The WHO pandemic treaty and the revised International Health Regulations must be stopped!
This was the unanimous tenor at the WHO symposium in Zurich on April 20, 2024.
Internationally renowned speakers explained the dramatic impact the new WHO regulations
will have on health and freedom of expression.
These are to be presented to the 194 member states for adoption at the 77th World Health
Assembly from May 27 - June 1, 2024 in Geneva.
Urs Hans was the initiator of the information conference,
former Zurich Cantonal Councillor and President of Public Eye on Science.
Public Eye on Science makes science transparent and knowledge accessible to the general public.
You can now see a summary of the various presentations.
The aim is to reaffirm twelve reasons why the WHO pandemic treaty and the revised
international health regulations must be stopped.
You will find the individual presentations in full length under the links shown in the references.
1. because the WHO violates fundamental rights.
Respect for human dignity and human rights has been removed by the WHO.
They should no longer exist.
Anyone, anyone, ladies and gentlemen, who has even a shred of understanding for what humanity is
about, for what concerns us, cannot agree with this.
The concept of a pandemic is being taken to its limits, climate change, all of this, loss of biodiversity, everything is being
elevated to a pandemic so that the WHO can ultimately take over sovereignty and the
individual governments, yes, abolish themselves.
They are abolishing themselves.
2. because the WHO violates the fundamental principle of democracy - free opinion and free information.
And I have brought you two examples.
One example: the loss of sovereignty.
- This is actually today's topic, although, as I said, I will focus on mRNA technology in particular later on.
The real question is when we lose our self-determination - yes, of course that also happens through this gene
therapy. You'll notice that I don't call it vaccination.
Why? I'll tell you in a moment.
If we lose self-determination, then we are in the greatest crisis of our ego, then we are no longer ourselves.
And that is obviously the aim.
This is achieved through supervised thinking, which then manifests itself in nervousness, irritability, excessive demands, anxiety,
burnout, depression, all the things we have just heard about.
And ultimately, if we lose sovereignty - and that's why this congress today.
In Switzerland, we have a direct democracy.
With us, the people decide and no one else.
And health policy is actually the responsibility of the cantons, not the federal government.
And since Covid, the federal government has presumed to centralize and direct more and more.
And we have to turn this wheel back.
The pandemic pact would mean that we would be deprived of our liberal, democratic rights when it comes to health.
That's what we want
probably not.
Namely, to what extent will a law or an international treaty ultimately interfere with our legal situation,
the extent to which the government's authority to act is 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.
Article 164 is somewhat larger here, which simply says: legislation always means that the people should have a say,
at least within the framework of the optional referendum.
The crucial question is: Will the WHO possibly even be able to restrict fundamental
principles of our constitution in the future?
And all the arguments that everything had to happen very quickly
and that there was so much you didn't know
and that there was no choice but to simply enact emergency legislation,
I personally find this very, very revealing for three reasons.
Firstly, they show that the vast majority of decision-makers were or are not prepared to carry out a risk
analysis with a clear head in the event of a crisis and then take targeted protective measures.
But that in case of doubt, in case of crisis, they are prepared to throw all these wonderful
constitutional principles that they should represent overboard.
Secondly, I believe that it has shown that very, very many decision-makers do not want to take
responsibility at all, but that they are only too willing to hand over responsibility in the event of a crisis.
And thirdly, I think it has shown that for some decision-makers at least, democracy is actually something very troublesome.
And conveniently, the solution to all these problems is now available.
And the solution means international organizations such as the WHO and supranational
courts such as the European Court of Human Rights.
If the national politicians do not want to take responsibility, then it will be taken away from them.
This health treaty, these international health regulations, are not just about politics, they are about more.
I think that is also the common denominator.
My colleague Marcus Riva touched on this.
We also want to run a professional campaign.
We can't win over the other side, or those who have ticked differently so far, just by
constantly dwelling on the vaccination issue.
But it's about much more than that.
This is really about independence, sovereignty and ultimately the core of the freedom of
the individual and of a state like Switzerland.
That is what this international pandemic pact is all about.
No, it's not about isolation.
It is important that we continue to be sovereign and make our own decisions.
Because with this WHO treaty, and with others, it really is a matter of getting down to business.
I have said it, it
It is about our sovereignty, it is about our independence, it is about defending our democratic rights.
That's it.
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 come to a conclusion.
A very decisive means of domination by the WHO.
But look, an international organization that not only in these treaties, but also everywhere else on their homepage,
You can google WHO and then Infodemic, everywhere, it's virtually all over it, the handwriting is on
the wall, we get to determine the truth on our own.
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 absolutist rule before the French Revolution.
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.
There is a WHO paper, I read it, I didn't dream it.
