The Liechtenstein interest group INITIATIVE A invited to an information event on the topic
of the WHO pandemic treaty with attorney Philipp Kruse on February 7, 2024.
INITIATIVE A stands for beginning, reappraisal and clarification.
In his presentation, Philipp Kruse will discuss the links between the pandemic
treaty and international health regulations.
In doing so, he explains simply and clearly what is at stake, particularly as a result of
changes to international health regulations.
I would like to thank you very much for these kind words of introduction and for your warm welcome.
I would like to start by saying that it is a very special honor for me to
be able to speak to you this evening.
Today we have the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein with us.
Your Serene Highness, thank you very much for taking the time to join us this evening.
It is a great honor for me to be able to bring this closer to you.
But it is also a great honor for me that numerous members of the Liechtenstein
Parliament, i.e. representatives of the people, are here to get a picture of this topic.
And last but not least, I would like to extend a warm welcome to you, who have come here,
and thank you for being open to this topic.
I would like to say in advance that the title of this evening is: WHO pandemic treaties.
And of course this refers to the two legal instruments that are currently under discussion and negotiation.
At the end of 2021, almost two years after the start of the pandemic, the WHO and its member states decided
to transfer more powers to the WHO because they believed that the entire world was unprepared in
2020, early 2020, unprepared for the COVID-19 phenomenon and that the WHO had responded too weakly.
An extraordinary General Assembly was then convened in December, early December 2021, where the decision was
taken to negotiate and provide two separate legal instruments by means of two working groups,
which represent the pillars for a new WHO structure, an expanded competence of the WHO.
And that's why we always have to talk about two contracts.
One is the pandemic treaty that is now on everyone's lips, an actual new treaty that did not exist before
and for which a two-thirds majority is needed at the World Health Assembly in May if it is to be voted on.
The other is an adaptation of an existing international treaty.
These are the international health regulations.
The international health regulations are also a treaty under international law.
And because, according to the logic of the WHO constitution, these international health regulations
are only technical guidelines, it was written into the WHO constitution at the time that such
health guidelines only require a simple majority of the WHO World Assembly.
So next May a simple majority with the consequence of automatic entry into force.
Well, this is particularly worrying because it is precisely in these actually technical health
regulations that the most serious changes are anchored, much stronger changes than in the pandemic treaty.
And that is why, due to the time constraints, I will limit myself this evening exclusively to
the strongest effects of the adjustments to the international health regulations.
This means that I will not be making any technical comments on the new pandemic treaty,
but will instead focus on the adaptation of international health regulations.
You have roughly heard who I am.
I qualified as a lawyer in Switzerland, in Bern.
I am Swiss, did my Swiss military service and have been a lawyer since 1997, a business
lawyer specializing in tax law, and I decided to join the company at the end of 2020:
I would like to do my part to contribute to a review of state measures through court proceedings, to a
reason-based discourse, to a constitutional discourse.
And so, two years ago, I became more and more interested in WHO, which is
why I also specialized in this area.
However, I can tell you that it is a pro bono activity, but it is a great honor for
me to be able to speak to parliamentarians, politicians and interested citizens.
And now, because we really only have a short amount of time, we're going straight into medias res.
I will concentrate on the most important, the most essential proposals for adaptation
of these international health regulations.
And I will then give you my constitutional assessment of this and also comment on the question at the end:
Who is actually funding this World Health Organization?
And where are the driving forces?
Is it the states themselves that finance the WHO through their
contributions or are there other forces at work?
The International Health Regulations (IHR)
If you go to the WHO home page, they look something like this (picture of the home page is shown).
We see particularly worrying adjustments in six areas.
In six areas - I'll go through them one by one.
Not all areas will take the same amount of time, the first three a little
more, the last three a little less.
I would like to show you everything that I am presenting to you, you
can see from these health regulations.
You can read this out.
I didn't invent that.
