by Grand Jury

August 04, 2022

from StopWorldControl Website







  1. The Complete Document - PDF


  2. The City of London - The British Elite and their Agenda for World Domination


  3. Psychological Manipulation - Controlling the Minds of the Population to Change their Behavior


  4. World Health Organization - The WHO has been set up to operate as a one world government - Below report


  5. Conclusion - Private entities are taking over the world






The next two expert witnesses are Dr. Silvia Behrendt and Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, who held leading positions in the World Health Organization and the United Nations.


They reveal how the WHO has strategically infiltrated all the nations of the world with the purpose of abolishing democracy and imposing its own tyranny on all members of humanity.


The WHO has its own "constitution", a word which was carefully chosen, with the purpose of replacing the constitutions of the nations.


The Member States - which is literally every nation of the world - are bound to unquestioning obedience to whatever the WHO says, effectively making it a one world government, operating entirely outside of national constitutions and any kind of democracy.

All this is done under the guise of "healthcare".


International Health Regulations (referred to as IHR) were invented in order to pave the way for this worldwide tyranny.


All they need to submit the world to their fingertips of control, is a method to declare a "public health emergency of international concern", which can easily be done with fraudulent diagnostics.


Dr. Behrendt reveals how there was no Covid 'pandemic', until a faulty PCR test was introduced that suddenly increased the so-called "cases" 14-fold.

These WHO whistleblowers also expose how this totalitarian worldwide health system is entirely controlled by private corporations and private individuals, who use their vast financial resources to impose their own plans on the whole of humanity.


For example, in 2012, at the World Health Assembly, Bill Gates was declared as the leader of the global vaccine action plan 2012-2020, while he has no medical qualifications whatsoever, and according to his own words, is only into vaccines because of the astronomical financial gains.


Gates also became the main financier of the WHO, effectively controlling it, which means the entire world is ruled by Bill Gates...


Of course,

Gates is in turn submitted to other, higher up, financial entities, who use him to submit the world to their tyranny...

What these WHO and United Nations whistleblowers expose, is that private entities created a worldwide system that allows them to use the excuse of "health emergencies of international concern" to rob humanity of all rights and freedoms, and implement a totalitarian regime, run by a financial oligarchy.







Austrian lawyer, currently director of the Global Health Responsibility Agency (GHRA) and former legal consultant to IHR Secretariat at the World Health Organization.

Dr. Silvia Behrendt received her PhD from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, on the topic of the International Health Regulations and the Executive Authority of the World Health Organization during public health emergencies of international concern.

She was a visiting researcher at Georgetown Law, under Professor Gostin, funded by the Swiss National Fund.


Later, she collaborated with the International Health Regulations Secretariat in Geneva at the World Health Organization and conducted WHO country missions for the purpose of national implementation of the International Health Regulations.







Dr Astrid Stuckelberger is a scientist, researcher and teacher for 25 years at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva and Lausanne (Switzerland).

She also gives lectures and is an invited professor in academic training throughout the world.

She has worked with WHO on International Health Regulation (IHR) and public health emergency management between 2009 and 2013 and created a Summer School on Global Health and Human Rights at the University addressing WHO, IHR and United Nations health-related policies and global management.

Publications: 12 books, over 180 publications from scientific articles to policy papers for the UN, EU or governments.



Mr. James Bush was speaking about financial, political and security issues, particularly under the paradigm of bioterrorism that provide evidence that there is a path that led to the current Covid-19 'pandemic'.


I would like to focus the attention to the fact that we are currently not confronted with a medical endemic response.

Most of the criticism raised by the scientists and doctors center around the issue that, from a pure medical perspective, all health measures recommended and required by national health authorities or WHO are actually contrary to the epidemiological and medical state of the art.

And this is so on purpose, I contend, because the underlying concept used for Covid-19 does not follow established scientific principles, but rather a different ideology which is framed as "global health security" and means to treat health as a national security issue, requiring national and global states of exceptions to deal with it.

Therefore, I consider it crucial to provide a short, historic analysis of this concept in order to understand why the current global health crisis we face is not about medical science and health in the common sense we would expect.

The progressive replacement of medical aims with political aims started in the context of emerging infectious diseases in the early 1990s and originated actually from the US, as we already heard.


Within a short period of time, WHO institutionalized this new approach by the rapid setup of an entirely new division called Emerging and Other Communicable Diseases.


And, interestingly, they didn't engage the staff of the Communicable Disease Control Department at that time.