The idea is that misinformation, i.e. those who think differently and rationally and
scientifically, should be marginalized and silenced.
We also heard that recently from Ms. von der Leyen in relation to the EU.
Another topic.
We should monitor and create new authorities.
Just hearing that makes me feel horrible.
We need to reduce the authorities, not increase them!
From my point of view and from my observations, I think that the mass media play a worrying role in this context.
They are somehow an extension of the global headquarters.
So this dictatorship that wants to enforce centralism, I think they are the ones who carry messages out into the world.
And they have also created an atmosphere in which a different opinion, a different view, can no longer be discussed in public.
We really have experienced that if I don't have the same opinion when it comes to corona or the war in
Ukraine, then I can hardly say that in public anymore.
Either I'm a conspiracy theorist or I'm extremely right-wing or I'm a Putin apologist or I don't know what.
And in a democracy, that is a situation that cannot be maintained.
Even at the risk of being labeled conspiracy theorists, we must not lose our courage.
We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated.
I also believe that we are not conspiracy theorists, but that we have uncovered the conspiracy.
3. because the WHO violates its own principle of helping all peoples to achieve the best possible state of health.
We must first consider what the powers of the World Health Organization are. Very
nicely set out in Article 1 of its 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 can't 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, 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 reappraisal.
The WHO should have done this itself, but it did not.
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.
4. because the WHO recommendations were blatant misinformation with devastating consequences.
It is essential, and unfortunately important at the beginning, that we take a brief look back.
We have to keep in mind that this recommendation of mRNA injection did not come out of the blue.
It wasn't the health ministers themselves who came up with this, it came from the WHO.
Vaccination sounded so positive - gene therapy.
Incidentally, you have now admitted it yourself.
If we had called the whole thing gene therapy, we wouldn't have found a single person who would have had it injected into them.
Years ago, a certain party, which is the same color as the lawn, I refuse to say it,
warned against eating genetically modified corn.
Ladies and gentlemen, most of what we ingest goes out again via the digestive system.
Now they are the ones who are shouting the loudest for gene therapy to simply be injected into the
muscle and find its way into the vascular system.
You go into the store, see a car parked there, the car is really great.
They say, "Wow, what a great paint job and I'm sure it's really fast." They say, "Here, give me the key, I want to test drive it.
You get in, turn the key, the car doesn't make a sound.
And what does the seller say?
I know that.
I know that it doesn't drive.
Look at the beautiful paintwork, the steering wheel and the seats.
Now let's transfer.
They knew that this gene therapy, this vaccination, would not work.
And what do you tell us?
Well, not so severe courses.
A vaccination must protect against transmission and a vaccination must protect against the disease. Period.
Incidentally, this is a WHO definition.
Vaccination, as we have heard scientifically before, prevents neither the transmission nor the outbreak of the disease.
So this is not a vaccination. Period.
A scientific discourse was systematically prevented in Switzerland.
Anyone who said anything to the contrary was ostracized.
And the worst thing about it all is that they knew that there were other therapeutic
modalities outside of the so-called vaccination.
They were either hushed up, banned or marginalized.
What is also important to know is that Covid is mostly, but not always, and of course we see that with these
side effects, harmless and I have the statistics here.
0 to 70 years 0.095 % to 16 years 0.00035 %.
And especially in this age segment, it is a crime to use vaccinations, so-called, where the side
effect rate is a power of 10 or 100 higher than that.
What we also know, and a new study has just come out, is that vaccinated people, so-called vaccinated people,
cause many more side effects and, above all, deaths.
Large parts of the relevant research are deliberately falsified.
And that's not even new,
Ioannidis has long objected to this, especially in medical research.
Large sections of the population were bombarded with this half-true evidence.
And you have to say, who wants to believe us, right?
They can even take Nobel Prize winners out of circulation, discredit them.
I mean, a second Bhattacharya, is a very important health economist in America, he was very critical, you
couldn't see his Twitter files anymore, you couldn't see the entries, you realized afterwards.
He was just somehow, not blocked, but made a bit invisible.
We had an all-time low in clinic occupancy in 2020, which was so drastic that dozens of clinics were closed.
An annual average under-occupancy rate of 13% was recorded. And in spring it was as high as 30%. A new
hospital was also built in Berlin to great show effect.
However, it was never put into operation.
There was never a patient inside.
It has since been demolished.
Cost 50 million. That's just Berlin.
You can find this on the website of the Federal Ministry of Health.
The Bundestag and the Bundesrat set up an expert committee at an early stage, consisting of scientists hand-picked by them.
So not some conspiracy theorists like Hockertz and Homburg, but everything - the boss with an SPD party book, a lawyer.
So, what did this committee of experts say after two years?
The report is also linked at the Federal Ministry of Health, decisive sentence on page 70:
There is no discernible link between the measures and the incidence. Well.