And, of course, there is the negotiating status:
We read again and again when official representatives, such as the diplomat Nora Kronig in an
interview in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on December 5, 2023, comment on this:
These current adjustment proposals are not decisive.
Look, we are negotiating and we will continue to negotiate until the start of the World Health
Assembly and we will have to talk about what will be available then, what will be put to the vote.
Of course, she's not entirely wrong.
Negotiations are ongoing and there will be many adjustments.
But these areas here are here to stay.
And why?
Because that's what the states talk about all the time.
And I would like to take this opportunity to tell you that.
These are the cornerstones of this new WHO regulation.
And they won't disappear until next May.
Now the first point:
We can see here from various clauses that the Director-General of the WHO, Dr.
Tedros, is massively expanding his options for declaring a state of emergency.
There are numerous provisions by which we can recognize this.
In other words, if someone is allowed to declare a public health emergency, that's what the federal
court has told me in all my court cases so far:
In times of pandemic, the authorities have an extended discretionary power and we as a federal court may not
interfere with this discretionary power unless it is proven that the
authorities have acted contrary to the WHO.
Do you know what that means?
In other words, the Federal Court in Switzerland has so far taken the position that:
As long as there is an international health emergency, WHO law applies.
That was the past.
Good, and it will become even more important in the future.
This is what the document looks like when you search for it on the Internet.
The adjustment proposals have been on the public table since around December 1, November 30, 2022.
They were subsequently reissued on February 6, 2023 in a slightly more
attractive form with identical content.
In other words, everything I am presenting to you now has been on the table for
over a year and is available to the public.
So here is this international health emergency, what is the legal basis for
this international health emergency?
By the way: Public Health Emergency of International Concern PHEIC.
And because we are under a bit of time pressure, I will perhaps talk about
PHEIC or the International Health Emergency.
And this has already been legally binding in the health regulations since 2007, anchored there in Art. 12.
That already existed before.
And on this basis, the coronavirus pandemic emergency was declared on January 30, 2020.
This was maintained until the beginning of May 2023.
That is three years and three months, we had a global health emergency.
Emergency authorizations for vaccines that would otherwise not exist
are linked to a state of emergency.
This is the current legal situation.
What's new?
Here I have copied from the text - now not only an international global health emergency should be
possible, but also a regional health emergency or a preliminary stage to a health emergency.
It could be that ... We also have other provisions, precisely in these adaptations, where it says:
Potential dangers that have not yet materialized could also lead to a state of emergency.
Here we can already see that it is an extension, but it is by no means everything.
This Art. 12 includes a decision tree in Annex 2.
And in this decision tree, new points have been introduced, so to speak, which should be
sufficient on their own, according to the previous wording, one year already on the table.
For example, a human influenza caused by a new subtype, i.e. a human influenza caused by a
new subtype, may be the prerequisite or a pretext for declaring a global health emergency.
Or a serious infection in which human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out.
Where can you rule out human-to-human transmission at all?
Then this whole idea: One HEALTH, that is a concept, that is a whole body of thought that has been the
subject of many scientific articles for around 15 years, which ultimately assumes that a threat, a
health threat does not only come from viruses, but can also come from the environment, from the
animal world, from the decline in biodiversity.
None of this is disputed.
But all this can provide a reason, a pretext, to declare a global health emergency.
This means that, in extreme cases, rising CO2 levels or rising temperatures - we already have very clear
statements from Tedros in this direction - can, in his opinion, provide the basis or be
the pretext for a global health emergency.
They say: we have higher temperatures, there are more heart attacks, because there are more
heart attacks, we have to introduce health measures.
Or last summer you saw: In Germany heat emergency plans.
What does that mean?
This means that the list of preconditions - I say pretexts - for a pandemic, and therefore for
declaring an emergency, is being extended to infinity.
It can no longer be narrowed down.
That's what we call it, lawyers call it arbitrariness.
When you can say for any reason: As of today, there is a state of emergency again, without borders.
