J.J. Couey, a biologist, has illustrated this very, very well.
And here, too, there were a few very busy Japanese.
They then said: Yes, look, what variants were there?
And then they looked and looked - they really are so meticulous - they looked through everything:
where viruses, which types and how they were presented.
And they looked at each other: how did they differ with the sequences, the different variants that came along?
And then they looked: Oh, that's funny.
This has never happened in nature before, that these ... how can this happen? That fits.
They found that the formation of some of the omicron isolates was not the product of genome evolution.
They said that such mechanics do not occur in evolution.
And then they also said that the Omikron variants were already detectable everywhere in 2020.
That doesn't fit in with the narrative we are being told.
And then the conclusion: The emergence of the variants occurred through a completely new
mechanism that cannot be explained by current biology.
They said that there is nothing like this in nature.
And they really went to a lot of trouble.
This is a great piece of work with lots of details.
And there are many, many pages of really good work where they have established this, quite soberly.
And if you then take a look, I have contacts with virologists and people who are also active in molecular biology.
And they know that RNA and RNA viruses are completely unstable.
Couey has a good example to explain this.
He says that if you want to reproduce something, make a copy of it, then with RNA it's as if you have a music
cassette and you copy it onto the next music cassette.
Then there is a bit of noise.
And if you want to copy these songs again, then there's even more noise.
And if you copy them again, you can hardly hear the music.
It is exactly the same with RNA viruses.
You can't move things on like this without changing them, but you can do it very quickly.
Think of the 10 million passengers on airplanes every day or something like that. It's absurd, this story we've
been told about this virus that's spreading, that's changing.
And then you find a variant. That doesn't work.
But how do you ensure that these variants can be found all over the world?
This is done by using a specific technique to collect these small fragments, this virus
containing 30,000 nucleotides, and assemble them.
They were actually only there in the computer in Wuhan. They had them there.
There was this sequence in the computer.
There were these dangerous things in there, these dangerous sequences. And you had them.
And then they collected something, collected it in nature and did the alignment and then produced an RNA.
And because it changes so quickly, if you want to preserve it now, you have to transcribe DNA from it. You had to transcribe it.
You had to make the stamp from the stamp impression RNA.
And the stamp, it lasts.
You know, DNA from mammoths has been found in the ice.
And then they tried again with elephants or ... to use them again for breeding.
So this DNA is incredibly stable.
And Couey explained it by saying that DNA is like copying CDs.
They are exactly the same. The digital copies are exactly the same.
And they last for a while.
But the cassette, when you copy it, the noise increases.
This is the RNA.
And that is why it is impossible to release RNA, even artificial RNA viruses produced in the laboratory, so that
they would have any range and survive any length of time without undergoing massive changes.
And in evolution, the evolution of viruses is towards better adaptation to their hosts.
This means that a virus that kills its host is stupid and has no chance of survival.
Only the viruses that keep us alive, so that we feel that they are at home with us, we don't even notice them, they can
multiply wonderfully everywhere. And in airplanes and on trains and here too, you can spread viruses everywhere.
That is one thing that ensures their chances of survival.
You know, you are made up of 30 trillion cells, body cells. 30 trillion on average, a few more, but your genome is in there.
These are your cells, these are you. This is how you can be recognized.
And then you are made up of 39 trillion other microorganisms that live in your gut, live on your
skin, live everywhere on your mucous membranes.
These are such ... you will become a landscape where nature runs riot.
And these are all important, important microbes. They have a specific function.
They made you who you are in the first place.
There are microbes in your genome. They have incorporated your genetic sequence into your genome, from viruses,
from retroviruses. They were incorporated. And that's how humans evolved in the first place.
There were certain viruses that meant we no longer had to lay eggs.
So this development, this evolutionary development happens through the transport of genetic information from one living
being to another. And the nice thing is, there is this discussion, are there viruses or are
there not? For me, it's a bit, yes, distracting.
There were once people who found something they called bacteria. That is also a variety. And then they had
subgroups. And then there were people who said, there's something that you can't see under the microscope.
But it still makes you ill, you can somehow find it in the water. And you can find small things like this
everywhere in nature. They were later seen under an electron microscope and were called viruses.
Later, similar things, almost exactly the same, were found in the body.
And then they say, they're not viruses, they were there, they're still there. They were
called exosomes. They look almost exactly the same.
It also contains genetic information and sometimes proteins.
This means that in living nature, whose diversity is irreducible - that is a very important
sentence - the diversity of nature is irreducible.
And science always reduces. It always defines something. It says this is this, this is that.
And then this definition is compared, and this has often changed in science.
They will no longer be usable at some point.
And I am sure that the definition of bacteria and viruses will no longer be important in 20 years' time.
Because we know much more.
