Today, 17 June 2024, the organization United for Freedom has invited us to a press
conference here in the beautiful Taunus region.
There is a wealth of topics to be discussed today.
Among other things, Dr. Pfeil talks about the International Health Regulations adopted in violation of international law.
As you know, these were adopted a good 14 days ago at the WHO General Assembly in Geneva.
Dr. Pfeil: Yes, to the adoption of the IHR in violation of international law.
So it was quite a thriller at the World Health Assembly, the way in which these IHR were supposedly adopted.
And, of course, it is important that I briefly outline the most controversial aspects of these
international health regulations and what we can do.
Very briefly on the subject of WHO:
You often hear that it's a private organization.
Formally, the WHO is a government organization.
In other words, this is the classic association of states for a specific purpose.
Here, they supposedly want to officially promote health, public health.
Such organizations then usually have their own organs.
Here it is the World Health Assembly.
The representatives of the member states are seconded there.
Then we have an Executive Board as the executive body and then, very importantly and very omnipotently, the Director
General, who sits at the head of the so-called Secretariat.
The original plan was to adopt two international treaties.
One is the IHR, which already exists in a constitution from 2005, but which has now been comprehensively revised.
And then there were actually also plans to adopt a new international treaty, the so-called pandemic treaty.
The adoption of the pandemic treaty has been postponed, a great deal of pressure is being exerted here, if
possible at the latest at next year's World Health Assembly - that is what Mr. Tedros wants.
The people who may be behind it are hoping that it will possibly be adopted this year.
Exactly, about the timeline. It was claimed that the IHR had been adopted.
If you just assume that, then they will automatically come into force after twelve months.
Unless the respective states expressly declare the so-called opt-out.
In other words, they object to this entry into force within ten months.
That would be until March 31.
The adoption of the International Health Regulations, I put it in quotation marks, has happened in a very strange way.
On the one hand, we have the mandatory procedural provision of Article 55 IHR.
According to this, the final version, which will subsequently be put to the vote, must actually be available to the states at
least four months before the vote in the World Health Assembly.
The purpose is, of course, for the states to realize the political, economic, administrative and financial consequences.
They must also check whether these IHR amendments are compatible, for example with their
national constitutions or with international law.
Instead, we were in Geneva and held a press conference there in the morning as lawyers.
At the parallel event, we didn't yet know that this madness would happen in the evening, that it was supposedly passed.
How did that actually go?
There is still a video recording of this vote - still visible on the homepage.
Of course you can't see the whole hall, as far as I've seen, but really only the plenum at the front.
The President then says: Is this final version available to everyone? I see no objections.
And then he asks, yes, does everyone agree? And then comes again: I see no objection. I see no objection.
So it's a very strange procedure, especially since procedural rule 72 specifies that there should be one:
Voting must be by show of hands or, if requested, by roll call.
That was silence in the forest. So a very, very questionable story.
Then it was claimed, a unanimity that no one watching this video now can verify.
It was reported positively that 37 states have expressly spoken out in favor of this IHR adoption.
There is a list, which of course includes Germany and several European countries, as well as others such as the USA.
But there was also a great deal of opposition during the discussion.
So Belarus, Iran, Argentina, Costa Rica and other countries - Slovakia is very important, just think of this attack now.
Objections were also allowed. Hence this strange story.
Was the quorum reached at all?
99 states would have had to explicitly agree with a show of hands. Very questionable.
Therefore definitely because of Article 55, paragraph 2 alone.
Marianne Grimmenstein said it so well: the WHO is breaking its own rules.
Vote contrary to international law and therefore invalid.
And any state that does not contradict this is actually putting itself absolutely in the wrong.
The main contents.
In addition to the public health emergency of international scope - abbreviated to Fake, how wrong - there is
now this new form of escalation, the pandemic emergency.
It is also strange that, for example, it is supposed to be about a high risk, i.e. only the risk of exceeding the capacity of
health systems or causing social and economic disruption, due to an allegedly very dangerous cross-border infectious disease.
From a legal point of view, you also have to ask whether such criteria are suitable for such a pandemic
emergency, which is then supposed to justify massive encroachments on fundamental rights.
Because this is not due to the disease itself, but is a question of the state's framework conditions.
So that's actually, that's actually a bad reason for interfering with fundamental rights, which a Director General Tedros
can then recommend on the basis of this pandemic emergency.
And it is to be feared that even stricter interventions will be justified by the pandemic emergency.