There is a lack of clear standards.
We have a ban on arbitrariness in practically all constitutions.
And we have replaced the arbitrariness of absolutist rulers with the principle of legality.
This means that there must be clear standards and it must also be possible to check them.
That is the first point of criticism.
Who protects in the end - who presses the stop button?
Who says when a pandemic is no longer necessary?
Who can say?
Nobody, unless the entire World Health Assembly gets together and demands it.
So, these are some of the core elements of any democratic constitution that are affected here.
I will come back to this at the end in my overall assessment.
My point is that we have core elements of our constitution in every country, whether in
Liechtenstein or Switzerland, which are the prerequisites for us to have a democracy at all.
And they are recognizable, they are definable, just like the vital functions in humans, such as
breathing, blood circulation, immune system, sleep.
If you simply switch off one of these elements, the person will die sooner or later.
Every democracy has such basic requirements.
Let's go further.
It is often the case in the media that when this is mentioned, it is denied or the
statement is made: This is all just a recommendation.
Yes, in the past it was perhaps meant that way, and in fact, if you look at the WHO
constitution, Article 2, and read all that, that long list, then you come to the conclusion:
The WHO was conceived as an international advisory organization.
It provides know-how, a platform, these are the experts and you can get the knowledge there.
That was the basic concept.
Why am I now saying that these recommendations are binding?
I cite three articles in the proposed amendments as evidence.
Art. 1 Definition article
So far, these recommendations, [...] recommendations have been characterized as non-binding.
Non-binding as a character trait is or should be deleted.
The current proposal has been on the table for a year.
That is point one. Then the second element of the proposals: Art. 13 A
It says - I'll translate it directly - the contracting parties recognize the WHO as the leading or leading
and coordinating authority and - here it comes - they ([...] undertake to follow [...] = English legalese):
You undertake to follow the WHO recommendations.
You undertake to comply with them.
When you sign such a treaty, it is an obligation under international law.
Of course, yes, I'll go further. I'll come to the next point.
Art. 42 An existing article, but with some additions.
So far, it has only been said in relation to health measures, which were not yet in the form of
recommendations, that these should be initiated by the Member States [...] shall be
initiated and completed without delay [...].
And now you write into this article:
What about temporary recommendations and permanent recommendations that
were previously purely non-binding?
They shall... [...] they shall be initiated and completed without delay
They are to be begun, they are to be started and completed without delay.
That's roughly the terminology in the army, in the military.
Execute immediately, march.
That is an order.
Interpreted according to the principle of reliance - treaties, international treaties are interpreted
according to the principle of reliance - that is, according to the Vienna
Convention on the Law of International Treaties.
It explains everything beautifully.
A reasonable person cannot understand this as anything other than an order.
In short, I have only mentioned three articles. There are other indications.
The whole thing, if a state makes it legally binding, then that is an obligation under international law.
Why? In Article 18 of the existing health regulations, we have a catalog of possible recommendations
that were not previously intended to be binding.
And here I have underlined what I am particularly concerned about.
Namely, the recommendation that a state may require vaccination or
another type of precaution, prophylaxis.
Or implement a quarantine here, for example, or other health measures for suspected persons.
Anyone who has followed the terminology in the various ordinances over the last three years, including in the
Swiss Covid-19 Act, in the ordinances, including the Epidemics Act, by the
way: persons suspected of being infected.
They all were, as long as they could not provide proof: vaccinated,
recovered or tested negative, or three Gs.
And two Gs had recovered or been vaccinated.
All others were considered suspected of being infected.
And people suspected of being infected were subject to stricter measures, meaning they had no
access to their basic rights or to public life.
And such people should definitely be quarantined - quarantine camps have been built in Australia.
They have not been put into operation on a large scale, but this will become possible.
I'm not saying that this will be done, but it will be possible.
Yes, that is an obligation.
Many people then say at this point: "But that won't be enforced.
