Do you know that the principle of separation of powers is not practiced even in direct-democratic Switzerland?
That the highest state leadership refrains from checking information independently and
autonomously? And only relies on one organization, the WHO?
A democracy is based on the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. These powers should monitor, control and
correct each other based on independently acquired information.
Philipp Kruse spoke at the WHO Symposium in Winterthur on March 1, 2025 about the fact
that this democracy is no longer a reality.
Switzerland is already effectively remote-controlled by the WHO.
The planned changes to the international health regulations are intended to further strengthen the WHO's exclusive authority.
For example, the Director General's ability to declare a health emergency is not to be restricted, but
extended. He should be able to do this independently in future.
It could then even overrule its own panel of experts and also overrule the opinion of the country concerned.
States have until July 19, 2025 to lodge an objection to the health regulations.
If this does not happen, the introduction will take place from September 19 of this year.
Listen now to Kruse's remarks, with a short introduction by Urs Hans, founder of "Public
Eye on Science" and organizer of the event.
And now I have the pleasure of announcing Philipp Kruse.
He's actually like an "old faceful", he's always there, on good occasions.
And he is now known throughout Europe, you could soon say he is a luminary.
But his fight is also about education against the WHO, the pandemic pact and the international health guidelines.
We still have to work hard to convince the Federal Council to adopt the opting-out . Okay, dear Philipp, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, dear Urs, for continuing to organize such an event.
Dear Urs, this is your fifth event, the fifth major event I've had the pleasure of attending since
Winterthur, the beginnings at the start of 2022.
Thank you very much, you have done an incredible job for all of us.
I would also like to thank you very much for making the effort to come here to this Corona Symposium in Switzerland.
And I am very happy to be able to talk to as many of them as possible afterwards.
And with that we start by thanking the previous speaker, Jürg Vollenweider, my esteemed colleague and friend, for
taking the trouble to highlight the laborious procedural issues.
The Federal Council would be obliged to reject these health regulations on the basis of these procedural
violations under international law alone - violations of procedural provisions under international law alone.
Yes, and I come to the substantive issues of these procedural rules.
The initial situation has been described: As far as the health regulations are concerned, we have a deadline of
July 19. The states have until then to lodge an objection.
So our Federal Council must also have declared to the WHO by then that it will not adopt these regulations, the adjustments.
Here is an overview compiled by Andrea Staubli, who is not only a member of our Free Switzerland Action Alliance, but also plays a
key role in its organization - she is a lawyer and former judge.
It is important to realize this as we enter the remaining months.
Just yesterday, the day before yesterday, the phase of possible consultation of all parties, including interested parties,
including us from the population, to submit a consultation, an opinion on these health regulations, came to an end.
And I invite you to take a look at the statement of the Free Switzerland Action Alliance on the homepage.
And there are further statements there that go into much more detail than is possible here. We
can only touch on the most important points here.
We expect a parliamentary debate in the Swiss parliament on the substantive issues in the summer. And we want to influence this.
If the rejection does not take place by July 19, then these health regulations will come into force on September 19 of this year.
Starting point, but also in terms of content: it is incredibly important to realize this:
What has been in these health regulations so far, and how have they been handled, so that we can classify the sometimes really
very minor adjustments, which really do need to be looked at with a magnifying glass and with the interpretative
experience of lawyers, so that we can classify them at all.
And the previous health regulations, which have been in force in this form since 2007, have something very
important at the beginning in Article 3, paragraph 1:
These regulations are enforced with full respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that would mean that we could all go home carefree and liberated, because that's what it
said so far and that's how it should stay in the future.
Why, why are we still worried? Yes, because we are looking at the specific application in recent years.
How were the health regulations applied - despite these principles?
And I have to review it briefly, as a lawyer who has conducted all these proceedings myself.
There was this obligation for children to wear masks, and above all there was no exemption.
I had a child with a reduced ability to absorb oxygen. She permanently had only 80
percent . She didn't get an exemption either.
And those doctors who issued exceptional certificates in such justified cases were
harassed. They were involved in criminal proceedings.
