The WHO must be denied any legitimacy to usurp or be granted further powers.
It has simply not proven itself, but a full stop is called for here. Stop! And only when all the mistakes have been dealt
with can we talk about new agreements, and certainly not before.
Now, there is another important point to bear in mind, namely that such adaptations may only be voted on if the
World Health Assembly has been presented with this final voting version at least four months in advance.
In other words, it would be against the WHO's own rules of the game - as stated in Article 55(2) of the health
regulations - if we were to vote on this at the end of May.
Yes, the assessment criteria are very simple at first.
First and foremost, we as citizens have to ask, was an effective reappraisal carried out at all? Yes or no?
And secondly, were the formal WHO codes of practice followed? Yes or no?
And because the answer is no, it means that it must not be put to the vote. It's as simple as that.
But now you have the essential measurement criteria that can also help you in discussions and enable you to
say, stop, first of all, a reappraisal must take place.
And secondly, the rules of the WHO itself must be adhered to.
And thirdly, according to its own objectives, the WHO is not authorized to cause harm at all.
Many thanks, Urs Hans, for the overall organization today on 20 April 2024.
The aim is to bring about a reappraisal, together.
We can only do this with education, political pressure and good information.
Greetings, Stefan. And that's why we're all here today.
It is a great honor for me to be able to speak to you here on the subject of WHO.
And I would like to thank you all very much for coming here today.
Great. Yes, this WHO issue is unfortunately a very detailed and large topic.
I was therefore kindly granted 40 minutes.
It is an actual new cosmos that is being built here.
A genuine new health regime.
And to be able to classify this correctly, you need to understand what has happened so far.
And then you have to have an understanding of the overall context so that you don't get
lost in the details, of which there are many.
We know that we are talking about two WHO treaties and they are full of proposed amendments and further proposed amendments.
And I am trying to give you certainty on this subject.
That's my job. But of course you can't do it in 40 minutes.
I'll just try my best. Let's start very briefly.
First of all, we have to ask the question: how far have we come with processing here in Switzerland?
There was a very good congress on April 6 in Bern.
I can only refer to the numerous excellent comments there.
I mainly spoke about this there too.
We must never forget that from a legal point of view, from the point of view of the people involved, there have never been such
massive restrictions in the history of Switzerland, and I would say never before in the history of any democratic country, on
all the fundamental rights that we have in our constitutions.
And that is so difficult for every single person.
We're talking here about the obligation to stay at home, deprivation of liberty, harmful measures, masks being
put on regularly, especially for children for months on end. Allowing yourself to be pushed into vaccination.
Freedom of faith and conscience was massively restricted.
I see a church dignitary here.
I am very pleased that you are here.
A very warm welcome, Mr. Bishop, I presume.
Priests and pastors were forbidden to receive more believers in their church than a certain minimum number. And at
Easter of all times. And this went on for weeks and months.
That was a massive, serious encroachment on freedom of belief and conscience.
And ultimately the entire list of our freedoms was affected in a serious way for a large
part of the population and for a long time.
And we are talking about the greatest possible encroachment on fundamental rights that has ever taken place in Switzerland.
And that means the greatest possible intervention in the economy as well.
When SNB Chairman Thomas Jordan raised his warning finger back in May 2020 and said: Watch out, watch out, we're about to crack the
100 billion mark in support funds for those who are restricted in their business activities,
then we must also take this factor into account.
And that means that the state is accountable to its citizens for such massive interventions of this magnitude.
And this has not happened to date and we must mention this before we talk about new laws, before we talk about a new WHO pact.
We only had excuses.
We had this parameter PCR, which was known from the beginning, I remember the legendary podium in Aarau on August 14, said member
of the Federal Council's Covid-19 task force, Professor Marcel Tanner, President of the Academy of Sciences, who
said clearly in response to a question from Samuel Eckert:
Yes, so look, a PCR test does not provide a clinical diagnosis. That's the point. So it's
wrong that a positive test proves a disease.
We know all that. In short, I just want to say that everyone who needed to know, and the Federal Council
needed to know, has been aware of this since the summer.
Incidentally, the Federal Supreme Court also stated this in 2021 in this decision, which you are probably all familiar with.
And how arbitrary, how downright absurd this whole system was, was demonstrated to everyone in
our ARENA discussion program on January 7, 2022.
Ignazio Cassis, then President of the Swiss Confederation and a doctor by profession, said: Anyone who dies in a car
accident and is coronavirus-positive is a coronavirus victim.