A commitment without military enforcement, nobody cares.
Yes, that may be correct, this statement for the usual international
treaties where fishing rights are involved.
Here, if the majority of states believe that there is a health emergency, then this has a
military component for the majority of states.
Then what is planned?
Firstly, there is an Implementation Committee, which has to check whether the states
are actually implementing these adjustments.
This committee will have to report this non-compliance to the Health Assembly.
Then there is a Compliance Committee, which has a similar remit, and they will have to report
this to the Health Assembly, so everything according to new proposals after the Health Assembly.
And the health assembly, it shall be responsible, it shall be responsible for monitoring
the implementation and it may take decisions.
Everything that the majority of the Health Assembly decides must be done.
And then sanctions can be decided.
You know that there are sanctions in other contexts.
Then don't forget that there are other overarching organizations, such as the UN.
The UN can also take action against offending members.
Then we have normal trade sanctions, for example, which are EU sanctions or
sanctions restricting access to travel.
In short, it will be possible to tighten the screws.
This can be very sensitive, even if it is not a military army that
might invade because a state does not.
And last but not least, let's not forget the World Bank.
The World Bank plays a major role in financing the WHO.
The World Bank can also play a decisive role in influencing policy by tightening
lending conditions for entire countries.
All right, so, interim conclusion: new binding recommendations.
This means that the WHO is given maximum leeway, here too maximum leeway without the
possibility of review with de facto executive powers.
I am not saying that the WHO is directly ordering a quarantine, but the WHO is simply saying:
We recommend quarantine in all states that reach a threshold of such
and such a percentage with this test.
And the state will say: We have reached this threshold, we have tested with exactly
this test, and we do not want to break our obligation under international law.
And that's how it works. It's like a game of dominoes.
You have to be realistic about this, taking into account the experience of the last three years.
Yes, that de facto means that differentiated individual solutions, as Denmark and Sweden, for example, have
done to some extent, are de facto made impossible.
Legal protection and legal certainty will no longer exist.
I come to a third, very central point, if not the most central point of all.
Something we have seen very clearly in the past, and although we are no longer under immediate
threat from Covid-19, censorship still prevails.
It is still quite difficult today to find an article in scientific publications, even elsewhere, for
example in the NZZ, that takes a different view from the WHO on the benefits of a PCR
test - what can it say, what can it not say!
There just seems to be a kind of social consensus that there is only this opinion.
Factual censorship or controlled by the WHO, at least in the future the WHO will be legally authorized
to take this type of censorship into its own hands.
How can you tell?
Here we are still in the process of adapting the international health regulations, proposal: Art. 44,
Littera h, which simply states that the state parties should work together and support each other in
preventing the dissemination of false or unreliable information, and should support each
other in countering this false information.
There are a few similar provisions in the International Health Regulations.
And now the whole thing seems to be so important for the WHO, also for the UN, that this
logic has also been anchored in the pandemic treaty, WHO Pandemic Treaty Art. 18.
I recommend that all media representatives who depend on being allowed to disseminate
information and to represent a free exchange of opinions, please read Art. 18.
This is a nightmare!
Here, under the title of communication and public awareness, the aim is to combat infodemic.
The idea of this term is that false information is just as dangerous as a pandemic, like a virus.
So, the wrong information is the virus that needs to be combated.
So, false, misleading or misinformation, dysfunction must be combated.
This is a very active mandate for the states, very active.
You will also find this logic in communications from the UN, I refer to the public media release from
September 22 last year, UN General Assembly, it was said that this is one of the biggest problems.
Then there are various communications from the WEF: the biggest problem
facing humanity today is disinformation.
I think that if scientists can face each other in an open discourse on an open
stage, that is the best way to find out:
What is misinformation and disinformation here?
Not by suppressing them.
And that simply leads to the very clear question: What is the knowledge of a few thousand
years of humanity, what is the basis for every good decision-making process?