And as you all know, like Dr. Andreas Heisler, for example - fortunately acquitted recently,
rightly so, but after the most protracted of campaigns.
And today I still have a client who has already had his license to practice revoked at the end of October - last
year - because he issued a mask exemption certificate for a 14-year-old girl, among other things.
So no exceptions were possible here. Then tough police operations - we all know that, something of the most unbelievable.
There has always been mass testing in schools, in elementary school. Here, Maihof, this
will go down in Switzerland's negative history.
On January 29, 2021 - just as the mask requirement was being enforced everywhere - 374 children were compulsorily
tested at the Maihof school in Lucerne because a positive child had been found during these routine tests.
And now comes the question: How did they do it?
In the morning - on a Friday morning - an e-mail was sent home to the parents saying: "Yes, we'll do this test in the afternoon.
Must be carried out for these reasons. Please contact us if you do not agree."
Yes, most of the parents didn't see the e-mail. They were at work.
And what happened was - I got a phone call from a teacher afterwards.
She called me crying because she had to wait outside the gym with her school class - or had to wait outside the testing room.
And the children were already crying from the room because they had been tested by force. By force!
And she herself had to help hold on to the children who did not want to be tested.
Was the unrestricted dignity of people preserved here?
Well, and then we all know what happened to the restaurant owners of the Walliserkanne.
They were arrested with a large police operation, using a lot of force.
And - sorry, you can see it here - I was only able to visit my client in prison instead of in
his restaurant. That was on October 31, 2021.
Or in the David Gym, here you can see the changing area.
We see here - this is one of five police officers in the changing area who also took people out of the sauna.
I would simply like to place this in the context of the unrestricted dignity of the human being, which is
supposedly already included in the health regulations.
And the reality, as we know, was not so extremely threatening that one would ever have resorted to these military, martial means.
That is the prehistory. And we should also know that the basic principle of the
sovereignty of states is enshrined in the principles.
So Article 3, paragraph 4 of the International Health Regulations actually enshrines this.
The states are sovereign and may make use of their sovereignty.
But to what extent did our Federal Council make use of its sovereignty, for example when it came to ending the emergency
situation, the extraordinary situation, i.e. the emergency law?
We didn't go back to the normal situation, but to the special situation.
And a journalist from Swiss television rightly asked: "Why don't we go back to normal?"
And the answer from the President of the Swiss Confederation, Simonetta Sommaruga at the
time, was: "We can't just decide that ourselves."
One of the topics is the WHO, which defines such an emergency situation.
So here it is quite clear: we are not sovereign. The WHO decides.
Here, too, we are not sovereign: the next Federal President, Ignazio Cassis, in the Arena in response
to a question from Sandro Protz, who rightly asked:
"How is it that we read in the newspapers that more and more people are being declared corona deaths by hospitals, but
they come to hospital because of a car accident, a traffic accident or other accidents and that's why they die?"
And here - the Federal President says: "Yes, that's the way it is. That's what the WHO has done.
In a pandemic, all countries have to make this assessment according to the same principle."
And we all remember Shakespeare, who said: "Though it be madness, yet there is method in it."
That is the approach here. Total nonsense. Total nonsense.
"Although it's madness, there is method in it." Well, there is method in it. So, as long as there's method in it, anything goes.
And the courts - no better. Condensed here - I know, I've already said this ... I just have to remind myself of
it every time - but the courts - like a prayer wheel - have countered me and my clients:
"Mr. Kruse, you know that as long as there is a pandemic, the authorities have to exercise greater discretion.
And as long as these authorities adhere to the WHO's recommendations, we as courts cannot overturn this."
So that means that as long as this incredibly long period of declaring the pandemic, which was really almost
an eternal pandemic - from January 31, 2020 to May 5, 2023 - we simply had pure arbitrariness here.
And on this arbitrary basis, every reappraisal, every correction was omitted - with this justification.
Yes, it has never been independently verified, not even by Parliament.
In Switzerland, we have a system in which the supreme authority in the state is the Swiss parliament -
naturally also together with the sovereign of the citizens.