This policy confirmed that the new paradigm shift from lowering the incidence of regional endemic diseases was to the sole focus on preventing the international spread in real time, and most preferably within a 24-hour time frame.

There was a need for technocratic apparatus of surveillance networks that were capable to deal with these new threats.

So, consequently, in 2001 there was a resolution of the Votels Assembly that's already inserted this notable concept and called for the first time to find a definition for a public health emergency of international concern for the purpose of revising the outdated sanitary laws called International Health Regulations, because nobody was interested in sanitary laws at that time.

The problem was they had a very narrow scope and applicability only for yellow fever, black fever and cholera.


So, at the same time, particularly in the US, bioterrorist scenario planning - we've already heard a lot about it - within the military and at the academic level with the most prominent exercise like Dark Winter was launched.

And, interestingly, all those events "went real" shortly after that.

What is also very interesting - and we did not hear - is that not only the exercises were held, which turned into reality, also the legislation in the US was prepared to curtail civil liberties for the fight against bioterrorism from 1990 onwards.


This undertaking was started by the CDC and eventually finalized by professors from Georgetown University, like Professor Larry Gostin, together with Johns Hopkins University, and it was called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.

This Model Act was sharply criticized at that time in the US for transforming governors into dictators but was used over many States eventually.

So, the most important milestone in the revision process of the International Health Regulations, which is an international treaty, was the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome, abbreviated as SARS as we all know, in 2002, which was accompanied by an alerted media attention that was not proportionate to the threat of the disease, which was remarkably low.

In addition, there was a quasi-consensus among scientists that the novel SARS outbreak could have had a bioterrorist potential.


This political bioterrorist framing of the SARS outbreak led to the agreement of the international community that the old sanitary laws needed to be rewritten to include bioterrorism without naming this goal officially at WHO.


This came under the paradigm of an open all-hazards approach, which means that not only various sources of risks are included, but also that any intentional release would come under the paradigm of the WHO, and that the IHR needed to be revised.

So, the legal dimension of the global health security concept was eventually successfully integrated into International Health Regulations in 2005 and thus, the US model of public health emergencies has been exported to the international community and is now merged into national constitutions which have never had such constitutional emergency provisions.

Then the outdated IHR provisions of disease containment were replaced to include pathogens that pose a threat to national security and require an emergency regime that enabled the irrigation of legal standards not only in terms of medical safety regulations, but also in terms of fundamental standards, freedoms and civil rights.

According to this new paradigm, endemic diseases which count for the most death do not fall under the attention of this global set of rules - which are now the standard procedure for pandemics - but only newly identified pathogens without medical treatment that therefore require an emergency licensing, as the substances are all unlicensed.

In addition, the importance of diagnostics emerged under the global health security ideology as a new priority issue because the threat needs to be identified as "threatening prior to devastating effects" according to this ideology.

The availability of diagnostics is labeled as necessary requirements for 'pandemic' preparedness and response.

Moreover, under the threat of bioterrorism, the establishment of laboratories boosted throughout the world, as Mr. Bush already explained to us.


Because biological weapons are defined as weapons of mass destruction and constitute a crime under international law.


The only legal pathway to lawfully undertake research and medical treatment is called "biodefense" which takes place in laboratories, as we learned.

I would like to remind that all SARS coronaviruses come under the US 'Category C' of potential bioterrorist agents and are also classified under the expert regime of the EU for dual use.


That refers to the potential of civil and military use.

I hope now that the picture becomes a bit clearer via some historic knowledge that's needed to understand why WHO and the global community do not address SARS-CoV-2 in accordance with the state of the art of medical knowledge,

...but rather fight the virus as a threat to the nation in an unproportionally manner with military instead of medical terminology referred to it as medical and non-medical countermeasures.

And throughout all health ministries in the world, new departments are established called National Health Security departments.

As a second step, I would like to explain in more detail why the small number of atypical pneumonia cases of Wuhan in late 2019 and in the first days of 2020 were reported to WHO and soon ended up as a public health emergency of international concern, and soon later as a 'pandemic'.

This is all due to the International Health Regulations and the revision thereof.

Also, the International Health Regulations, referred to as IHR, include an all-hazards approach.

Some pathogens, like any novel strain of an influenza subtype or any SARS coronavirus, are still prioritized and have to be reported within a 24-hour time limit to WHO.

The identification of this novel virus was possible because China has a very tight screening regime for respiratory diseases since the SARS outbreak in 2002.

As such, it was possible for China to identify this novel pathogen.