Be it in politics, in business, in private life or for a recipe.
It is one - the basic information must be correct, and you must not be manipulated,
neither by time pressure nor other manipulations.
And there are emergency situations, I concede that, I was also in the military - nine hundred
days of military service - I really enjoyed it, I don't regret a single day of service.
But at some point, the immediate threat will be over and then you have to slowly return
to normality, also in terms of information.
We need free information, open debate and no manipulation for science, otherwise
there can be no free and genuine science.
For fair justice, audiatur et altera pars (let the other part also be heard), and it is
the basic elixir of democracy par excellence.
If we take that away, then we will lack a functioning science altogether.
Then there can be no science, there can be no democracy, no fair justice.
And lo and behold, we have no evidence that they are really safe, even for the topic of vaccination
recommendations and experimental substances for which we do not yet have any long-term studies.
If people are then told: They are safe and effective, then we simply have to know:
There is binding international law, which was created on the basis of the knowledge of the atrocities of the
Second World War, there is an international covenant on civil and political rights,
Article 7, there is a binding provision.
And this mandatory provision states that no one may be subjected to medical or scientific
experiments without their voluntary consent.
There are many people who say: what are you talking about, where have there
been any trials, it's not comparable.
Well, take a look at these substances - this is not the topic here - but if they have not been tested for
long enough and you have no idea about the actual effectiveness, the actual effect,
non-effect and in particular the harmful effect, then this is experimental in nature.
And this even applies in the event of a public emergency, it is mandatory international law.
It is essential to bear this in mind when interfering with free information.
This intervention is unconstitutional in the most serious sense.
And just as a reminder: you can go to any country and you will find a supreme court ruling and a great deal
of case law that says that freedom of opinion and freedom of information are among the
indispensable and fundamental functional elements of a democratic community.
You can't maintain democracy if you start doing what we still have today, restricting opinions, suppressing
them - and that also applies to reappraisal.
If you do not allow a reappraisal, then that is proof of a totalitarian
development - and this must come to an end.
And now I'm getting to the shorter topics, I'm almost finished.
Don't worry, I won't overdo it, I was clearly instructed.
So, that's said very quickly here.
We do not have any correction mechanisms for the member states that would make it possible to
bring about a correction quickly and swiftly.
For example, to say: Wait, do we really have a global health emergency? Covid-22 perhaps? Stop!
There is no way to press a quick stop button here, or the WHO recommendations quickly - which may be to
measure a substance or a viral threat with the particular Test-X, for
example - there is no such thing.
Where does that come from?
Yes, no wonder, up to now the WHO has only had an advisory character, an informative character.
There is no need for a correction mechanism.
But if we now start to give the WHO new powers, to grant it legally binding status, then
this must automatically be linked to the following: Correction mechanism
- Checks and balances, that's the most normal thing in the world.
I ask myself: why has this not been discussed for so long, why has it not even begun to be discussed today?
So there are no correction mechanisms and where there is nothing, I can't
show anything from the contract templates.
Then accountability, full immunity, that goes into the same thing.
So far, the WHO has only acted in an advisory capacity.
But if they are allowed to say: We now have a state of emergency, and it will now apply for any length of
time, and if this results in damage for the member states, for the economies, for the people, although it
should have been recognized that the conditions for a state of emergency never
existed, then we have to talk about liability.
On the contrary: full immunity as before and also tax exemption.
And if you then ask about fundamental rights - let me put it this way:
Up to this point, when we see this, we cannot really care whether the Member States would now write
a big commitment in favor of fundamental rights into the existing Article 3 as a fig leaf.
You've crossed that out, I can show it now or not.
Why?
If you set up a regime like that, if you say you allow a person with a simple snap of the fingers, he can
literally breathe into the microphone, in Geneva, press conference and breathe into the
microphone: We have another health emergency.
That's enough, no proof is required.