We know from the little ones that our knowledge is becoming more and more granular.
We know more and more about the smallest molecules that play a role.
And that means that we have to agree again on how to deal with it.
How we talk about it.
And there are names, so we can talk about them.
And one of these names that has developed historically is the name Virus.
And if there is someone who says that there are no viruses, then please make sure that we have new terms
that we can talk about sensibly, that we can agree on.
This is sometimes a lengthy process.
Yes, and these are the laboratory theories. Epidemics from the lab. 309 cases where something has
happened in the labs in the last 20 years. So nothing.
These were mostly bacteria, too, at the vets, i.e. in veterinary laboratories.
And then 16 times it happened that something escaped from the lab. The family also got something. Or there
was somehow a small outbreak because something was contaminated in the water or something.
But these are all very limited things.
No damage has been done.
This is the official list, published in The Lancet, of these very different pathogens that have somehow escaped in small numbers.
So this whole discussion about the lab, created in the lab, created on the fish market, is
all about distracting us. It's all narrative.
Forget that.
And the people who tell you these stories are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Don't believe them.
That was Covid-19, Mr. Wodarg, how can you look past it?
Didn't you see what happened in northern Italy?
And the coffins in New York that they buried there... That's real, a lot of people died there.
You can't look past it. That's something quite dangerous.
Yes, people have died in northern Italy. But more died in 2017 and 2018.
In these same hospitals.
And in the Milan newspaper I found reports on how catastrophic the conditions are, how the staff are completely overwhelmed.
The same stories all over again.
Maybe the pictures were even from 2017/2018, because they were even more dramatic than they are now.
But the fact that people in intensive care units are naturally overwhelmed is something I can tell you a thing or two
about as a staff council member at a hospital in Hamburg.
We have also always complained as hospital staff that we need more staff. We are overstretched.
And people are lying around in the corridors and stuff.
There was once a senator who came to us.
Hamburg's health senator was not, but another one was.
And he had something and then he was with us.
And we left it in the hallway for a long time.
Yes, what happened at the time when we were so frightened by these images?
That was in New York, it looked threatening.
These are really the dead in the hospitals.
And that was from March 16 to May 20. Very briefly.
A lot of people died. A lot of people.
And why was that? What was going on there?
And there are reasons for this.
They found that people had been treated wrongly. And extremely so.
There was a treatment plan that they had to follow.
With Covid-19, you have to do this and that.
And there were drugs that didn't help, that were toxic.
There was still an overdose of hydroxychloroquine.
A healthy person can't stand that.
They gave ten times the dose.
And that's where the heart simply stops.
Or if hydroxychloroquine is given to someone who has favism, i.e. who doesn't have a congenital enzyme that you
need, then the blood cells burst and you can't breathe.
All these things were sold as Covid-19.
And then the people were immediately sedated and ventilated.
Because you had to.
You had to ventilate right away, as soon as possible.
Then you can save them, they said.
And then they were given midazolam, they were injected with sedatives, which also caused respiratory depression so that they
could no longer breathe themselves, and they were intubated.
And someone who is intubated is already at high risk.
That is a difficult thing when they are intubated for a long time.
That is a risk in itself.
The fact that people died as a result of such measures is a good explanation, especially when you see
that this was not the case in San Francisco at the time.
Why wasn't there a pandemic?
Or in Florida, there was nothing so typical there either.
That was in the fall, in Florida it looks like they emptied the retirement homes as well.
And then afterwards, that's the second stroke, that's the start of the injections.
And you can see that they were suddenly more skeptical in New York.
Or they got the other batches, I don't know.
And those in San Francisco, they really experienced a lot of suffering.
So you see, these are the official American death statistics, this is the overall mortality rate.
Not diagnosis-related.
And here is something about hydroxychloroquine, I found such a book.
Self-determined death with hydroxychloroquine.
This is a drug that can be used to commit suicide, in the dose that was given.
Found by chance on the Internet.
I had entered hydroxychloroquine. This is a guide for people who want to kill themselves.
And that's what they recommended, officially, for these studies here.
Chris Whitty did that.
National Health Assistant in England, the advisor to the government, has said that they should do this.
Have set the dose.
He was wrong, unless he had actually been given a different medication. So absurd,
absurd story. They killed people to scare us.
WHO
So, now let's quickly talk about the WHO. You all know that it's corrupt, it gets money from private sponsors.
But the WHO is very important because it has the power to define.
We have what I told you with the ICD, which is worldwide. The ICDs are codes.
If you want to bill as a doctor or as a hospital, you have to write the ICD number.
This means that the disease has to be categorized according to where the WHO has placed the pots.
And then it defines the emergency.
Mr. Ghebreyesus then says that this is a pheic.
But that means Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Pheic is the pronunciation.