Already, on the 1st of January, WHO requested more information about the outbreak due to information by Taiwan.

On the 3rd of January, China officially notified WHO of a cluster of 44 patients..., of which eleven were severely ill with pneumonia of unknown etiology after the WHO...


Reiner Fuellmich:


That does not sound like a 'pandemic'.

Silvia Behrendt:


Yeah, that's true.


… after the WHO already requested more information, and there was the closure of the Wuhan market.


So, this politicization and interest of WHO at this very early stage, on the 1st of January, when only 44 people had this atypical pneumonia and 11 people suffered severely from this atypical pneumonia, is indeed an interesting aspect that should lead to some precautions about how the entire crisis started.

There were no deaths reported and no international cases, and the potential of human-to-human transmission
was not assessed at that time.


In the meantime, the novel virus was identified as the SARS coronavirus.


So, this means the identification of this new virus falls under the International Health Regulations that formally requires an automated official report.


The WHO and the Director General is obliged to constitute an Emergency Committee under the IHR once such an official notification has been received. So, he's legally obliged to constitute this Emergency Committee.

Then - now it's becoming interesting - at the same time, Professor Drosten and others worked in Germany intensely to deliver to WHO a diagnostic test assay via the PCR method for this novel virus.


And Professor Christian Drosten was also the lead author in 2003, when the novel SARS coronavirus was identified and since then nominated as WHO expert.

His first protocol was officially delivered to WHO on the 13th of January 2020, which implied that he had, of course, worked prior to the state of submission, and WHO immediately collected his first protocol of this assay to its member States.


Later, this assay was revised and finally published in the Eurosurveillance journal on the 23rd of January.

He also contributed to the WHO interim guidance dated on the 10th of January, and this interim guidance was published - you can have more information if you want to later - but it's getting complicated otherwise.


This information guidance was published as a part of a comprehensive package of about ten guidance documents of WHO for countries covering topics related to the management of an outbreak of the new coronavirus disease.


So, on the 10th of January, WHO had a comprehensive package already published.



Reiner Fuellmich:


At that time, when there were literally no cases except for the 44 cases?

Silvia Behrendt:


Yes. And these were getting official.


And it normally takes a very long time at WHO to get something published because it has to be cleared.


Importantly, as any SARS coronavirus requires an official notification under the IHR, the Director General had to convene a Covid-19 Emergency Committee as a legal obligation under IHR.


You can find, on the WHO website, the experts who are on this committee, and you can find their CVs there.

This Emergency Committee advises the Director General in the proclamation whether a public health emergency of international concern exists, which is an executive authority of the Director General in accordance with the legal principles set out under the IHR.

The first meeting was held on the 22nd of January, where the experts found no agreement whether a PHEIC - that's the abbreviation of Public Health Emergency of International Concern that WHO uses - exists or not.


And they agreed that there was no international spread of the novel coronavirus outbreak, which was due to only 17 deaths and 557 confirmed cases on the 22nd of January.


So, they had an idea, and said:

"In ten days we will again meet and assess the current situation of new cases."

That happened on the 13th of January.


During those ten days the cases increased 14 times, to 7,711 confirmed and even 12,167 suspected cases.


Reiner Fuellmich:

So, what had happened is that Drosten had delivered his test kit to the World Health Organization and through the use of his new test all of a sudden, we had 14 times the number of cases that existed before he used his test.

Silvia Behrendt:


That's what the documents say.

Reiner Fuellmich:


What this boils down to is that the cases that they needed in order to declare a public health emergency of international concern came into existence because of the test. Is that correct?

Silvia Behrendt:


At least, they needed the international transmission, and they have to diagnose it.


And without diagnostic test, it's not possible. So, the only one who gave this test assay is in the document referenced as Drosten. That's what the documents say.

Reiner Fuellmich:

Had it not been for his test, the WHO ten days later would still have maybe 500 cases, but not 14 times that many?

Silvia Behrendt:


If there is no test, you cannot qualify it as the new virus. That's the problem.


The most important thing everybody should know is that the proclamation of a public health emergency of international concern is connected to vaccine manufacturing.


That's actually the most important thing any legal person or anybody should know. It's not the 'pandemic'. There is no legal consequence if WHO proclaims or defines a 'pandemic'. That's just interesting for the media.


But the public health emergency is connected to the regulatory pathway for emergency use authorization.

Reiner Fuellmich:

Without a public health emergency of international concern, there cannot be any use of untested drugs like vaccines?