If you then allow this man to make recommendations, which he knows full well the Member States must
implement, and if you then allow this same man and his small team to define what we read in the
newspapers, then the judge will read nothing other than that, and he will say again as before:
In times of pandemics, the authorities must be granted greater discretion, and as long as they
remain within the WHO's recommendations, we as courts have no opportunity to intervene.
Period, exactly!
This means that judicial review has simply been eliminated.
You can write as long as you like: The protection of fundamental rights must be guaranteed.
Yes, what fundamental rights are we supposed to protect?
It's all according to the WHO recommendation.
And that has already been the experience so far.
Nevertheless, I will briefly show you this provision, which is quite simply scandalous.
Yes, I am aware that the WHO expert panel itself has criticized this provision and said:
One cannot do without fundamental rights - one must never emphasize the
subjugating protection of fundamental rights.
But the fact is, here: The implementation of these Regulations shall be, so far with full respect for the
dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and this is still emphasized today, and that is why I say:
Shame on you, Dr. Tedros and also shame on you, Ms. Nora Kronig.
They should have said, in this interview they should have said:
Yes, the NZZ and our valued readers, we were also very upset about that and I can tell you one thing:
As Switzerland, we will not sign this treaty as long as it says that.
They didn't, therefore: Shame on you.
I have to say it like this, it doesn't work like this, it doesn't work like this at all, it's still there.
But even if it were to be reversed, as I said, because of this overall regime - which is like a
power mechanism - no effective protection of fundamental rights can emerge in the end.
Yes, who protects our human dignity?
Constitutional assessment? I said:
There are very, very essential basic elements of a democracy, of any democracy, of any constitutional
order, no matter what country we are in.
If you take away just one of them, democracy will collapse.
I'll start with the first three.
We have seen the freedom of information and the ban on censorship.
This is an absolute pillar for any democracy, is being scratched.
That alone must lead to these contracts being scrapped.
You may have noticed how important this is for the WHO, for the UN, for the WEF and, incidentally,
for the EU too, the digital services act.
Modern society, the modern leadership and elite seem to be dependent on having
to operate with the means of censorship.
How far have we come?
Yes, then the second: simply declaring a health emergency or arbitrarily issuing recommendations
without standards, without the possibility of adhering to clear rules or
necessity, the principle of democracy.
Yes, also the democratic principle that the people themselves should be allowed to decide.
What kind of legal system do we live in anyway?
It should have a say in the most important cuts.
If you are no longer allowed to go anywhere for six months, six months, in many countries that was
the case, without these tests, then it slowly becomes a question of democratic legitimacy.
And the people, how are the people supposed to articulate themselves at all if
they are also disinformed, misinformed.
If the vast majority honestly believe:
We are living in such an extreme threat, we have no choice but to all get vaccinated.
In other words, the undistorted formation of the will of the people is already being manipulated by the
freedom of information, which ultimately leads to the principle of democracy being severely undermined.
Separation of powers and inhibition of powers, I said it.
As soon as it hears the word pandemic, the Federal Supreme Court stops its activities and no
longer operates in its actual area of activity.
It was spooky for me.
I have conducted a great many proceedings and there has been no conclusive assessment.
We were simply told: We are not interested in the evidence.
By the way, I did manage to report one exception:
Federal Supreme Court ruling, November 2021, the Federal Supreme Court actually said:
Yes, we have all seen your masses of evidence on the subject of PCR tests, you didn't have to
present any of this, it is generally notorious that a PCR test is not suitable as proof of a disease.
This is in decision 2C_228/2021 - you can read about it there.
Then there is the separation of powers, effective protection of human rights,
which is always about effective protection.
Look, if this is simply written in somewhere as a declaration - I know it's written in x places in
the pandemic treaty - you don't need to tell me.
The decisive factor is this:
It must be reliable! (in German: it has to be practically reliable), Es muess eifach verhebe!
And look what they did to the old people.
I don't want to clear up or bring up the old stories, but this was a very, very heavy topic - look.