And they also wanted to define immunity. They said it can only be achieved with vaccination.
Herd immunity is only possible after vaccination.
Or they say, when is an outbreak?
When is health at risk?
How can you recognize this?
The PCR test is the only way to determine whether it is at risk.
This is what the WHO says. Defines how to recognize dangers and which dangers are imminent.
They have their people everywhere and they are installing them everywhere right now.
And if there is something to be seen, and then they define it, then that is monkeypox.
Pimples on the butt and a positive PCR test: monkeypox.
They've always done that.
They have done it before, they are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.
And then they lowered the values for cholesterol, the limit from 240 milligrams to 200 milligrams per deciliter.
And then they have 86% more patients who need treatment.
It's really worth it.
And yes, so they have always set standards for the pharmaceutical industry - because they have been commissioned by
us, so to speak. The WHO says it has to be uniform - they have taken on this task of setting standards.
By setting standards, it can make us ill, it can define illnesses and the need for treatment, it can define diagnostic methods.
That's an incredible power she already has.
Yes, she already has.
And then she also defined health.
In the 19th century, health used to be a private matter.
There was no healthcare system, people helped each other wherever they could.
If you had money, you got someone who was knowledgeable and the others had to see how they got along.
Then, in the 20th century, health was defined as a human right, as I said, with Bismarck,
who then said that we have a right to health.
And all countries must ensure this, all governments must ensure this.
That's what the WHO said in the 1960s.
All countries must ensure that their population is healthy.
There is a right to health.
Then that changed, then it was a human right.
But in the first third of our century, the World Economic Forum was suddenly invited by Mrs. Brundtland, the Secretary
General, to do more for health, dear industrialists, dear business, dear bankers, we must do more for health.
And they didn't need to be told twice and then repurposed the WHO for their own purposes.
They have instrumentalized them and given them money, but then they also determine what is done.
And health was practically defined as a growth market.
All people in Africa must have these drugs, otherwise it would be unfair. Isn't it?
They all have to get these injections and you have to do something about it.
In other words, they have taken on a market-opening function for the economy.
And what they are doing now is that they are pushing population control through health protection.
Under the argument that we cannot otherwise protect your health, we must have your genetic data.
No? We have to be careful who is particularly susceptible or who is particularly sensitive.
So we must have information.
We need electronic patient records so that we can see where people are falling ill, so that we can
recognize in good time where clusters are forming.
And that's where we have to intervene, where we have to be allowed to tell the state that they have a right to health.
Even in Africa, the poor must be healthy.
And we must be allowed to tell them that they must get money.
And if they don't have any, we have to give them something. Don't we?
One Health is the name of the game.
And there she is, Mrs. Brundtland with Mr. Schwab, hello, in 1989, when the Eastern Bloc had just collapsed and the
World Health Organization was then taken over by investors.
And Mrs. Brundtland did that for a while and then there were two who were not so successful, but then came
Mrs. Chan with the swine flu and then now Mr. Ghebreyesus.
Ms. Brundtland is still there, she is still directing, she was still important at the beginning of the corona pandemic,
so to speak, she was on the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which is the secret directorate in the WHO.
Fauci is in there, Jeremy Farrar is in there, the chairman of the American Medical Association is in there, the head of the
CDC, the Chinese CDC, the Chinese health authority, is in there.
They are all in there, they make reports, so you can see the four reports up there and then you can also see in the one report,
there is this map in there, there you can see the many diseases that come into question that could develop into
a pandemic, well, that we could develop into a pandemic.
We still have that in the pipeline.
Yes, these are the people, there are certainly others, there are still, I've only shown a few here now, there are eight more.
And this is another one of those things, they met in 2019.
They were sitting together in London at the BBC and they agreed that we would fight Infodemic and all the top committees of the
big media groups were there, the journalists' association and media groups and whatever they were
all called. They sat down and reached an agreement.
In 2019, they prepared in good time to ensure that this pandemic would not be disrupted in any way by backtalk.
Because the WHO will take care of us.
And now she is looking for bacteria in the wastewater.
This exists at 170 locations in Germany, and wastewater treatment plants are regularly monitored.
And that's where you do PCR tests. What you can find there.
And this is recorded exactly, there are curves and there are more, people have now excreted more viruses than before
and so on. And then it is compared and conclusions are drawn.
It's a complete mystery to me what conclusions they want to draw from this.
But, yes, it's a whole industry, it's a whole association, it's companies that specialize in it, it's a business
again. They have developed it, redeveloped it. Wastewater treatment plant monitoring - congratulations!
Why haven't governments and regulators protected us from this?
Because they are corrupt, as we mentioned earlier.
But that is the main reason.
Because this whole fight against viruses is something that has been shifted to the military sector in the USA.
For many years now, not just in the last ten years, but even before that.