And they have not performed a monitoring or supervisory function to this day.
As a committee of lawyers, which I founded together with a few colleagues, we have regularly called on
parliamentarians since December 2021 to look into precisely this question of ending this pandemic.
The measures must be terminated and a review carried out.
And the answer we got was: "Yes, we can only do that when the pandemic is over."
So, people blindly trust in the omnipotence and omniscience of the WHO. That, as I said, is the starting position.
And the whole thing is exacerbated by the fact, which has already been mentioned by my esteemed colleague Jürg
Vollenweider, that in Switzerland the courts and the authorities are bound by international law.
And so if you believe that the WHO recommendations represent something like the best practice standard, i.e.
the best thing that should and should be done in such situations, then it will have to be applied.
That's all the status quo so far. And let's not forget: There is an almost toxic Article
42 in the current constitution. And it says:
"Health measures taken on the basis of these health regulations must be initiated and completed
immediately and applied transparently and indiscriminately."
So that's already in there and anchored and implemented. Yes, so, I ask you, make your own judgment.
How much can we really rely on this letter of international health regulations in the future?
So we also have, and last but not least, we also have current cases, one of which I mentioned, that is Dr. Dhani.
He has a total of three - he only issued certificates in three cases, one of which I mentioned, the mask certificate.
In two other certificates, he said that after a thorough assessment, blood tests
and so on and several hours of examination:
"In your specific case, the vaccination would be disadvantageous for medical reasons. I will exempt you from the vaccination."
This has led to the Office of Public Health of the Canton of Zurich accusing him of criminal energy - accusing him of criminal
energy - and saying that he is endangering public health.
This is today, this is not the evil past, when we didn't know any better.
That is the status quo. And why am I harping on about it so much?
Simply to show you that any confirmation, no matter how slight, or even aggravation, will bring this past back into
reality in the future and make the whole thing even worse.
And that is how the whole thing should be viewed. We don't have a reappraisal in Germany either, although everything
has been clear for a long time thanks to the RKI protocols.
And I would like to point out something else that should really give every Swiss parliamentarian pause for thought.
Even before Trump, even before Trump, the subcommittee of the House of Representatives published its final report on December
4, 2024, after around two years of investigation - i.e. they carried out their investigative duties -
these investigations are all public and can be accessed.
And on the third page, it clearly states that these school closures and all the measures were purely politically motivated
and had no medical or scientific justification whatsoever, and that the measures were worse than the virus itself.
I recommend that you read it, but above all I recommend that all parliamentarians read it.
But what does the Federal Council have to say about this amendment to the health regulations?
He says that these are only technical adjustments of minor importance, that no additional funding is required, no changes
to the law, and certainly no restriction of Swiss sovereignty.
And that is why the Swiss people, and ideally not even parliament, do not need a say.
What is the opposing position? And here again:
Please take a look at the very detailed statements and consultations that we have placed on the homepage of the
"Aktionsbündnis Freie Schweiz", especially those of the "Aktionsbündnis Freie Schweiz" itself, where we go into detail.
Therefore, to summarize: We can and must state the following:
These amendments to the IHR cement and tighten the existing legal situation to the detriment of the
population and to the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry.
And the whole thing has totalitarian overtones. It's as simple as that. And we have shown that in detail.
It is an actual program to eliminate all quality standards with a military logic.
The whole thing is characterized by a military logic. There is a total state of emergency.
Everything is allowed, even emergency approvals without any safety tests.
There are no correction options. So once such a state of emergency is declared, there is no corrective mechanism.
The whole thing, as I said, against the interests of the population.
And this is a program for totalitarian arbitrariness, which is never compatible with our understanding
of the state - even the existing health regulations.
And on this basis, we see the most important points here. That's four out of five. I'll come to the fifth.
The first point is that you only need to look at the past:
So, the Director General's discretion and ability to declare a health emergency is not being restricted and is not
being subjected to a correction mechanism based on previous experience, but quite the opposite, it is being extended.
He can do this independently. It can even overrule its own panel of experts and also
overrule the opinion of the country concerned.