I can tell you that from the moment I filed the first lawsuit and gave an interview, people thought
I was Switzerland's national emergency center.
The phone never stopped ringing and I could write books about these experiences.
People had to endure this in order to protect others.
This affected the elderly, and it affected those who were not told the truth before the
mRNA injection, and who are now being left in the lurch, let me put it that way.
And another keyword: sovereignty:
And here I am addressing all those who are responsible during such times, who have to take responsibility.
I assume that every sovereignty, every state sovereignty, wants to be able to rely on its own
judgment, on the judgment of its own experts, and does not want to be told what to do in perpetuity, forever,
when it realizes that we could do it differently.
We could also protect ourselves even more effectively with milder measures.
Or we could slowly take care of young people and shift our resources from fighting the pandemic back into
youth development, into school education or into proper medical treatment, into a proper health system.
A state must be able to genuinely determine its own prioritization.
If we adopt this system with these two pandemic contracts, then it will no longer be
self-determined, it will come from above under the title of pandemic preparedness.
So, I must come to the end.
Very important - I summarize it with this picture:
The image of the Trojan horse.
The international health regulations were conceived constitutionally - the WHO constitution - as
technical, regulatory provisions of minor importance that can, should, simply be nodded through by
the World Health Assembly with a simple majority.
And now you put things in there that were described in the Iliad or in this story of Troy - as the
Trojan horse - things of the greatest harmfulness.
We have to look at these international health regulations according to
what is in them, that is very important.
Ask questions as a representative, as a representative of the people or as a human being:
What are the consequences for us in the end? For democracy, for our health, for the economy?
And then you have to treat it.
In other words, we need a public debate, we need a vote, in every parliament of course, and above all,
we need media coverage that finally reflects all these points and brings them to people's attention.
Good.
Very importantly, keep looking at the question: Who actually finances the WHO?
On the WHO homepage you will find a lot of powerful information.
About two years ago, the fact that only 16 to 17% of the total WHO biennial budget is actually financed
from the ordinary contributions of the member states was highlighted and deplored for the first time.
And the rest, the WHO is dependent - as a kind of supplicant - on getting the money from somewhere.
If you take a closer look, it looks a little different.
And that is here:
Ordinary compulsory contributions - I've just made a safe estimate - are still less than 20%
today, which is called assessed contributions.
It is said that there is a kind of assessment, a tax assessment according
to the circumstances of each state.
The membership fees are calculated on this basis.
So, and that makes up less than 20%, over 80% comes from voluntary contributions.
Of these more than 80% voluntary contributions, 95%, i.e. practically 100%, are linked to clear purpose
specifications, earmarking, clearly with usage specifications and a small
proportion without usage specifications.
You can see this directly from the WHO website, exactly the figures I just mentioned.
Simply search for the terms Voluntary contributions - Specified, i.e. with a precise specification of the
intended use, and Voluntary contributions - Thematic, which is a somewhat more
extensive specification of use, for example:
It must be used in connection with mRNA injections or with test methods or something similar.
That would be thematic.
But by and large, the WHO is not free in its use.
Where does that play a role?
Sorry, I threw out an article from the presentation, but I'm quoting it from memory now.
WHO constitution, is there a constitutional provision?
Article 37 is aimed precisely at prohibiting the WHO from allowing itself to be pressured,
manipulated or controlled in any way by any external influencers outside this WHO democratic process.
Look it up, Article 37.
So, when you see this large proportion of voluntary contributions, and if you then go one page
further on the WHO homepage, and then take a look:
This is here according to the sizes - the ranking according to the size of the
contributions of actual voluntary contributions.
So it is only the voluntary contributions with a precise purpose.
You have Germany in first place, just under a billion, so 952 million, which is of course very small, you
can't read that at the back, so just under a billion.
Then comes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is clearly not a state and does not
pursue any public-law purposes, with 592 million.