And there is this war on viruses, just like the war on terror.
Incidentally, this is the same person, Rumsfeld, who had such ideas.
He had both the war on terror and later, as head of the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, he had the war
on viruses, he fought the bird flu and caused his shares to soar, all of them in Tamiflu, Gilead Sciences.
And then there are the generals and there are the secret services and they prepare for war. It could be that the
enemy develops dangerous bacteria or viruses. It could be.
And it is also possible that he is working with poison gas.
Then our soldiers would have to have the right masks. And that's how they do it with
bacteria, they have to have the right vaccinations.
To do this, we need to know what very dangerous things the enemy might be up to... and that's a huge industry! The things
you can think up that you have to defend yourself against.
Long research, many research contracts, lots of money to be made. Institutes are springing up, all funded by the defense budget.
So this has been going on for many years.
Swine flu I have stories here now for another hour and a half about the various WHO false alarms.
Bird flu, I go through it very quickly.
Mr. Stöhr has done a great job in this respect.
There are already millions of deaths, he said in Geneva, as head of the WHO.
Then the swine flu came here, in 2009, and I got involved. In Mexico, 200 people are fighting for their lives.
How stupid people must be to read the newspaper.
200 people are fighting for their lives.
That says nothing at all.
They are constantly fighting for their lives.
And already 68 dead in Mexico.
Do you know that a few million people live there?
It's so absurd.
And this is Mr. Ferguson. He's been in action a bit over the last few years. These are his graphics.
There were actually about, how many cases were there?
They had 300 cases afterwards
still. They have even collected 600 cases in the hospitals in Mexico.
They did tests that were positive on people who had coughed.
And then they found them.
And the tests were H1N1. So that was swine flu. And they were positive.
That is nothing.
There are millions of people living there.
And that was done by a company called Veratect.
I looked at their documents back then.
And it has been commissioned. Do a search.
And they knew that old people had antibodies because they had already had H1N1 in the 1970s.
And then they examined the old people and they could still find the antibodies.
And then they found them and said, oh, 600 cases already.
And then Ferguson multiplied all the flights, that's the table behind it, that came from Mexico by the cases
and then he had the spread chart. And that was the pandemic that the WHO was then presented with.
And then Ms. Chan said, oh, now is pandemic.
Yes, that was the swine flu.
But there were no contracts at all.
Mr. Sarkozy was in Mexico long before this started and financed a vaccination plant for Sanofi.
So everything was prepared exactly as usual.
This is the French treaty, where it was said that if the WHO says pandemic, then the states must, then
the treaty comes into force. The states have to pay.
They didn't care at all that they burned or destroyed the vaccines afterwards.
They had earned 18 billion.
And they changed the definition, simply removing the serious illness.
These are all things I don't need to tell you again ... That was in the Council of Europe. These are all the corrupt types
who made decisions in the expert panel, all of whom had links to the pharmaceutical industry. We found all that out.
Spanish flu The Spanish flu was always mentioned.
Did you know that back then, in 2019, no viruses were known at all?
They didn't know anything, there was no literature about the Spanish flu.
That only started in 1960.
They said it was a viral flu.
And then in 2000, shortly before the first pandemic started, they dug up people who had died of
the Spanish flu somewhere in the ice in Alaska.
And then they did a PCR test, H1N1. And then there was the Spanish flu, they were all victims of this H1N1.
That was worldwide.
They all died at the same time.
That was a shitty time.
They also carried out trials with the first vaccinations.
Meningitis vaccinations, I think they were. And then they killed people.
Then people were starving.
Then they had tuberculosis.
Then they were crammed in with their pneumonia . Then they had nothing to eat.
So many people have died for various reasons.
There was a huge excess mortality, no doubt about it.
But it's absurd to use this afterwards to tell us that a dangerous virus corpuscle caused all this back then. It's simply absurd.
So much for Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg's comments.
According to Dr. Wodarg, the real danger does not come from the viruses, but from the WHO's power of definition.
These defined diseases, diagnostic methods, pandemics and treatment methods.
From this point of view, the WHO pandemic treaty and the adjustments to international
health regulations are of crucial importance.
This is to be presented for adoption at the 77th World Health Assembly from May 27 - June 1, 2024 in Geneva.
The WHO's power of definition is to be standardized, regulated worldwide and transferred
to all countries in a legally binding manner.
At this point, it is worth recalling the closing words of Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse.
On the occasion of a lecture on February 7, 2024 in Lichtenstein, he said the following:
"I would prefer it if I didn't give any more lectures at all, but if this knowledge spread among you, if you passed it on, and if
you initiated a discussion with your friends and acquaintances.
And when this issue finally gets to where it belongs, namely in the parliaments.
- What I have said here belongs there and that is where the decision-making takes place."