Then very problematic, so-called relevant health products and a very important new principle at the WHO
is the so-called equity, the distributive justice.
This refers to the fact that the poorer countries, the developing countries in thick quotation marks, are now also enjoying all
these blessings of so-called vaccines, modRNA technology of course, and medicines from those - and I say
this very ironically - pharmaceutical companies that indirectly or directly co-sponsor the WHO.
And here, at this point at the latest, the question arises: Who actually controls the WHO?
Is it really still the states or is it the sponsors?
It is well known that the WHO is almost 85 percent dependent on voluntary donations, including many private donations
directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical industry.
The Bill Gates Foundation alone probably directly or indirectly contributes 20 percent of the WHO's total budget.
Now, however, the fight against so-called misinformation and disinformation is explicitly anchored in the IHR.
In this context, around 40 partnership agreements were concluded with big tech companies from the digital sector, Google,
Facebook and the like, of course with Microsoft in the background, the contents of which are also not disclosed.
Against this background, we naturally have to fear a worsening of the censorship problem, particularly in the free media, but
above all in a large part of the serious scientific community, which has already been excluded from the discourse in the past.
And without free discourse, we definitely cannot approach the truth that is urgently needed here.
All this against the backdrop of the continuing lack of an independent, legally binding supervisory body
that would, for example, rap Mr. Tedros on the knuckles if he declared a fake or a pandemic emergency.
In theory, he must weigh up the risks and benefits of each individual measure he recommends beforehand.
The states that have a liberal constitution must do the same.
But since no one controls him, because there are no checks and balances, he can simply prescribe the fake and the
pandemic emergency as well as these recommendations arbitrarily.
The WHO continues to attack state administrations like an octopus.
There is now to be a national IHR authority and the so-called core capacities at the various administrative levels are to be
strengthened, including, of course, to combat so-called infodemics - in other words, in the area of combating
alleged misinformation, where the WHO and the member states reserve the corresponding monopoly on the truth.
There is no independent supervisory body.
The recommendations may involve massive encroachments on fundamental rights which, if they are not
checked for risk-benefit, lead to massive violations of fundamental rights worldwide.
The funding of research into vaccines and drugs is inevitably technically linked to so-called gain-of-function research.
This, in turn, is linked to bioweapons research, which entails blatant security risks.
In other words, there is an even greater risk that these WHO regulations will ultimately create
the dangers that the WHO claims to want to prevent.
In fact, a country like Germany, for example, has an obligation under international law
at WHO level when the IHR comes into force.
However, Germany can theoretically say: Stop, I will not implement what Mr. Tedros, for example,
recommends domestically because it violates the Basic Law.
This is theoretically conceivable and they should actually do it.
In practice, we have seen that states shift responsibility to the WHO.
Germany is one of the main state sponsors of the WHO anyway.
Germany will willingly execute.
At least in the past, Germany has no longer paid attention to the requirements of the Basic Law.
In other words, against this backdrop, we face the danger of establishing a foreign-controlled and totalitarian
global health regime and, of course, ultimately the danger of long-term and massive human rights violations.
Human dignity is inviolable.
A state that interferes with physical integrity, with elementary civil liberties, must always justify this interference.
He must always weigh up the risks and benefits.
We have not heard this justification in Germany and in many countries around the world since 2020.
We have not heard any evidence.
The state has an obligation here, it has not fulfilled it!
By not providing this justification alone, it is already committing human rights violations
on a massive scale. What can be done about it?
Of course we have to shake up the public as much as possible, which is why important media are also represented here.
Demonstrations, leaflets and so on. But the most important thing now is to shake up those in positions
of responsibility, those who are still of good will.
It is very important to take legal action, summary proceedings, constitutional complaints, extremely important.
For example, every individual can talk to their member of parliament in their constituency.
And these people are trying to draw attention to the issue.
There are many ways to get involved here.
Even just talking to friends, acquaintances, neighbors, where a small crack in the door is open.
We must and we really must pull out all the stops here. There is no measure that is not important.
But I would say that the focus should really be on convincing, educating, educating, educating the political decision-makers.
I personally see little chance with the federal government.
That is why we are using this petition to make a massive effort to persuade the Bundestag
to call on the federal government to opt out.
And of course, if things were right, a constitutional complaint against these completely unlawfully adopted IGVs would actually
have to be successful if we still had normal conditions.
And we hope and are counting on a return to normal conditions.
And we will all try to make our contribution. Thank you very much.