Silvia Behrendt:


Right. Because all secondary laws - like the EU, the FDA, the US - they use the concept of the public health emergency also proclaimed by WHO.

Virginie de Araujo Recchia:


I would like to confirm with you that Mr. Bill Gates put pressure on the WHO to declare a 'pandemic' and that we know that Charité Berlin, which is linked with Drosten, has developed these tests with the financing of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust.


Can you confirm that?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


What we can confirm - and that's what I was going to explain to you - is that there is really a plan since 1999 that you can see chronologically with events that is mounting up GAVI from the Vaccine Alliance in UNICEF to start joining the United Nations, not only with UNICEF, but with the World Bank and WHO - through financing of this IFFIm, the International Financing Facility for Immunization - so, they did a trio, the triad.


At the same time in 2006 GAVI started to be a global alliance in Switzerland as a foundation.


So, they registered in 2006 at the same time as they did a tripartite agreement between World Bank, WHO and GAVI to get financing from the Member States.

That was the first step.


Then in 2009 he registered as an international organization in Switzerland of a new type.

We have a press release signed by the Swiss government that shows that it was created specifically for Bill Gates, this international organization with total immunity.

You cannot do anything. You cannot even take him to tribunal. They do their own tribunal if they have any sort of disagreement.

From then on, he started, and we have the documents of the WHO how they created a decade, 2010-2020, a Vaccine Decade.


We did the implementation, IHR implementation, because you had to teach and train the countries to be prepared. And we finished the first round in 2012, from 2009 to 2012.


We received this with Georgetown University, Pretoria University, and I was with University of Geneva, and at that time, when we stopped the round, we got funds again from Japan, and suddenly it stopped.


And they said there is no more funds. And we had almost a contract signed.

And I found out now that I know why, because in 2012, at the World Health Assembly, they put Bill Gates as the leader of the global vaccine action plan 2012-2020.

So, it's beautifully carved...


From then on, he was in the driver's seat, and it's mentioned. GAVI is the leader of most of what is concerning vaccines. And it's not only children, like UNICEF, anymore - it's the whole world.

That's enough proof that there is a plan. And it keeps on...


I mean, he is in the SAGE group, the Strategic Expert Advisory Group. And they prepared even in 2016 an assessment report of this 2012-2020 Global Vaccine Action Plan, GVAP.


And in 2016, they were very upset because they did not vaccinate the whole world.


And they would take any excuse with vaccination, and they don't talk about experimental or validated, it's all vaccine of course. And in 2016, you can really see that they're not happy.


And Mr. GAVI Global is saying that we really have to make an effort.


So, they have made a program called the Accelerator Program of Vaccines...

Reiner Fuellmich:


Who received basically diplomatic immunity in 2009?


Was it GAVI or was it Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Or was it Bill Gates personally? Or all of them?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


No, it's really GAVI Alliance Foundation.


But they took away the name "Foundation" and in the agreement, it's really GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccination. I can find the exact term in my paper, but it concerns really him, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


What I find out more and more is the financial mechanism of funding or receiving funds for a program.


I found out again that the Swiss government, Swiss Medic, the FDA of Switzerland, had signed an agreement to provide to the Bill and Melinda Gates for his program $900,000 over three years, from 2020 to 2023, so $300,000 every year.

So, I'm suspecting that when we take a model like Switzerland or, like Silvia said about mechanics between the national and international regulation, it's been applied like a model everywhere in the world that the law on epidemics of a national country is binding to International Health Regulations.

Even the Constitution of Switzerland has a little line they have added without asking us, which says that international law supersedes national law in the health matters.

And then you can see that in the law of epidemic that was passed in 2016 - so probably in all countries, we should check and I'm pretty sure we saw that in Canada - there is a law of epidemics, a law of emergency that says to the country they will obey the International Health Regulation.

If a PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) is declared, every country has to trigger immediately the mechanics of obeying.

And that's what explains why when on 16, 17 March or in this area, the whole world locked down, because this is incomprehensible according to the International Health Regulation.


According to the SARS-CoV-1, it never happened like this, ever, that suddenly the virus was everywhere.


What's happening with Omicron too. It starts in South Africa and the next day it's all over the world.

Reiner Fuellmich:


Yeah, but is there any - as far as the International Health Regulations are concerned - is there any democratic legitimacy to these International Health Regulations?


Has anyone who invented these International Health Regulations been voted into some office?