That is the first point. This leads or gives rise to fears that we will once again have
random, permanent pandemics for even longer.
Then point two: The Director-General can declare which products the WHO considers necessary to combat the pandemic.
Now imagine a country that says: "We do things differently."
Then I'm immediately told: wait a minute, they are, for example Switzerland is a threat to
the world because it doesn't use these products.
It is quite simply the de facto force of power and precisely this logic of the best practice standard that is already at work
here, without any power of command, an actual military power of command, being associated with it. But wait for the last point.
Then there is a funding mechanism. That is a big issue.
But on the whole, it must be said that the WHO and the driving member states are of the opinion that the poorer countries, the
countries of the South, the global South, especially Africa, must be supported financially, that they must be supported
with know-how, with production facilities, so that they can also benefit from vaccinations and vaccines.
This means that in future we will not only have to pay en masse for the vaccinations we have
bought in excess, but also for other countries.
By the way, a report came out yesterday or the day before yesterday that the Federal Council in Switzerland is still
refusing, despite parliamentary requests, to release the exact financial figures on how
much it has spent on mRNA-based substances.
That is not possible at all. This should put all parliamentarians on notice. The Federal Council must disclose these figures.
How much have we paid for this nonvaleur, this non-value.
In any case, it is not a substance with recognizable medical benefits, but quite the opposite, as we will hear later.
Yes, and then there is a whole list of additional obligations - under the heading of core capacities, core obligations or basic
obligations - which are not only added at the level of the Confederation, but also at
the level of the cantons and municipalities.
And where the Federal Council says quite succinctly, yes, we can easily cover that with the existing resources.
But what is the most dangerous point? And this has already been described and explained very well by Jürg Vollenweider.
The issue here is the sovereignty of information and interpretation.
Hidden at the very end in the chronological sequence - but at the end I also mean a document here, in Appendix 1, in Annex 1, in
this Core Capacities section, inconspicuous, you wouldn't recognize it, in the wording risk communication
including how to deal with misinformation and disinformation.
It has already been explained very well by Jürg Vollenweider that we must not rely in any way on this superficial
formulation, but must of course go back to the history of the origin of this formulation when interpreting it.
And above all, we have to realize that this has been around for a long time.
This control, this information sovereignty of the WHO has long been exercised, of which we have endless examples.
Starting with all the information about how dangerous the pandemic situation is and what we should do.
But I would like to briefly point out that the WHO has already brought together all the major
social media and tech companies since February 2020.
She went to the premises on Facebook, called them all there and said, here are the
rules of the game. We're making a contract now.
You undertake to ensure that no information other than that which you have received from us can be read on your platforms.
And these meetings were then repeated on a monthly basis, monthly then online, no longer physically. What are we talking about?
It's Google, Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, Instagram, a whole list of around 50 such social media platforms -
in other words, the entire online social media world.
This has been recapitulated quite clearly by scientists. Anyone interested in the source is welcome to come and see me.
Yes, and why is that so threatening?
First and foremost, of course, we know that - freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of science, these are
the basics so that we as citizens can move within the framework of democracy at all - but also so that
politics, the political decision-making process, can take place.
And so that we also make an informed decision about our own health.
That's bad enough and has already been done very well.
But it is also very, very distorting or relatively relevant, or rather relevant, for democratic decision-making.
We have seen this vote. We were allowed to vote three times in Switzerland.
We were allowed to vote on the COVID-19 law ourselves. And we always had roughly the same result.
40% rejected this COVID-19 law, only 40%, more or less, and 60% accepted it.
Yes, if the basis for assessment that has always been presented to the population is consistently based on a
pack of lies, then the citizen cannot make a correct and accurate decision at the ballot box.
But that is not enough. We have a danger - it is obvious - to the functioning of the entire constitutional state.
We still live in a democracy based on the fundamental principle of the separation of powers.
And these powers should monitor each other, control and correct each other based on independently acquired information.
And if you corrupt this system and base it on a single source of information that determines what is true and what
is false, then you are corrupting an entire state system.