The main purpose is to promote vaccination, 0.6 billion.
Then comes the United States with around 0.45 billion.
And then Bill & Melinda Gates appears again, indirectly hidden in the dress of the GAVI Alliance.
I know that's a bit exaggerated.
The vaccination alliance is supported by states, mainly by states.
But the input investment - founding investment - and especially in the management, in the
leadership, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has played a very decisive role.
Even today, you could almost say that they dance to this tune.
You can, you have to add it up, it's an alliance of interests with the sole aim of
promoting a very specific technology of vaccines, of having it declared mandatory.
And if you add that up, you get over a billion.
These are figures that are on the table, and I am available to anyone, including journalists, to
explain the background to the GAVI Alliance a little more correctly, a little more precisely.
But I insist, you can prove that these two blocks are to be added together and
therefore somewhat provocatively exaggerated:
Bill Gates, directly and indirectly, is the top financier in the area of voluntary contributions.
And that's not all.
Bill Gates gave an interview at the World Economic Forum in January 2019 and said himself:
The best investment - return on investment, 1 in 20 - is investment in vaccinations.
You can read about this in this article:
My best investment turned 10 billion into 200 billion US dollars worth of benefit. (My best
investment turned 10 billion into 200 billion US dollars worth of benefit.)
And that's not all.
Take a look at this: Here Corona starts in January 2020, here January 2020, and before Corona, in
September 2019, Bill Gates invests in Biontech at a value per share of 18 US dollars 10 ($18.10),
around September, so that was three months before.
Then came the familiar, interestingly enough, several television appearances by this very man, who not
only massively advertises this very product, he says:
We are only safe when everyone has been vaccinated.
That's already - that's a big number.
And he sells at a moment when these shares are worth 300 US dollars per share and then says:
Yes, I sold them because they are not that effective after all.
Yes, he actually said pretty much the same thing:
We were a little disappointed with the effectiveness.
But he has made his profit, factor 16.5.
Something like this must at least be examined under the heading of insider trading.
You have to at least write about it in the newspapers.
How can it be that someone whose main job is to promote and sell vaccinations is making such
a killing that he knows everything in advance?
You don't have to fool a lawyer, and I don't believe you either.
Well, in the end, I would simply like to draw your attention to this:
He is not the only one.
I don't want to give the impression that there is only one bad guy and that if we take him to court,
then - no, I want to show a system, an example of a system, that there are economic interests here.
There are quite simply economic interests, and we know that from everyday life.
It's something completely normal.
But some have a little more bargaining power, a little more financial strength than others.
And you have to take care of that too.
You have to make that transparent.
This is also a key part of coping with the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
Otherwise, the WHO does not have the function of protecting our health, but unfortunately,
it obviously has the function of doing favors for the investors, the vaccine investors.
What to do?
The most important thing - if you remember the slide - what is the basis for every good decision?
Therefore, let him who binds himself eternally test whether heart to heart is found ...
The delusion is short, the regret is long.
I don't want to play the nine times clever one.
I would prefer it if I didn't give any more lectures at all, but if you spread this knowledge,
if you pass it on, and if you initiate a discussion with your friends and acquaintances.
And when this issue finally gets to where it belongs, namely in the parliaments.
What I have said here... (audience applauds)
... that's where it belongs, that's where it belongs and that's where the
decision-making process takes place.
And that of course includes - the public interest is more than proven, the public interest is
almost overwhelming us, which means that it should be shown in the media, both sides.
(audience applauds)
And this is not just the subjective feeling of the people from Liechtenstein here in Triesen, but I
can tell you that in all the countries I have been to so far, people react in exactly the same way.
You can feel it directly under your skin, it's like that.
And on that note, I would like to send you warm greetings from your fellow democrats and fellow
human beings from all the countries I have been to.
You can feel exactly the same thing.
They are not conspiracy theorists, they are not right-wing extremists.
(audience applauds)