Next point.
After the entire population had been vaccinated once, twice, three times, brave MEPs managed to elicit from the EMA,
the European Medical Agency, the sentence that this experimental mRNA therapy does not protect against transmission.
It was said in writing, was all the rage on our social media at the time, only, I said it from the
beginning because Pfizer didn't originally claim it.
You have to imagine that.
If you are a medicine manufacturer, then for advertising reasons you will definitely say, look,
this has transmission protection, if it really does.
But they didn't say that.
It was also not tested at all for transmission protection in the approval study.
There was nothing in the approval.
It has been a pure invention of marketing agencies and politicians to say protect yourself and others.
And the various forms of compulsory vaccination have been based on this outright fairy tale, not to say lie.
Much worse in Germany than in your country.
In our country, students have been exmatriculated if they didn't want to be vaccinated.
There was an explicit vaccination requirement for all medical staff, even if they only worked in the hospital's payroll office.
And to this day, there is this compulsory vaccination for soldiers, without any reason being given.
It is simply unbelievable.
But if you read the RKI protocols, what does it say?
For example, it says that more people die from influenza than from coronavirus.
The main risk with corona is very old age.
FFP2 masks have no proven effect.
And at the same time, they are saying to the outside world that we have an emergency situation
that has never been seen before in human history.
It has to be said, that was of course meant ironically, the biggest plow, for example, came from the state.
I wrote a cover story about it for Weltwoche.
It was mentioned earlier, the EMA, also Janine Small from Pfizer, also the EU's top vaccination strategist,
Wolfgang Philipp, they admitted to us and said, no, it was misrepresented by politicians in public.
This vaccination is useless, it does not protect.
That was clear from the start.
I then waited and always thought, yes, this is groundbreaking news that they are admitting this.
Now we have been hearing the opposite for months in an absolute barrage, that vaccination is the panacea.
And now they suddenly say, no, no, it wasn't like that.
That was just a joke.
And then I waited.
NZZ, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Tagesanzeiger, Blick, Swiss radio and television.
So when will this groundbreaking news come out?
It simply never came.
Our Federal Councillor, former Federal Councillor Berset, also said that the vaccination is safe, it protects, it is
good, it is of absolutely high quality, it has no side effects.
We all know what the truth is.
Yes, there was a lot more fake news like this from the state media.
You may also remember the video by Marc Walder that I published online in Nebelspalter at the time.
As a journalist, I've often been asked, "What's the situation, is the media controlled or not?
I've always said, no, I've never experienced that.
I think the journalists do it voluntarily, just as they all run in one direction, like lemmings or sheep.
That's what they want, this herd instinct, that's where you feel comfortable, where you
don't stand out, where you're nicely settled in.
But I have to say that in this video by Marc Walder, who is the CEO of the Ringier Group and operates internationally, he said
publicly, i.e. semi-publicly, I made it public, in a video, he said that it should remain in a small circle, that
he had instructed all journalists at the Ringier Group to support the government during the pandemic.
That says everything about the cooperation of this state media complex.
5. because the WHO has recommended substances \(mRNA injections\) that are toxic \(poisonous\).
I no longer have an immune system, completely, there it is again with the blood-brain barrier,
These are all my ... This is my vaccination certificate. Three pages.
I mean, who has three pages of vaccination damage certificates?
These are all diagnoses that are written there.
You have to think about that.
And today I am very proud to be standing here.
I mean, I take 200 capsules a day, but then that's the way it is, but it's better than lying in bed sick and
keeping quiet, because we don't have time to keep quiet.
The doctors have remained silent, the friends have remained silent, the neighbors, but above
all the doctors, the police, the entire state.
But I don't do that.
I was never like this, I was born like this and I will die like this, out loud, saying you are criminals!
I'll go into this in detail in my book, I'm going to start writing a book this year. The therapy will also cover a lot of ground.
But above all, I will share my anger and my disgusting moments in the hospital and the interpersonal encounters I had.
But also from mayor to mayor or something, once you've gone there, why are you banning my demo in my little town here?
Yes, we don't need people like you.
You are a unique case.
I can't listen to this sentence anymore.
After I called for help, in the same week 500, 000 people from Germany who had been
vaccinated contacted me and said that I was ill too.
Yes, Mr. Lauterbach, at what level are we no longer an isolated case?
From 10? From 100? From 1 million? We are over 10 million in Germany!
I would now like to address this question in particular, a genetic code, ladies and gentlemen,
that has been sold to us as a vaccination, yes.
This is a concept that is as wrong as it can be.
A genetic code is injected into the body and the cells are forced to produce a toxic protein.
That is rape, that is a criminal offense.
