Dr. Pfeil, we hear that the states have been put under pressure to agree to the new IHR, the international health regulations.
What can you say about this, is there evidence, proof?
So, I don't have any concrete evidence, but the lady who has now reported this took part in our
lawyers' press conference in Geneva, at least online.
She is a very credible, committed young lawyer from South Africa.
And a Dutch lawyer was present in Geneva, and she also confirmed to me that there was real pressure exerted,
i.e. threats of sanctions and various other things.
Is there a list of the countries, how they voted, the individual countries or how was this handled?
Yes, it was a very strange process as far as the vote was concerned.
It was actually just: Does everyone now have the final version?
The final version of the IHR, as it was supposedly adopted, should actually have been available four
months in advance in accordance with Art. 55, para. 2.
And then the chairman of the meeting simply says, takes a quick look around and says: I see no objections.
So: I don't see any objections here. And that's it then.
And afterwards it was reported that only 37 states had actually explicitly expressed
their consent and of these 37 there is a list.
Ok, was the vote carried out by a show of hands?
No, in any case, you can see on the video recording, I also looked at it again, you don't actually see a show of hands,
although there is a procedural rule for the World Health Assembly, for the plenary session. Rule 72, which says
either a show of hands or, on request, a roll call vote.
Neither of these things happened. This also means that there is a big question mark over whether
the vote was in accordance with the rules at all.
In our view, it was definitely contrary to international law.
Ok, what do these revised health regulations mean now, e.g. if a bird flu pandemic is now declared?
Yes, bird flu already seems to be in the pipeline, in quotation marks.
This means, for example, that since the IHR are now placing a massive focus on so-called relevant health products, vaccines,
for example, can already be in preparation all the faster.
There is also an emergency use listing procedure, additionally from 2022.
And the interesting thing is that pharmaceutical companies can already apply for certain products.
There are also officially independent experts who are supposed to assess this.
But the incredible thing is that the WHO reserves the right to decide whether or not to publish these reports.
In other words, I may end up with a product that has clearly not been recommended because of serious safety concerns or because it
is not effective, or both, and the WHO decides to recommend it to countries anyway, for example by making vaccination compulsory.
So, this is an unparalleled scandal.
Which do you see, or which change to the International Health Regulations do you see as the most explosive?
Yes, I just mentioned an explosive point, that is this new, explicit focus on drugs and vaccines, euphemistically
called Relevant Health Products in propaganda-speak.
This is, of course, against the backdrop of the WHO's massive dependence on the pharmaceutical lobby. On the one hand, there
is the problem of conflicts of interest, i.e. external control.
Then, we also know today that the WHO has lots of expert committees.
Although these committees have to make declarations about conflicts of interest, these
declarations also remain under lock and key.
And we also know that there is actually a constant carousel of people between the WHO and
pharmaceutical organizations, private organizations.
In other words, this is quite problematic.
It is also highly problematic that we have now explicitly enshrined the fight against so-called false and disinformation in
the IHR, which means that someone is claiming a monopoly on information, a monopoly on truth, which clearly violates Article
5 of the Basic Law, i.e. freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of
the media and, above all, freedom of science.
Then we have the possibility of tightening the situation so that not only a health emergency can be declared, a so-called fake,
but also an even more severe variant, namely the so-called pandemic emergency, where it is to be feared that we will then
have to expect even stricter measures, even stricter and perhaps longer-lasting restrictions on
fundamental rights, i.e. violations of fundamental rights.
Which of these things that you have just mentioned do you think is most important to bring to the public's attention?
It's actually a combination of everything.
In other words, these possibly untested products pose an acute threat to life and limb. What's more, the research and
development, production, financing and distribution of these products are now to receive additional support.
These regulations were quickly pulled over from the provisionally postponed pandemic treaty into the IHR.
And then we have a problem with the funding of research into these products - we have a problem - namely that we cannot
separate them from so-called game of function research, which is a highly dangerous instrument and which can ultimately lead to
what we have already experienced with Covid 19, namely that it can then be laboratory viruses that leave the laboratory more or
less by chance - because the safety precautions can never be sufficient - and then trigger
the pandemic that these IHR claim to combat.
And that, of course, is another absolute hammer.
Ms Pfeil, what steps do you see us taking to use this 10-month period that governments now have to - yes, I say -
raise awareness of these things and do something about them?
So the level of the decision-makers is of course very important.
If I look at Germany now, we naturally have relatively little hope that the Federal Government will now move to say
that we will not adopt the IHR, the IHR - the international health regulations. That would have to happen.
But what we can do, for example, and what we also want to try as lawyers or in the larger group, is a Bundestag petition. To bring
the issue to the German Bundestag and call on the Bundestag to persuade the government to oppose the IHR and not accept them.
So that would be the very first thing.
More petitions are important, politicians naturally also react to the voters, which means that it
sends out a signal when people take to the streets.
For example, each individual can also arrange a meeting with the politician in their constituency.
There is also good information material etc. And generally educate people.
So last week I was talking to a lady who is very committed and sees through a lot, who belongs to the CDU and who says that
there are quite a lot of colleagues in the Bundestag who simply still don't know - as incredible as
it may seem - who don't know what's at stake here.
And that would be the potential we are counting on.
That would be my next question:
What arguments do we have against these politicians when we go and try to talk to them and - yes, I say - shake them up?
So first and foremost, if these IHR come into force, our entire system of values, which is
reflected in the Basic Law, will ultimately be at stake.
First and foremost, fundamental rights.
It is indeed the case - and this is also important to know - that the Federal Government
would be responsible for objecting to the IHR.
However, the IHR will not come into force in Germany until there is an approval law and an implementation law.
This is where the German Bundestag and the German Bundesrat come into play.
This means that we have the chance to say to them once again: Dear people, if you pass this, you
are violating the basic rules of the Basic Law.
And that would be an opportunity to gain ground again.
So is it definitely worth approaching the local politicians, especially our representatives in the Bundestag?
In any case. So you have to try everything and then of course we also need the general
public, then you can also write to the politicians.
Many say they have already tried, but there was no response.
But I think that even if there is no reaction, these people will somehow realize that something is happening here.
One last question: Which organizations do you know that are now also moving in this direction, saying that we need
to do something about this? And who could you network with?
Yes, there are great citizens' initiatives against the WHO in Switzerland, for example.
Of course, there is also a great specialist initiative called Global Health Security.
It's transnational in German-speaking countries - it's great.
A long time ago, I myself joined an action alliance in Germany called the World Health Alliance.
In Geneva, of course, we have now taken the first step or a further step towards international networking,
including between lawyers, and have discovered that we have the same problems in almost all countries.
And that means that an international alliance is really taking shape right now. The idea is that we might also
make a concerted effort in the individual countries to prevent this IHR from coming into force.
And that would of course have a special effect.
Yes. Ms. Pfeil, thank you very much for the interview.
Good luck and all the best to you!
Thank you very much. With pleasure.