And then the presenter wondered and asked and yes, Cassis said: Yes, that's the case, that's
what the WHO has done through its classification.
And all of this was actually proposed by the WHO, it didn't come out of the blue, including the classification of Covid cases.
And our media, our politicians, have only ever reported with absolute figures.
It's to be expected that in a flu year in a country with so many people over 80, over 90, slightly more of that age group
die, but in relative numbers you couldn't see the pandemic.
All of this leads to a defense against reappraisal.
And I have written down what I consider to be the simplest formula for you here, which has been held against me time and again
by the courts, but which also applies to society as a whole.
And I also hear it again and again from all my colleagues and friends, who tell me: Look, in times of pandemics,
the authorities should be given more discretionary powers.
And as long as the authorities adhere to the WHO guidelines, we cannot and should not question this. Something like that.
Yes, and this starting point makes it clear what an extremely key role the WHO has when
it declares a state of pandemic emergency.
Even in the past.
People are turning away and the courts are turning away from their constitutional duty
of review and letting the WHO have its way.
That was already the case in the past.
Yes, and that's why these most serious interventions ever have not been dealt with to this day.
And I would like to point out that we have a very young constitution in Switzerland.
This is a newly updated constitution from the year 99.
It therefore has a special democratic legitimacy.
And if you look at Article 2, what is the purpose of the Confederation?
Why does Switzerland exist in legal terms?
Then you will find, as you can also read in the materials on the new Federal Constitution,
that there are four equally important goals.
So, the one of safety under the Covid field is one.
Then there is the protection of freedom with the long list of fundamental rights at the beginning.
Protection of the community, i.e. no splitting of the community and protection of welfare.
And now you can guess, is one of these goals more important than another?
No, the doctrine says and the whole story are all of equal value.
Nobody should say that security should always be placed above all else at the expense of freedom.
These are important principles in order to understand the kind of theater we find ourselves in.
And we should also be aware of the principle that the state is there for the citizen and not the citizen for the state.
And this was said over 2,000 years ago by a well-known lawyer and Roman senator, Cicero, who stated quite simply,
quite succinctly, that the state in Roman res publica is the business of the people res populi.
And today we are in a time when we are being told the opposite.
Nobody should make us believe that.
No matter how much we are labeled right-wing extremists.
It is not right-wing extremist to say that the state is there for the people.
That is a matter of course. Good.
And that means that if the Federal Council, parliament, courts, cantons and media refuse to deal with the
situation effectively, then something like what we have experienced now could happen again at any time.
And that's why we have to learn the lessons first.
We must not push ahead with new epidemic legislation, pandemic treaties or
subordination to the EU, but rather work through them.
In order to increase the pressure to bring about a reappraisal, I strongly recommend that you sign the
reappraisal initiative if you have not already done so.
Please, by all means make up for it. Thank you very much.
And I could end the lecture here, because that says it all.
A state that acts without the law is no more legitimate than a band of robbers.
And that's what I tell my children so that they have roughly the right idea of what to
think of the Federal Council and the courts.
They have to completely re-legitimize themselves before they can regain my trust, the trust of my family. Good.
Very importantly, and unfortunately it is important at the beginning that we take a brief look back, we
must bear in mind that this recommendation of mRNA injections did not come out of the blue.
It wasn't the health ministers themselves who came up with this, it came from the WHO. And until recently,
all these recommendations were still on the homepage in such blatant clarity.
It also says something small for you to read, but it also says that Covid-19 vaccines were subjected
to rigorous testing. Subject to rigorous testing.
This is blatant misinformation.
It is blatant misinformation from the very international organization that says it alone is
allowed to determine what is true and what is false.
Yes, and here are a few more examples.
And that's why I filed a criminal complaint against Swissmedic back in July 2022 on the basis of almost a year of teamwork with
my team, but also with excellent support from external experts, because we in
Switzerland, in Switzerland we have people in charge.
We have a law that defines the responsibility of Swissmedic.
And this Swissmedic is equipped with experts and the means to recognize that these are
toxins and not vaccines. Toxins, not vaccines.
And I can now say this so easily and in a nutshell because I have been working on it for two years
and because my evidence can be read on the Internet.
As I said, I was only able to do this thanks to my excellent team of Dr. Markus Zollinger, Kati Schepis, the rest
of my team and around 12 to 15 professors from German-speaking and English-speaking countries.