This is a crime that people have committed against others, so that ultimately their cells produce a poison,
and we have just seen the success of this poison very, very vividly in Katharina's presentation.
Therefore, we are linguistically, we should move to saying to ourselves, this is not a vaccination.
Why did you sell this to us as a vaccination?
Vaccination has a positive character.
Vaccination is something, it's just a little prick, then you're free again.
These are terms with which we were ultimately, yes, seduced from day one,
Led and seduced with false concepts.
Let me summarize again. Very important. These substances that were injected there do not offer any external protection.
The car is not running.
Fredl Fesl once sang so beautifully. Many of you will still know him.
That was a Bavarian singer: "A car that doesn't drive is worth nothing."
A vaccination that does not work is a crime against humanity.
Because these people get Covid.
We have no interruption in the chain of infection, we have severe courses. These are data from the UK.
This means that they are not only completely ineffective. The effectiveness, ladies and gentlemen, is damage
to the psyche, the nervous system and the immune system.
They are macro systems.
It's not just the liver, it's not just the brain, it's not just the kidneys that are damaged.
They are these macro systems.
And when we look at the fact that these macrosystems in our body represent a balance - like body, mind and
soul - then we realize that it is a complete attack on us.
It is not an attack only on the kidneys or only on the heart. Even though we talk a lot about heart problems.
It is an attack on the self. On the nervous system, on the psyche and on the body's defenses.
Last point.
There are an unprecedented number of vaccination side effects.
We know this from the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
This alone has been reported as 50,000 serious losses.
According to the medical literature, the estimated number of unreported cases is 90%. That
would be an extrapolation of 500,000 severe cases.
So not just any redness at the injection site, but what we have seen in the newspapers since then, i.e. young women sitting in
wheelchairs, a woman who had three meters of bowel removed and where the causality to the vaccination is also completely clear.
Nevertheless, the manufacturer will probably get away with it because of these diabolical liability regulations.
As you probably know, there are 17 parliaments in Germany, 16 for the federal states and one for the federal government.
And there could therefore have been 17 committees of inquiry.
However, there has only been one in the federal state of Brandenburg.
And that's because the only party there that wants a clarification is the AfD, because
it was in opposition everywhere at the time.
The deputy head of the PEI was questioned there and she said, close to tears: "When the vaccination campaign started at the
beginning of 2021, we were so overwhelmed, including with death reports. We had to pull staff
from other departments to deal with it at all."
Because what is written here in the eighth line not only means an absolutely unprecedented number of
vaccination side effects, but also calculated per dose.
6. because the release of the mRNA injections is an experimental procedure without knowing what the outcome will be.
What do we know? We don't actually know anything.
And therefore the lawsuit against BioNTech is of course justified, but not far-reaching enough.
We must also sue those who have made common cause with the people who produced the stuff.
In Switzerland, that is Swissmedic. And in Europe it is the former European Medicines Agency.
These are also the people who took part.
And we don't know how the whole thing will be received.
We don't know how it will ultimately be converted, distributed and subsequently excreted.
In other words, we have discussed the topic of pharmacokinetics, which is the terminology behind it. So how
is a substance distributed in the body? We don't know anything about this mRNA technology.
What is even worse is that we know nothing about pharmacodynamics either.
What does pharmacodynamics mean?
In other words, the dose has an effect.
And this is where it gets really exciting.
We contacted Swissmedic here in Switzerland via a vaccination victim and told them how much, after explaining at
length what mRNA technology is. They didn't even know all that.
They really didn't know that.
They believed that the mRNA that is injected into humans is the active ingredient.
No, it's the blueprint.
But it took a long time and then we finally got them to the point where we said: The mRNA is the blueprint and the spike
protein is the substance that actually works in the end, the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient, as they say.
And then came the question, dear Swissmedic: How much of this spike protein in the body, how many micrograms of spike
protein per kilogram of body weight is actually produced?
I still have the e-mail at home signed by Swissmedic.
Very short sentence: We don't know.
We do not know the dose in this case.
We also don't know what interactions with other molecules in the body are involved.
We know nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, I will say it here from the stage quite openly and honestly to the outside world, the cameras
should also be happy to catch this, this is a criminal act.
But it goes on, it doesn't stop there.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thought the whole thing was just RNA. Until McKernan, a scientist from the
USA, proved us wrong and we were able to verify this.
Not only is RNA in this soup injected into people, DNA is also injected into it, which gives us a prolonged mode of action, a
much more intensive mode of action than mRNA alone would have.
A lot of effort has already been put into this.
Incidentally, yes, we must not only speak of RNA, but it is a modified RNA.
This uracil, which normally occurs in it, is a pseudo-uracil, which ultimately makes this RNA much more stable.
This means that we have more stable RNA, longer-acting substances that produce this toxin in our body for much longer.