Is there any democratic legitimacy to this? Or is it just a private enterprise by people who control the World Health Organization?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


When we were teaching and training about the International Health Regulations, it was the question that came very often in:

how come this is binding to Member States?

And, it was an extraordinary answer, which will explain to you how important it is to look at this new 'pandemic' treaty now.


It's that WHO is for the moment the only United Nations agency who has a constitution.

WHO Constitution Article 21(19), 21a and 2, are binding Member States directly if they adopt the International Health Regulations.

So, they don't need to go through the whole procedure of a treaty.

That's why it's very dangerous. This WHO Constitution is like if it was planned to supersede all constitutions of the world. Because why would you use the word "constitution"?

And the answers of the lawyers from WHO was always,

"Oh, we have adopted it at the General Assembly of 2005 under the WHO Constitution, Article 21a and Article 2".

Reiner Fuellmich:


Yeah, but those people who created the International Health Regulations have not been voted into their positions, they have no authority.


Or is there any connection between the Member States people and these International Health Regulations, or is there only the Constitution which they themselves invented?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


Well, let me explain the mechanics of the United Nations - and it's with all the big agencies like the International Labor Office, the ITU telecommunication, for the refugee.


Every year you have a world assembly, like an NGO.


A world health assembly every year takes place in the United Nations in Geneva in May, the third week of May, where all Member States have their little seat and they are all together and they have an agenda and they decide about the agenda of the world together.

But normally, if there is a big decision, they are just children of the United Nations General Assembly.


So, they should go up to the General Assembly and it has to get the blessing of the Secretary General, which is the head of the United Nations, which should give a blessing to WHO.


I don't see this in the case of International Health Regulations, if that's a clue.

Silvia Behrendt:


Well, I'd just add to this that the International Health Regulations - because we started with 1850 some hours ago.


It's a very interesting regime because it's an international treaty that dates back to the sanitary conventions of 1850. So, it's one of the oldest international legal regimes which were taken over to WHO and which were recognized under the WHO constitution.


They already had in mind that they wanted to have a regulatory fast track regime.

So, they had this regulatory process that says that under the regulations for sanitary, which is now 'pandemic' laws you could refer to, you have the Member States that need to opt out and not opt in.


So, by the resolution that is passed, the international treaty has to enter into force in the Member State, otherwise it has to opt out on purpose. So, it's the reverse process of international law.


And that's a very unique thing. And I think no other international organization has this capacity.

It's democratic because it was an intergovernmental negotiation process.


And the interesting thing is that only because of the emergence of SARS, they had this new ideology adapted from the "global health security" idea that not the endemic diseases are devastating to the people, but only new diseases that have no medical treatment.

So, they inserted this new concept in the old laws that were already existent at WHO and existent in the world. So, they adopted this totally new ideology.


And that's the very striking thing we have now.


And it's passed as a resolution.


And it is interesting that it's an international treaty and WHO is not a party, it's only bound by the resolution. Whereas other international treaties, like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the WHO is a signatory.


So that's an international law, not a treaty.

Reiner Fuellmich:


I still don't understand. I don't see any connection between myself, my countrymen and these International Health Regulations.

Silvia Behrendt:


That's a problem with all international law.

Reiner Fuellmich:


Well, not really. I think this is quite unique.

Silvia Behrendt:


Member States gave their consent in 2005.


They all said they wanted to have this new kind of rules for international law, and now they are obliged to implement it nationally. Or since 2007, it entered into force, and they are obliged to implement it.


And for example, Austria, I'm living in Austria, we have no emergency clause in our Constitution, and we did not adopt our sanitary laws, our epidemiology laws.


There is no clause of emergency, and you still have the same regime.

So that's what I always say. Whatever legal regime and whatever constitution countries have, obviously the system can impact any country and any constitutional system and any legal regime, it's possible with or without emergency clauses.


They apply emergency rules.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


It's the same with the millennium development goals and sustainable development goals, which seem to match 2000 to 2015, 2015 to 2030, the sustainable development goals.

They're doing a whole mechanism around this, and it becomes more and more obscure.

And it is more and more obscure how much us, as citizens, really decide. And we don't decide anything anymore because it becomes so complex and obscure.

Reiner Fuellmich:


We definitely have to take our sovereignty back.


That is the conclusion that I draw from this, because even if the EU wants to come up with a new law, for example, they can decide that they want to introduce these laws, but unless the Member States ratify it in their own countries, it doesn't become law in their countries.


So, this is quite surprising to me, and I think to many lawyers who should know about these things, as well.