And I would like to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for this sensational work.
And we have demonstrated that there. Particularly in the updated version, which you can find on the Internet, it was
clear from the outset, it was clear from the outset to all the regulatory authorities that this could not work.
This is an experiment. You have no control over what exactly is produced in the body, in what quantity, quality and for how long.
We knew all this from the start. They allowed it to happen anyway.
And I urge you to at least read the summary.
Executive Summary. There are only 20 pages.
And for those who prefer to hold something in their hands, there is a print version, available outside, for 20 francs.
It contains everything you need to know, with introductory words from the most important supporting professors.
One of them is here today, Prof. Stefan Hockertz, followed by Prof. Martin Haditsch,
Prof. Sönnichsen and Michael Palmer and others.
It is available here.
And that is also a means of exerting pressure in order to drive the reappraisal forward.
Because we see, what do we see?
The fact that mRNA vaccination plays a central role in the Epidemics Act and in the new pandemic agreements.
This is the basis for all future vaccinations, including in the area of antimicrobial
resistance, as Dr. Heiko Schöning mentioned earlier.
Yes, and why is that so worth emphasizing?
This is important because we are talking about experimental substances here.
And I have, it's not just that no attempts have been made.
There are three or four other aspects that explain why this is a highly experimental process.
In German, you have no idea what the end result will be.
And as a civilization, as a civilization since the Second World War, we thought we would never allow that to happen again.
That is why we have created the Nuremberg Code and, in legal form, this International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 7, which applies in all circumstances, including in crisis situations in the event of a public emergency.
And this, this mandatory protection against participation, involuntary participation in experiments, has been broken millions
of times because people have been given the wrong information.
They were deceived and put under pressure.
That is the starting point that we all face.
And I'm just taking a look into Switzerland, into the future.
This is an excerpt from the Epidemics Act, the newly proposed Epidemics Act.
There is a new Art. 6c, para. 1, lit. b.
And the Federal Council wants to be allowed to oblige doctors and pharmacists to administer such experimental
substances to people as a quasi-learning from the past.
So he wants to oblige doctors to vaccinate people without sufficient information.
Yes, and here we are right in the middle of it.
We must first consider what the powers of the World Health Organization are.
Very nicely set out in Art. 1 of their constitution:
The purpose of the World Health Organization is to help all peoples achieve the best possible state of health.
You know right away what that excludes.
This excludes giving people false information, pushing people into a substance and recommending substances that are toxic.
So you must not do any harm. That is the most important principle.
It is a managing and coordinating body and only acts in an advisory capacity. That is the starting position.
In other words, it is a matter of advancing the protection of human health according to the best knowledge and best practice
and taking new findings into account and, after such a long phase of crisis, to carry
out a very effective and self-critical review.
The WHO should have done this itself, but it did not.
Moreover, it is not a supranational organization, but only a state-run international organization
and, above all, it has no monopoly on information.
But it has recognized all of this and, incidentally, it must respect fundamental rights and, as I have to
emphasize again and again, it must keep checking itself.
These are very serious transgressions that she has not committed.
It must never cause damage.
It has totally discredited itself over the last four and a half years by repeatedly proposing such toxic substances as the
only solution in the so-called fight against a so-called threat.
And here we come to the first core statement.
The WHO must be denied any legitimacy to usurp or be granted further powers.
It has simply not proven itself, but a full stop is the order of the day here.
Stop! Halt the march! After Action Review in military jargon.
And only when all the mistakes have been worked through can we talk about new agreements, and certainly not before.
Exactly, so the interim result, what I have just said is summarized here again.
Without reappraisal, there are no lessons learned. And certainly no pandemic contracts.
In this context, a vote has just taken place last week in the National Council in Switzerland on whether the Swiss
parliament should be allowed to discuss the pandemic treaty.
And it is a matter of course that you do this.
I would simply like to inform you that the SP and the Green Liberals have spoken out
100 percent against a debate in Parliament.
It really is a democratic disgrace not to want to see what the Federal Council is negotiating.
And fortunately, the majority kept their wits about them and all the other parties insisted
100 percent that a parliamentary debate be held.
As you know, the World Health Organization is only one of 17 sub-organizations.
We are talking about two treaties that are now to be created, a completely new treaty.
There were different versions, the one from October 30 last year, then until a few days ago the one from March 13.