And you can see from this red arrow that the whole thing is a rape of the cell - that's what a cell is supposed to represent.
This is an intervention, a physiological process, an RNA is introduced, so to speak.
This is the cell nucleus, where the RNA is normally read.
And this rape ultimately produces its own poison.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time in human history that we have produced our own poison within ourselves.
Until now, we have been exposed to toxins in the environment,
Until now, we have been exposed to toxins through our food and clothing.
Now we are in a position to produce the toxin ourselves through this grip, through this intervention here in the cell.
That's why I kept asking.
I wanted to know, to define it a little more precisely, because vaccination skepticism is ... So when the WHO, as professionals
and as the World Health Organization, which has almost all countries as members, makes such a vague
statement and declares people with an opinion to be a threat, then I have to ask what exactly is meant.
So I asked: Does vaccine skepticism also mean vaccine skepticism towards pharmaceutical
companies that have had to pay billions in fines?
Vaccination skepticism towards authorities that approve the premature authorization of novel vaccines?
Vaccination skepticism towards authorities that only insufficiently fulfill drug safety after approval?
Vaccination skepticism towards authorities that do not adequately measure the effectiveness of the novel vaccines,
but nevertheless certify a high level of effectiveness with few data and reporting violations?
I'll cut that short.
The three minutes have already been held against me.
Chat-GPT responds to each of my asked vaccine skepticism points:
Yes, this refers to vaccine skepticism.
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 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 that from the start.
They let it happen anyway.
And I urge you to at least read the summary.
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 believed that we would never allow this to happen again.
And that is why we created the Nuremberg Code and this International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 7, which applies in all circumstances, including in crisis situations and in the event of a public emergency.
And that 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.
7. because the WHO classifications are determined arbitrarily (e.g. pandemic criteria and PCR test).
Switzerland has uncritically adopted the WHO recommendations. That has to be said.
This is important because we never want this to happen again.
Scientifically unproven or pointless or even harmful measures were implemented.
And I think there is no scientific evidence for all these things - compulsory masks, lockdowns.
On the contrary, the PCR test is unsuitable for clinical use. It is only good for the companies.
We had this parameter PCR, which was known from the beginning - I remember the legendary podium in Aarau on August 14, when a
member of the Federal Council's Covid-19 task force, Professor Marcel Tanner, President of the Academy of Sciences, said
clearly in response to a question from Samuel Eckert, yes, so look, a PCR test does not provide a clinical diagnosis.
That is the point, so it is wrong that a positive test proves a disease.
They know all that.
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 that anyone who dies in a car
accident and is coronavirus-positive is a coronavirus casualty.
And then the presenter paused 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.
Next fact.
The press is always talking about corona deaths or, even worse, Covid deaths.
But there is a well-known video of our RKI boss Wieler. He says that we count everyone who
has died with a positive test as a corona death.
The positive test may have been taken weeks or months ago.
In other words, if someone tests positive for the common cold, they will recover, usually after
a week, with medication after just seven days.
And three months later, he crashes his motorcycle into a tree. Then we have another corona death in the statistics.
What I have said is underlined by the fact that these - I prefer to call them PCR deaths, that is a neutral formulation.
No, that's really neutral.
So they are dead and they have a positive PCR test.
Period. Nothing more is known. There was almost never an autopsy.
And there is actually the abstruse provision in the proposed amendment to the Epidemics Act that the
Federal Council should be allowed to oblige all institutions to test wastewater for pathogens.
This is done using the genomic sequencing method.
So somehow you go down to the atomic level and try to fake evidence of a threat with a PCR test from waste water, also
here coffee grounds reading, 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.
Then there is the famous Disease X list. This is the Best Guess, so to speak.
So the guess is 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 yet had emergency approvals in the formal sense.
We still had certain minimum hurdles in all our countries in Europe and Switzerland. But under the title of "emergency
authorization" - in the USA we have this - only one competent authority needs to declare an emergency and then there is no
longer any need for an investigation into 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.
But my doctor once told me that you can only tell the difference between a cold and a cold by doing a test anyway.
The symptoms are always the same.
The older ones of you will remember this advertisement Raider becomes Twix, nothing else changes.
And this is also how you can interpret the transition from influenza to corona and now back to influenza.
There was nothing to see. No pandemic, no state of emergency, nothing.
But that was only due to the measures. Wasn't it? Prevention paradox.
And if we now take a look at the WHO reporting, not these strange model calculations from London, but the real figures.
Then they say - calculated over the entire pseudo-pandemic from 2020 to 2022 - the excess
mortality rate in Sweden was lower than in Germany.
In Sweden, churches and stores were not closed for a single day.
We had a total of eight months of lockdowns in Germany, which was worse than yours.