This is very disturbing.

Silvia Behrendt:


And in the EU they have created this HERA agency, which is the same, but probably much more coercive. And that's a huge, huge problem.

They have no authority in health matters, but they still pretend to have it and still create the agencies and instruct on us, without democratic processes.

Reiner Fuellmich:


HERA stands for Health Emergency Response Agency, right?

Silvia Behrendt:



Reiner Fuellmich:


And isn't there a rumor that: if our national Member State governments in the EU collapse, then they're going to take over and under the EU Commission, there will be a kind of a mini world government.


Does it sound plausible?

Silvia Behrendt:


I have no idea, but I'm sure they would love to.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


Yeah, that's the idea of this 'pandemic' treaty.

Because this 'pandemic' treaty has articles at the end to say that with the constitution of WHO we don't need any other constitution as Member States.

Not only do they diminish the power of Member States, but they have invited a whole lot of non- state actors - NGOs, GAVI, intergovernmental.


Bill and Melinda Gates might be an NGO, and then they make different things. The Rockefeller Foundation, I've met them in WHO, they come and sit in meetings, and they are NGO, we don't know what they are.

So, the non-state actors are also invited in this new treaty, which would take over literally, through the WHO Constitution
– a world constitution - because of 'pandemic'.

Reiner Fuellmich:

So ultimately what we're looking at is private associations, private individuals even, taking over our national governments through the World Health Organization, using health as a crowbar to do whatever they want.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


Yeah, we could say that.


You can see it through the financing because GAVI and private partners have started to invade and interfere the whole United Nations.


I actually looked into this because I was called to organize for Switzerland the whole United Nations Open Days for two days. I learned a lot about an organization that nobody hears about, which is really a private entity, called the UN Global Compact.

The United Nations Global Compact is only private sector.


They can, for example, finance - I mean, it's open to partnerships.

Silvia Behrendt:


Also, the implementation of the International Health Regulations is very strange because it's done by termed external evaluations undertaken by the Global Health Security

Agenda. And if you look at the page of the website of the Global Health Security Agenda, it says it has a private consortium, and you don't know, you have no information which private consortium this is.


But you know that these external evaluators go to Germany, and to every country. It's even on the website of the RKE (Richardson Kontogouris Emerson LLP) applauding how great it is.

But they don't say it's implemented by private entities. You don't know.

I don't want to have laws implemented by private entities. That's absolutely undemocratic. And they're very proud of it.


They're very proud of it.

Reiner Fuellmich:


That's bizarre.

Virginie de Araujo Recchia:


If I understand well, there are private advisers who're working also with the WHO, like McKenzie, Censure, they are an arm of the Bill Gates Foundation also?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


Yeah, it's a good question. I've actually looked for the link McKenzie and WHO because we know that they are creating the communication.


And I think they have been putting it under something they're setting up now, an intergovernmental panel.


What is the exact title?

Intergovernmental Negotiating Network, something like that.

This just happened at the executive board. So, it is a bit worrying because I think that all those communication agencies are buried into that.


They're not the only one.

Viviane Fischer:


So, what is this treaty adding to the situation that we have right now?

Silvia Behrendt:


Well, the treaty is very mystical.


I just heard the former legal counsel of WHO speaking about it. It's available on the internet. And it's very political. Probably the fiercest proponent is Charles Michel.


He suggested the European Union wants this treaty. The US is kind of a poster. They made a proposal that IHR should be strengthened.

So, the problem will be a due track world, because if they are rushing into a treaty, only a small number of signatories will sign. And the IHR is a universally acknowledged tool.


And we did not mention that it would actually have good aspects in it which are neglected and infringed:

it has human rights implementation clause, which is not respected, absolutely violated.

So, there were compromised deals at the end when they passed through the resolution. But it's just that they are not mentioned, and nobody gets a court that would find a violation of this.

So, the problem is what they would like to do, is to have an upstream and a downstream pharmaceutical industry, probably.


Because the scope of the treaty is not even clear. Not even this is clear. The only thing is that there's a lot of communication about it.

The Director General is a very huge proponent of this treaty because he's very political, in a way. And it's very, very strange what kind of intentions are behind that.

And it's called for,

"preparedness and response."

So, what we know is that they invented a new procedure, which is also problematic.


It's called,

WHO Emergency Use Authorization.

That's where Big Pharma can go to WHO and say,

"I'm inventing a new pharmaceutical or new diagnostic set for this public health emergency. We would like you to put it on your list".