Now a version from April just appeared two or three days ago. Really just a few days ago.
I am talking here about the most essential principles, which are the same in these versions.
Don't worry that I'm comparing different versions here.
It is important to know that this pandemic treaty is a completely new treaty under international law.
And new international treaties are subject to a ratification procedure at national level.
So we need a parliamentary debate.
This is already written in the WHO constitution.
That is so correctly considered.
It simply has to be recognized.
Parliamentarians must also want to hold this debate.
And they have 18 months until December 1, 2025 to do so, provided that a vote is held at all.
Now at the World Health Assembly at the end of May.
This May, which is now upon us.
The second is also an international treaty.
From a purely technical point of view, it is an international treaty.
However, this means that international health regulations have been in place since 2005 and are to be revised.
Revised, we have the only version available so far, officially available, on the WHO website, dated end of November 2022.
And this version is also not a voting version.
One version of the vote would have been to agree on the wording, which articles are to be amended, one
amendment in each case and submit this to the vote.
What do we have? What we have here is a hodgepodge of an incredible number of different variants per
article, which serve as a basis for discussion and negotiation, but could never be used for a vote.
That's what we and I have always talked about over the last two years or so.
So, what else do we have? Then we have an unofficial text that is somewhat weakened in terms of
content, but it has not been published publicly.
And here, too, we do not have a final version, a version of which one could say that we are now submitting it to the
World Health Organization for approval, that is the basis.
No, this is not suitable as a basis for voting.
So, important to know, these health regulations are designed as purely technical regulations according to the WHO constitution.
And that alone is the justification for saying that we can accept this within the World Health Assembly with a simple quorum, i.e.
51 percent, a majority vote of all member states, in contrast to the treaty, which
requires a two-thirds quorum, a higher threshold.
So, and here they say, no, these are just technical regulations, it's about standards and little things that nobody is
interested in anyway, where the doctors are glad that they are written somewhere so that they can look them up.
That is the only reason for this incredibly privileged treatment.
Incidentally, Switzerland's chief negotiator, Nora Kronig, referred to this in an interview in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung last
December, and said that, yes, these are only minor adjustments and therefore there is no need to discuss them, to inform
and certainly not to put them to a vote ... of the population.
Yes, and I will of course show you right now that everything else is the case, everything else is right.
Here, this privileged treatment.
The most important aspect is that these adjustments should enter into force automatically
twelve months after they have been adopted.
These are just technical adjustments.
And for purely administrative or technical adjustments, that may be fine.
But not for adjustments that have serious consequences for us in terms of content.
So, to summarize here, adaptation of an existing international treaty, simple more.
WHO constitution does not speak of an actual ratification and therefore we have not been informed about it at all.
And everything I have seen so far, the questions from parliamentarians, from Swiss
parliamentarians to the Federal Council, including Ms. Nora Kronig, what does it say, what do they want?
Nothing came back at all. There was no content, no real clarification from the Federal Council.
So we are still, as a population, ignorant of this content.
And that is why it is so important to hold this event.
Now, there is another important point to bear in mind, namely that such adjustments may only be voted on if the
World Health Assembly has been presented with this final voting version at least four months in advance.
So for a vote at the end of May, that would be the final version at the end of January 2024.
But that is not available. We only hear, we negotiate, we negotiate, we negotiate
... So, that means it would be against the WHO's own rules of the game - that's in Article 55, paragraph 2 of the health
regulations - it would be against the WHO's own rules of procedure if they wanted to vote on it now at the end of May.
And accordingly, Dr. Silvia Behrendt and her organization, Global Health Responsibility Agency, wrote an open letter to Tedros, to
the Secretary-General, accusing him of exactly that and saying: You are responsible for compliance with WHO procedural rules.
You cannot allow these adjustments to be voted on in a few weeks' time without anyone, a state, having had the opportunity to think
internally about what these adjustments actually mean for us.
And so what we are doing here is a bit like reading coffee grounds, because all we can do is interpret these adaptation
proposals and note that so far a Swiss negotiating delegation has never said, has never really said, yes, we do not like these
adaptation proposals, we absolutely want to protect human rights, we want the principle of separation of powers to be taken into
account, we want this unbelievable element of arbitrary power, this excessive power of the WHO, we absolutely want to restrict
it by means of a supervisory or control authority and, above all, we must never allow the WHO alone to determine which information
is correct and which is incorrect in the entire health sector.