First two months, then another six months.
We even had curfews for married couples to protect against infection.
They were allowed to cuddle together in bed at night, but they weren't allowed to go out the front door together.
You have to imagine that.
This fifth fact proves very conclusively that it was not due to the great measures, i.e. the
excesses of the rule of law, but had other reasons.
And I can only tell you that we are dealing with organized crime, and that has been the case for centuries and millennia.
They are just people we are dealing with and I will also name people and faces today.
The topic of this WHO symposium is of course also the pandemic treaty and I would also like to use the 20 minutes to address
precisely this topic, because a new clause has also been incorporated into this new WHO health treaty,
this pandemic treaty, which has not yet been widely publicized and taken up by others.
And this is a very important clause, because the WHO is preparing the whole world for a bacterial terror.
That is why you must or should remember the abbreviation AMR.
AMR stands for antimicrobial resistance.
So now we are not dealing with the question of whether we are dealing with benefactors, but with an association of evildoers.
This has been proven.
And that is the big difference to many others.
There is a clause in the WHO treaty under Article 4, now also under paragraph 3h. And something has been
introduced there that looks inconspicuous for the first time.
It's all about AMR, about antimicrobial resistance.
And in short, it says that all contracting states in the world, i.e. almost all states, must
now prepare themselves to take countermeasures.
This means that if there is a major bacterial panic, just as there has been a viral panic, then they will have to
come up with a plan to lock everyone away, for example, in order to capture the genetic code. And much, much more.
8. because the WHO has neither undertaken nor ordered a self-critical review after the Covid pandemic.
And we should be careful not to drive the wedge further between unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Otherwise we have no chance of coming to terms with the situation. Otherwise we won't make any progress together.
I want to give hope to other vaccine victims. That is my pathology.
Every hospital that has operated on me takes pathology. What did I do?
Never mind, I called a cab - I couldn't drive - to the clinic:
"I want my pathology."
"That's not possible!"
"Yes, that's possible. Otherwise there'll be palaver here."
This is from various hospitals.
And I sent this to Professor Burkhardt.
I said, please, dear professor, take a look and see if I'm really not sick from Pfizer or if I'm right after all.
And then came the result.
That the endothelia have died. And that it is demonstrable.
And to the shame of Germany, Switzerland and the whole of Europe;
There is not a single laboratory at the moment that does pathology for vaccine-injured or dead people.
Any pathologist who sees this now should be ashamed.
This examination is very easy to color.
But nobody does it.
Nobody has the balls to say: "Here are 200 dead people in hospital. I'll investigate and then say they're
sick because of Pfizer so that people can finally sue.".
Nobody dares to do that.
And I say to you, it is not good if you remain silent.
Because those who remain silent join in. Every single one of us.
What have I achieved on my own now?
Many say she hasn't achieved anything at all.
I go totally relaxed to the doctors who have not treated me before and take with me: my vaccination certificate, my
pathology, my current spike values and my therapy, which helps.
And go to the doctors, think about it.
Don't you have your whole practice full of vaccine damage?
Don't you want to help them? Yes or no?
The attempt to virtually silence corona when the war in Ukraine began has failed.
Now the first figures are returning to the talk shows and talking about coming to terms with the past.
By Enquete Commission, which is such a shallow reappraisal with a little wine.
And the lid is not on.
And it's no wonder that the lid doesn't fit,
because everything they did was not permitted.
This brings me to the end.
I think the whole thing is best categorized as mass psychosis.
The term dictatorship seems wrong to me.
Because in a dictatorship, people are forced to do something they don't want to do.
While in totalitarianism, they participate voluntarily.
And you have to realize that a lot of people took part voluntarily.
Particularly in Germany, with its block-keeper mentality.
And the fact that politics has basically turned millions of people into accomplices, for example restaurant owners
who have to kick out guests who are not vaccinated and the like, entrepreneurs who have to monitor their employees.
The fact that you basically have millions of accomplices also makes it very difficult to come to an explanation.
Jurisprudence, media and science have failed as a whole.
Everyone would probably see it that way now.
A real reappraisal is absolutely undesirable.
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. Instead, we must work through it.
In order to increase the pressure to bring about a reappraisal, I highly recommend that you sign the reappraisal initiative
if you have not already done so. Please do so at any rate.
Thank you very much.
Exactly, so the interim result, what I have just said is summarized here again.
There are no lessons without reappraisal. Lessons learned. And certainly no pandemic contracts.
9. because the formal WHO procedural rules are not observed.
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 that would be for a vote at the end of May, that would be the final version at the end of June.
Sorry, end of January 2024, but this is not available.
We just hear, we negotiate, we negotiate, we negotiate.
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, and it would be against the WHO's own rules of procedure if we were to vote on this at the end of May.