And then WHO puts it on the list and has a disclaimer saying that there's no warranty and no endorsement of WHO, and if somebody dies, it's not WHO's fault, it's only a list.

And then GAVI takes this list and says,

"Oh, we can export it to the entire world.


Even if we don't have stringent and very competent medical authorities. We have this listing of WHO, and now we can contribute it to the goal."

That's what they do in the treaties of GAVI and this vaccine alliance, this COVAX facility it's called, the third pilar of this ACT accelerator.

They probably would like to find better regulatory ways for it to become a normal process that Big Pharma goes to an international organization.


But then it's actually a treaty of private international law, not of public international law because the problem of customer international law is not recognized.


It's a norm that there are no medical treatments whatsoever without your consent, which you cannot derogate from.


So, yeah, it's a huge problem.

Reiner Fuellmich:


So, we've learned tonight, from all the other experts - including, of course, the three experts who testified at the beginning of this session - that, for example, in the UK, healthcare has been largely privatized.

It's being controlled by private groups, private charities, even.


We've learned that through this privatized, even their psychiatric system has been privatized. There are private people behind all of this, and this is how they control everything.

They even create their own future leaders next to what the World Economic Forum is doing, meaning they have their own people who they then seem to be telling what to do in positions of power in the governments.

Now, if I look at the WHO, there's a man by the name of Tedros, he's the Director General. Who is he...?

I have read in the papers that in his own country, a criminal complaint has been filed against him for genocide.

Is that the typical, let's say, puppet that the private entities who are running the healthcare show are using to further their aims?

Astrid Stuckelberger:


No, I must say I've never seen a Director General like that.


I've known many. But I know also from inside that the staff was very unhappy with him, and they asked for his resignation. And of course, it never happened.


Another scoop, if I did not say this already, is that on the board of GAVI Foundation, you can see the names of people who have been part of GAVI.

Well, Tedros has been part of GAVI before he was the elected Director General. Conflict of interest. He was on the board between 22 January 2009 and September 2011.

The other person with conflict of interest, the President of Ireland, who was at the head of the Human Rights Commission.


And I know her, but I'm very surprised that she was there with President with signature even of GAVI from November 2008 to September 2011.


I can give you the paper. It's no problem.


It's very precise:

25 November 2008 to 14 September 2011.

There are many names that I don't know, and I'm sure you will find there are many names that you can maybe find in your countries too, because there are countries' representatives that are in GAVI before they were even in position.

So, it's clear that Tedros was already entangled with Bill Gates...

Reiner Fuellmich:


So, wherever you look, you see conflicts of interest.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


I would just want to add something that might be interesting legally.


There are, in the annex in the notes at the end of this International Health Regulation of 2005, two countries who made reservations that they don't agree with that completely, because they want to apply their global security nationally.


And you would guess who it is.

It's the US and Iran...

So, it's interesting to see that two countries have managed to put a reservation to this.


How come the others haven't?

Reiner Fuellmich:


It's because their people haven't spoken. But they will.

Debbie Evans:


I just wanted to mention very quickly when you mentioned about the UK, we've also got a serious issue going on here with the unvaccinated in that anybody that seems to be admitted to hospital with a Covid-19 positive test would appear to be put on an end-of-life, accelerated end of life care plan.

Patients seem to be given midazolam and morphine.

And this is without their consent.


This is without their families' consent.

These decisions are made by the clinicians alone.


And the families and the patient doesn't have any say in it at all.

So, I just want to be sure to include the victims of this absolute disaster that are unvaccinated. And also, just to bring your attention to CEPI.


CEPI was founded in 2017, and CEPI and GAVI worked financially very closely together.


When CEPI was launched in 2017, Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum launch said that they would be cutting out the safety with regards to clinical trials.


He said it straight out and it was actually featured on UK Column news.

Bill Gates said that the safety data and manufacturing would be cut out, which would enable the 100-day mission to go ahead to have vaccines rolled out within 100 days of the World Health Organization declaring a 'pandemic'.

And also, with regards to Whitney earlier talking about DARPA (see full session video), we have our very own kind of diluted DARPA, if you like.


We have ARPA, but we also have Wellcome Leap, which Whitney has got a lot of information about when it comes to bioweapons and making biochemicals.

And also, I just want to go back to the patent as well, because the Rothschild's patent of 2015, if you look at the full paper, everything that we're seeing today was put into that and it was approved in 2020, but it was given priority in 2015. So, it was written in 2015.