I have never heard that from the mouth of any magistrate in Switzerland.
But you should have said that because you wouldn't agree with it.
And that's why we need to talk about it.
Yes, the assessment criteria are very simple at first.
First and foremost, we as citizens have to ask, was an effective reappraisal carried out at all? Yes or no?
And secondly, were the formal WHO codes of practice followed? Yes or no?
And because no, it means that it must not be voted on. It's as simple as that.
Not even via the pandemic treaty, because they are linked.
They refer to each other very closely. The new pandemic treaty and the adaptation of the
health regulations are very closely intertwined.
In other words, if you are not allowed to vote on one, then you are not allowed to vote on
the other, because they are logically linked.
So that means there's no need to rush into the next dilemma. There's no need at all.
We need to force a veto here, pointing this out to our politicians.
And then, by the way, we have a very well-regarded and actually well-functioning democracy in Switzerland.
And this can be seen in numerous regulations. And for the most part, this has not worked so badly in the past.
And it would be too technical if I were to point it all out now.
But to put it simply, all these provisions that lead to or answer the question - Are we as a population
allowed to participate in the creation of a law? - are always based on the same starting point.
Namely, to what extent will a law or an international treaty ultimately interfere with our legal situation, and to what
extent will the government's authority to act be curtailed
and how much interference is there in the entire structure of power? - As defined by our constitution,
in the architecture of the separation of powers.
So, the stronger this intervention is, the stronger the right to have a say.
And we find this in various provisions.
Art. 164 is somewhat larger here, which simply says that legislation always means that the people should have a say
at least within the framework of the optional referendum.
The crucial question is whether the WHO will be able to restrict even fundamental principles of our constitution in the future.
And there are fundamental principles.
If you've graduated from school anytime in the last 230 years, then it hasn't escaped your notice. Yes?
Then it has not escaped your notice that in all our democracies we try to prevent abuse of power and arbitrariness as best we can
through the separation of powers, the principle of democracy, the principle of legality and the protection of fundamental rights.
We have this somewhat more precisely in our constitution here.
These principles are all very clearly formulated and underpinned by statutory implementation provisions.
The separation of powers with its rich case law and the principle of legality has replaced the principle of arbitrariness.
Human rights must be effectively protected.
There must be no censorship.
Yes, the cantons are basically autonomous.
And at their level, they manage health policy independently.
And the state must be able to set its own priorities and not be told which virus mutation it has to chase after before
it can use its money for schools or its own hospitals again.
In short, this is a kind of control grid that we, but especially the politicians, the lawyers, all those responsible who
are decision-makers, must set up, in addition to scientific control grids and medical control grids, of course.
But these are objective criteria that we can definitely talk about.
So, and I mean, my credo in all the lectures is to show you that the most essential pillars of the constitution
are unfortunately becoming suspendable (deductible).
And so we have to ask you, all citizens, dear fellow human beings, whether you agree at all that powers should be
handed over to such a high level without you ever having the chance to take these powers back again.
In a nutshell, that's what this is all about.
And a mandatory referendum is the technical implementation.
Very briefly, we have these two contracts.
A simple majority is sufficient for the adaptation of the health regulations because it is supposedly only of a technical
nature; the pandemic treaty requires a two-thirds majority.
We are talking about the planned vote at the end of May, the last week of May, i.e. in around five weeks' time.
And then the adjustments to the international health regulations should automatically come into force.
In contrast, the new treaty requires a ratification procedure.
So, what is the rough content?
I can only explain the rough content so casually, but it's a huge business.
A real pandemic industry is being established here.
That is very well thought out.
So if you read this yourself, you'll understand.
It starts here under the title, it has been said that the worst thing that could happen to us under Covid
was that we could not provide everyone with the same amount of vaccine at the same time.
Distributive justice has not worked.
The term equity was created for this purpose.
Aequity is supposed to be distributive justice.
And they said it was so bad, it was so dangerous, many more millions of people could have died, we have to
give the WHO the authority to decide. Okay, these are the products that are being produced.
So we're talking about vaccines, mRNA-based vaccines, diagnostic agents, all kinds of pandemic products in general.
The WHO should be allowed to decide all this.
The countries have to provide the WHO with a quasi inventory, a permanent online inventory, so that the WHO
can check, okay, Switzerland has to provide a bit more, otherwise deliver to Africa.
And the Africans have a little less, they need a little more support.
This is hidden in the term Aequity.
