How the WHO falsified the IHR vote and how to reverse it (Interview with Dr. Beate Pfeil)

04.07.2024 | www.kla.tv/29613

Moderator: 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 that, is there any evidence or proof of that? Dr. Pfeil: Well, I don't have any concrete evidence, but the lady who reported this now took part in our lawyers' press conference in Geneva, at least online. She is a very credible, young, committed lawyer from South Africa. And a Dutch lawyer was present in Geneva, and she confirmed to me again that there was real pressure, that is, there were threats of sanctions and other things. Moderator: Is there a list of the countries, how they voted, of the individual countries, or how was it handled? Dr. Pfeil: Yes, it was a very strange process as far as the vote was concerned. All they said was: "Does everyone have the final version now?" The final version of the IHR, as it was supposedly adopted, should have been available four months earlier according to Article 55, paragraph 2. And then the chairman of the meeting simply looks around and says: "I see no objections." In other words: "I see no objections here." And that was it. And afterwards it was reported that only 37 states had explicitly expressed their consent and there is a list of these 37. Moderator: Ok, was the vote carried out by a show of hands? Dr. Pfeil: No, at least on the video recording - I looked at it again - you can see no show of hands, even though there is a procedural rule for the World Health Assembly, for the plenary session. Rule 72, which says either by a show of hands or, if requested, by roll call vote. Neither of these took place. That means here too, one would have to put a big question mark over whether the vote was even compliant with the rules. From our point of view, it was definitely contrary to international law. Moderator: OK, what do these revised health regulations mean now, e.g. if a bird flu pandemic is now declared? Dr. Pfeil: Yes, bird flu seems to be a bit in the pipeline, in quotation marks. That means, for example, that since the IHR is now placing a massive emphasis on so-called relevant health products, vaccines can be prepared 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 them. But the incredible thing is that the WHO reserves the right to decide whether to publish these reports or not. That means that in the end it can happen that I have a product that was clearly not recommended due to serious safety concerns or because it is not effective or both, and the WHO decides arrogantly to recommend it to states anyway as part of, for example, a mandatory vaccination. So, that is an unprecedented scandal. Moderator: Which do you see or which change to the International Health Regulations do you see as the most explosive? Dr. Pfeil: Yes, I have just mentioned one explosive point, that is this new, explicit focus on "medicines and vaccines", euphemistically called "relevant health products" in propaganda language. Of course, we have the whole thing against the background of the WHO's massive dependence on the pharmaceutical lobby. Firstly, the problem is that this creates conflicts of interest, in other words external control. Then, as we now know, the WHO has lots of expert committees. These committees have to make statements about conflicts of interest, but these statements also remain confidential. And we also know that there is actually a constant carousel of people between the WHO and pharmaceutical-related organizations, private organizations. That is, it is very problematic. It is also highly problematic that we have now explicitly anchored the fight against so-called false and disinformation in the IHR, that is, someone is assuming an information monopoly, a monopoly on the 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 option of making things more severe, 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 also have to deal with even stricter measures, even stricter and perhaps longer-lasting fundamental rights.restrictions on life, i.e. violations of fundamental rights. Moderator: Which of these things that you have just mentioned do you think is most important to bring to the public's attention? Dr. Pfeil: It's actually a combination of everything. So there is an acute threat to life and limb from these possibly untested products. In addition, the research and development, production, financing and distribution of these products are now to be given additional support. These regulations were quickly moved from the temporarily postponed pandemic treaty to the IGV. And then we have a problem with the funding of research into these products - we have one problem - namely that we cannot separate it from so-called game of function research, which is a highly dangerous set of instruments and which can ultimately lead to what we have already experienced with Covid 19, namely that it can be laboratory viruses that then 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 is of course another absolute bombshell. Moderator: Ms Pfeil, what steps do you see us taking to use this 10-month period that the governments now have to - yes, I would say - raise awareness of these things and do something about them? Dr Pfeil: Well, the level of decision-makers is of course very important now. If I look at Germany now, we obviously have relatively little hope that the federal government will now move to say that we declare that we will not accept the IHR, the IHR - the International Health Regulations. That would have to happen. But what we can do, for example, and what we want to try as lawyers or in a larger group, is a Bundestag petition. Bring the issue to the German Bundestag and call on the Bundestag to in turn persuade the government to contradict the IHR and not accept it. So that would be the very first thing. Further petitions are important, politicians are of course also reacting to the voters, which means that it has a signaling effect when people take to the streets. For example, each individual can also arrange a meeting with the politician in their constituency. There are also good information materials, etc. And generally provide information. So last week I was talking to a lady who is very committed and sees through a lot of things, who belongs to the CDU and who says that there are a lot of colleagues in the Bundestag who simply still don't know - as unbelievable as it may seem - what is at stake here. And that is our potential, which we are counting on. Moderator: That would be my next question: what arguments do we have against these politicians if we go and try to talk to them and - let's say - shake them up? Dr. Pfeil: First and foremost, that with these IHRs, when they come into force, our entire system of values, which is reflected in the Basic Law, is at stake. First and foremost, our basic rights. It is true - and this would also be important to know - that the federal government would be responsible for opposing the IHR. However, the IHR will only come into force in Germany if 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 again: "Dear people, if you pass this, you will be violating the basic rules of the Basic Law." And that would be the opportunity to gain ground again here. Moderator: So is it definitely worth addressing the local politicians, especially our representatives in the Bundestag? Dr. Pfeil: Definitely. 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 it, but there was no reaction. But I think that even if there is no reaction, these people will somehow become aware that something is happening here. Moderator: One last question: Which organizations do you know that are now moving in this direction, that say we have to do something about it? And who could you network with? Dr. Pfeil: Yes, for example, there are some really great citizens' initiatives against the WHO in Switzerland. Of course, there is also a great specialist initiative called Global Health Security. It is cross-border in the German-speaking region - it is great. I myself haveI joined an action alliance in Germany a long time ago, called the World Health Alliance. Then in Geneva we took the first step or a further step towards international networking, including between lawyers, and found that we have the same problems in almost all countries. And that means that an international solidarity is really taking shape. That we might also - the idea is - pull out all the stops in the individual states in concert to prevent this IHR from coming into force. And that would of course have a special effect. Moderator: Yes. Ms. Pfeil, thank you very much for the interview. I wish you every success and all the best! Dr. Pfeil: Thank you! You're welcome!

from hm

Sources/Links: LIVE | Pressekonferenz der internationalen Menschenrechtsorganisation "UNITED FOR FREEDOM" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPwIs-auCNg