And accordingly, Dr. Silvia Behrendt and her organization, Global Health Responsibility Agency, have written 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.
10. because it is an actual health dictatorship
The WHO has seized sole sovereignty of interpretation, excessive power and the monopoly on information.
The WHO wants more influence. It wants commitment.
Up to now we have been of a recommendatory nature.
And what you want from these contracts is commitment.
And in a way that undermines our sovereignty.
There are currently international regulations. The health regulations.
We have to actively refuse until a certain date.
So we have to take action.
Then there is the pandemic pact. You should sign it.
And we have to prevent that from being signed. And that would actually be at the end of May.
And the Federal Council is trying to keep Parliament out of the loop in such a larvaceous, obfuscating way. And hesitates.
And then there are always lies in the commissions. Which is simply not true.
And what is important for us is that the pact must definitely go before Parliament.
Because only then is it eligible for a referendum. And we can vote on it.
That is crucial.
Drug development and sales are then to be centralized.
This means that the WHO makes contracts with pharmaceutical companies.
Of course, the WHO will dig deep into its pockets and help itself.
It is decided where what is developed and which companies participate.
Pricing is controlled and determined.
Nobody has any say in this anymore, especially not the state authorities.
And it generally promotes the acceptance of vaccinations.
You have to take vaccinations into stock every year, and of course they go off again with the expiration date.
Then there is immediate demand again.
It's like a perpetual motion machine for the pharmaceutical industry.
Is good for the pharmaceutical industry.
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 called for 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.
And so what we are doing here is a bit like reading coffee grounds, because all we can do is interpret these adjustment
proposals and note that so far no Swiss negotiating delegation has ever said, never really said,
yes, we don't like these adjustment proposals,
We absolutely want to protect human rights, we want the principle of separation of powers to be taken into account, we want this
incredible arbitrary element, this excessive power of the WHO,
We absolutely want to restrict this by means of a monitoring 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 don't agree with it.
And that's why we need to talk about it.
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, it's 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, distributive justice has not worked.
The term equity was created for this purpose.
Equity is supposed to be distributive justice.
And under this one they said it was so bad, it was so dangerous, many more millions of people could have died.
We must give the WHO the authority to determine, okay, these are the products that are 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.
When I started looking into the One Health Approach, I was very surprised to find that it dates back to 2004,
to a conference at Rockefeller University in New York.
And I would like to read you how they defined it back then,
One Health: Recognizing the link between the health of humans, domestic animals and wildlife, and the threat that disease poses
to people, their food supply and economy, as well as biodiversity to maintain the healthy
environment and functioning ecosystems we all need.
You may have heard of Agenda 2030, which used to be called Agenda 21 or, quite pathetically, Agenda of the 21st Century.
Because it is also based on the One Health approach, although it does not mention the word One Health in its 17 Sustainable
Development Goals, as you may have heard - 17 Sustainable Development Goals - but that is also what it is about, and it
is implicitly mentioned in goal number three of this agenda:
"Ensure a healthy life for all people of all ages and promote their well-being."
The other 16 goals are as euphonious as goal number three, and we are sold a utopia of a perfect
world that is too good to be true, and it is not.
What is important is that we humans should be dazzled by these beautiful words.
Because, and now pay attention, no fewer than 14 of these 17 sustainability goals include
vaccination or immunization as a solution to the problem.
And I will now show you who does this for us.
That's what the UN, United Nations, I call them "unelected nobodies", "unelected zeros".
For these unelected zeros, they echo us daily with their mantras, like the common or greater good;
don't do it for yourself, do it for the common good.
These are collectivist approaches that we have all heard often enough in the coronavirus era.
And for me, the perfidious thing is that the masses don't seem to be prepared to recognize that there can
be no greater good and no greater good than freedom.
And it is precisely this that is to be taken away from us forever.
And that is why I am telling you now that there is no greater good than freedom.
And that is more or less my conclusion
There is no greater good and certainly no pretended common good that justifies the 2030 Agenda, the One Health approach or any
other inhumane agenda that can force us to abandon ourselves.
Freedom is the greatest good and must be defended.
And the answers to all these crises, the apparent salvation that is then presented in the form of a Covid
certificate, for example, have many things in common.
Because they follow a certain logic, and this logic is generally: more surveillance in the name of security, more censorship in the
name of the fight against disinformation, more collectivism in the name of solidarity, more dependency between the state and
corporations in the name of security of supply, more full pharmaceutical supply in the name of health, more control in the
name of climate protection, more networking of people and technology in the name of
progress, in the name of sustainability.
If you think it through to its logical conclusion, all of this can only be achieved with extensive control,
monitoring, centralization and expropriation measures.