Then it happens that Parliament says, no, we can't check that, it's still declared a pandemic by the WHO.
Or then all the courts reproach me and my patients:
We're sorry, it's still a pandemic and the authorities have followed the WHO's recommendations and so on and so forth.
In other words, we are effectively being remote-controlled.
Remote-controlled by the WHO, without the appearance of a military general, but simply because our highest state leadership
voluntarily refrains from checking the information itself, independently and autonomously, and assumes the false idea that
the WHO is infallible, can never be wrong and is always right.
And we know that there is no one in the whole world who is infallible, never wrong and always right. Thank you.
This is an absolute absurdity and must be rejected with absolute clarity, even based on the current legal situation.
Yes, all this is not enough for me in view of the atrocities that were ultimately inflicted on the population by making you, all of
us, believe in a danger that did not really exist and by selling a remedy as indispensable, as without
alternative, which did not entail any safety problems.
This is a deception of the entire population.
And why is that relevant in the context of such ... Why is that so important? Yes, quite simply.
We are dealing with a substance that, at the very least, must be described as experimental in nature.
We knew beforehand, nobody knew beforehand what was in them and nobody knew beforehand what effect they would have, these
mRNA-based substances. This is a prime example of an experiment.
And for such an initial situation, we have mandatory provisions both in international law and in our own Federal Constitution,
Article 10, paragraph 3, within the framework of international law, within the framework of the prohibition of torture.
And this is very nicely described here in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This is absolutely mandatory international law and also applies in the event of a public emergency that
threatens the life of the nation and is officially proclaimed.
There is no exception to this basic rule. No one may be subjected to medical or scientific
experiments without their voluntary consent, never ever.
And the governments, parliaments and courts have allowed it anyway - allowed it anyway.
For me, that is the biggest, the most frightening realization from all of these "unprecedented
years", from these years of crisis under Corona.
That such fundamental findings, which are ultimately the fruit of the Second World War and must be seen in the context of the
Nuremberg Code, are simply pushed to one side at the first opportunity without hesitation, just because a few pharmaceutical
manufacturers want to sell their vaccination products.
Where will we end up if we continue to allow this to happen and don't come to terms with it?
It is, a crime against humanity has happened.
A crime against humanity has been committed by the WHO, which, against its better judgment, has deluded us and continues to
delude us into believing that there is a danger that absolutely does not exist, and which
pushes products on us that are harmful and dangerous.
And for this reason alone, we must withdraw our trust from this WHO.
In summary, what lies ahead of us with these adjustments to international health regulations?
It is a program for the arbitrary, capricious elimination of all quality standards, both in the
pharmaceutical sector and in the democratic sector.
It is a program to arbitrarily deceive the population. It is a program for the
arbitrary enforcement of pharmaceutical interests.
A program that allows the abolition of the separation of powers of the protection of fundamental rights out of nowhere, makes it
appear legal, with maximum restriction of sovereignty and self-determination, with incalculable risks for health and
the economy, up to and including crimes against humanity.
In other words, not at all compatible with our constitutional basic order.
We must reject this and say: Stop! Exactly, and that brings me to the end.
I think we need control mechanisms, we need accountability from the WHO, we need checks and balances.
And we need to do away with the old habit of granting these people absolute immunity.
And for this reason, I recommend that you sign two petitions as an immediate measure. There
are two petitions in circulation in Switzerland.
One of them wants to tackle the root of the problem and get out of the WHO.
It goes without saying that my heart beats for this petition, which has been magnificently raised by the EDU.
And we as the Free Switzerland Action Alliance: Please, if you do something after this symposium, please go to our homepage and
make sure that you sign this petition, which you can also sign from Germany, or from any
other country, where it is simply about this:
The Federal Council should reject these amendments. This will buy us time for all further steps. And that brings me to the end.
Thank you very much. We will be very happy to talk about leaving the WHO at another time.
Because, as Gorbachev said, we are ready to learn from history.
We have long since learned from history, and we certainly don't want to be condemned to repeat it.
Thank you very much for your attention.