Then the states must - and this is very, very, really, how shall I put it, clearly recognizable in the new
Epidemics Act - they must permanently monitor the environment.
Possible pathogens can lie dormant anywhere, they can lie dormant in humans, they can lie dormant in the environment, they can lie
dormant in wastewater, they can lie dormant in the animal world.
And there is actually the abstruse provision in the proposed amendment to the Epidemics Act:
The Federal Council should be allowed to oblige all institutions to test wastewater for pathogens.
This is done using the genomic sequencing method.
So you somehow go down to the atomic level and try to fake evidence of a threat with a PCR test from waste water -
again, reading coffee grounds - on the basis of which the Federal Council should then be allowed to declare emergency law.
That is the principle of arbitrariness.
And that makes me shudder as a lawyer, because I generally abhor arbitrariness and even more so as a basis for emergency law.
That must not happen.
So it is a really almost psychotic obligation to permanently monitor all wastewater and without any containment.
The whole thing sails under the title One Health.
The overall health of the planet - everything is connected - animals, humans, the environment, the earth and it goes as far
as climate change, even climate change, even the CO2 content should be allowed to provide a reason for a state of emergency.
And the whole thing has to be exchanged, the findings, the pathogens found, on an international database.
You can watch it there. And here it comes.
Research and development is now to be carried out.
In other words, research and development into possible pathogens that could become even more serious.
This is gain-of-function. This is where the artificial aggravation of pathogens is concealed as part of the new pandemic treaty.
So it is here, and as we know, Covid-19 has various indications, according to various scientists, that Covid
-19 could not be found in nature or could have arisen - Covid-19 as a SARS-CoV-2 pathogen.
In short, the states are encouraged to contribute to the aggravation of these pathogens themselves.
Then there is the famous DCX list.
This is the best guess, so to speak. So the guess as to which pathogen could strike next.
Pandemic products are already being made available on the basis of this pathogen, vaccines under the title Emergency Use Listing.
And all states should set up emergency licenses. Ladies and gentlemen, we have not had
emergency permits in the formal sense up to now.
We still had certain minimum hurdles in all our countries in Europe and in Switzerland.
But under the title of emergency authorization, which is available in the USA, only one
competent authority needs to declare an emergency.
And then there is no longer any need for studies on efficacy or safety.
Nothing at all, because it's an emergency.
That is the military idea behind it.
In short, this is a huge economic cycle that exists regardless of an emergency scenario.
And here, in addition to this, are the health regulations that bring the whole thing into focus - brought into
focus by the declaration of a state of emergency, the Public Health Emergencies of International Concern.
As I said, the World Health Director can declare this emergency for any reason in the future.
And our expectation would be exactly the opposite.
We have seen the global health emergency last three years and three months.
So the logical consequence would be that such an unjustified state of emergency can be ended,
that it can be reviewed and so on and so forth.
The opposite is the case.
And then the other follows.
You will see the word Infodemics in the center of both contracts.
Infodemics is a very decisive means of domination - I must conclude - a very decisive means of domination of the WHO.
But look, an international organization that not only in these treaties, but also everywhere else on its homepage - you can
google WHO and then Infodemics - everywhere, is virtually all over it, has the signature, we alone may determine the truth.
We are allowed to say which substances are effective and we are allowed to say how long the state of emergency will last.
That is pure arbitrariness. This is Louis XIV.
This is pre-French revolution, absolutist rule.
This is in no way compatible with our constitution.
And you will find this in both contracts and on the homepage.
And that alone, this dogma of being allowed to define the truth yourself and to practice or trigger censorship, that alone is
already a massive violation of the fundamental principle that we need in every
democracy, namely free opinion and free information.
And if you take away free opinion and free information, then you don't have free science and you
don't have fair justice and you don't have democracy.
And that must never be allowed to happen.
Well, I mainly wanted to give you the right perspective.
Because you know, with all these contract regulations, it takes two hours and in the end
the non-lawyer is most likely to be confused.
But now you have the essential measurement criteria that can also help you in discussions and that enable you
to say: Stop, first of all there has to be a reappraisal!
And secondly, the rules of the WHO itself must be adhered to.
And thirdly, according to its own objectives, the WHO is not authorized to cause harm at all.
And fourthly, watch the other presentations by Philipp Kruse.
Here are the other details.
I'm sorry I didn't make it all the way through and thank you very much.
Many thanks Philipp.
Always very informative.