And it is not based on human needs, but firstly on an abstract idea of an ideal world in which total
health, total safety and total climate idyll prevail.
And secondly, a purely mechanical, completely materialistic view of the world and people, in which everything that is
technologically feasible and possible is also seen as desirable.
And what is sacrificed in the process is humanity.
You can see just how skewed the whole thing is with the pandemic treaty from a single formulation.
Also the international health regulations, how crooked that is, how wrong.
This is a legally binding recommendation. Lawyers may have already heard that.
How is that supposed to be? A recommendation or an order? It is both. Ultimately, it's an order.
A recommendation cannot be legally binding, not legally binding.
Just this absurd logic in this one sentence - you can say - you can throw it in the bin.
And then comes the healthcare dictatorship.
By health dictatorship, I actually mean that we are told, on the one hand, that we should vaccinate
ourselves, but above all, what we should and should not eat.
And here I see a very great danger in connection with digitalization.
Today's modern media have created the possibilities to totally control the citizen.
And I think that sooner or later these control measures will also lead to sanctions being imposed if
people do not behave in accordance with the regulations.
Let's take an example: perhaps people who eat meat will suddenly have higher health insurance premiums.
To summarize: We are undergoing a development in which we are losing our individuality, our self-determination and
are being incapacitated in the truest sense of the word.
11. because the WHO is not subject to any supervisory authority or constitutional review by the courts.
All of this leads to a defense against reappraisal.
And I have written down for you what I consider to be the simplest formula here, which has been held against me time and
again by the courts, but which also applies to society as a whole, and which I also hear again and
again from all my colleagues and friends, who tell me:
"You see, in times of pandemics, the authorities must be given greater discretion. And as long as the
authorities adhere to the WHO guidelines, we can't and shouldn't question this. "Something like that.
Yes, and this starting point makes it clear what an extremely key role the WHO plays 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 is why there has not been - and still is not - a reappraisal of these most serious interventions ever.
12. because the WHO must be seen as a tool of globally active architects of a centralized world government.
The globalization of the economy is now being followed by the globalization of values, ways of life and social systems.
Who benefits from this development is a key question, but one that remains largely in the dark.
Of course, one of the driving forces is the World Economic Forum with Klaus, but there are of course also completely different
organizations that have the goal of building a so-called unity government, or, you could also say, world government.
And the losers will ultimately be the vast majority.
A small elite will win.
We can also say that the financial industry will win, perhaps to put it more bluntly.
The Covid pandemic was an ideal field test to find out how far people will accept and support
the global enforcement of opinions and measures.
And unfortunately I have to say that this field test was a complete success for the initiators.
There is a very real danger that our future will be tied into a global dictatorship of opinion and health.
Paving the way for this are transnational agreements, such as the WHO agreement.
Now you might ask what this "hidden agenda" is.
The "hidden agenda" is that the UN, the United Nations, is the core, the nucleus of a
future One World Government - a world government.
Because it was founded precisely for this purpose.
You may not have heard that before, but it's true.
Now we come to the WHO.
The WHO is the subsidiary organization of the UN.
And it has now become the tool, the instrument with which this goal of the One World Government is to be achieved more quickly.
And that is why the WHO wants to gain omnipotence over all areas of our lives, not just health.
She wants control over everything and anything.
And in my view, there is a key reason why the WHO has been misappropriated to achieve these agenda goals.
Since few people still adhere to political philosophies and ideologies, security or health are the only reasons why
they allow far-reaching restrictions on their basic rights.
And the coronavirus pandemic has provided proof of this.
And I'm very sorry if I have to say this here: The corona pandemic was an intelligence test.
It was a pilot project to see how far we could go. And unfortunately, this project worked surprisingly well.
All one, one, one.
One agenda, one health, one agenda, one world government, one dictatorship.
That's the short version for now. I'll get to this one agenda later.
But if you are now asking yourself: Why is there one dictatorship, just think of the EU.
The EU is already the European Union, a small world government, so to speak.
And there are MEPs in the EU Parliament who were elected by the citizens of these EU member states, but who have nothing to say.
And the EU Commission, which decides everything, was not elected by anyone, but
installed by the string-pullers behind the scenes.
And you don't believe that it would be any different if we had a one-world government now,
that it would be a democratic system. Never!
It is largely in our own hands whether we will have centralism and dictatorship or freedom and self-determination in our future.
Who else could counter the current trends?
We must develop resistance to paternalism and, like a stone thrown into a lake, we must be able to
mobilize more people with our ideas and our convictions.
In my view, today - and I believe it really is five to twelve - is a crucial time to set the course.
Do we want to vegetate in servitude or lead a self-determined life?
The answer to this should be very clear to all of us.
Let's fight for what makes our existence worth living.
Thank you for your attention.