What we're seeing now is everything within that patent.

So that together with SPARS 'pandemic' - and SPARS 'pandemic' 2025-2028 was a coronavirus, and some of the names
are the same as in the Johns Hopkins futuristic scenario, like CORAVAX.


There's an awful lot of similarities there.

And I know that you've been talking about Lock Step, but I just want to remind people that SPARS 'pandemic' 2025-2028 gives a month-by-month breakdown.


And if you look at when we first started in March, when we have the first case in our country anyway, or in December in Wuhan, it literally goes month-by-month.

So, the prediction going forward would appear to be antimicrobial resistance, which is already what is written in SPARS. And we're finding many people in this country not being able to access antibiotics and GPs and physicians here not wanting to give antibiotics.


So, I just wanted to throw that in. Thank you.

Reiner Fuellmich:


So, we do have lots of reason to worry about our sovereignty, not the least of one is the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations.


That seems to be the overarching theme.

This is how through their constitution and through the revised International Health Regulations, they seem to be trying to gain control over the rest of the world including, of course, all 196 Member States.

Is this a correct assessment?

Silvia Behrendt:


Yeah, at least, I think, because in the first part of my expertise, I trust that the military aspects were included in this agenda but were not named.

That's the reason why we have now a 'pandemic' response, which is not medical, which is unproportionate and political and we do not realize it.

Because they included this bioterrorist scenario, and they adapted the language to global health security - that's also the Center for Civilian Biodefence.


Also, at the time of Dark Winter, it was called Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Center. Center for Civilian Biodefence, I think, was the correct name.


And they had also a journal called Bioterrorism or Biodefense, and now it's called Global Health Security.

So, we should not forget about that a bio war could go on, at least, so it's much more political, as the politicians would themselves agree.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


I will add two points.


One, we should worry about the whole United Nations because the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are 17 goals and 169 targets. It's the Agenda 2030, and it is all entangled, especially with the 'climate change', for example.


But there are many other mechanisms.


The second is the UN alliance for SDG Financing.


What is this? When you dig, you find a lot of things, very mysterious, that we have to find out. But another one that might interest you is - remember that 'pandemic' or public health emergency of international concern has four typologies.


I was taking care of the case studies and it was very important to distinguish. That's what we should do with what's going on now, because we're all focused on the biological factor.


But in fact, the first one is infections biology. The second is food-borne biology. And there's a whole organization behind that, called INFOSAN.


The third is chemical, and chemical is mercury, it can be metal, etc. And there was one expert, Kasten Gutschmit, a German that I was inviting, and he was always making great reports but very difficult to find the experts there.


And the fourth, which is very important, and you will see why, is radio nuclear radiation and that's even more difficult to find experts. I realize this, because in our courses we were inviting people who are taking care of this.


It is the International Atomic Energy Agency based in Vienna, and they are experts on radio nuclear, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are the first in line there.

What I was shocked about, is when we were doing the case studies of Fukushima, we asked them what did WHO do?


And they said,

WHO was not allowed to access Fukushima."

They were refused the visa because the first one to be there is the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency.


What is very strange is that they have an agreement which gives them power over WHO.

I went to look at what they're doing now with Covid, just today.

I'm very scared to tell you, that they are in charge of the RT-PCR kit. They are independent from the United Nations, they have their own international treaty, and they report to the UN General Assembly and to the Social Security Council.


This is for nukes, it's for a radio nuclear threat, which could kill the whole planet.

So, they say that the IAEA has developed a nuclear derived diagnostic technology that can help detect and identify Covid or anything else in humans and in animals.


They have developed this test. And this test is very efficient, the RT-PCR, because it's polymerized chain reaction and rapid test and they think they are the experts, especially for Ebola, Zika and the African swine fever virus.


So, just today I read this, and for me it rings a bell because they are offering now the test kit, a PCR test kit and their lab. They're linked to labs and that's where the power lies.


I don't know what you think but that's a bit worrying.

Reiner Fuellmich:


You mean other private organizations, or half-private or, most of these organizations which we spoke about tonight, pretty much all of the international organizations are more or less controlled by private citizens, by private groups, charities, et cetera.

This harkens back to the theme which we heard about first today, about how the City of London, basically Big Finance, is controlling everything through their emissaries.

They're private people trying to gain control over the rest of the world. Again, we have to take back our sovereignty. That is what all of this tells me right now.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


And maybe also look at all the NGOs, because in WHO there's the World Alliance of Hospitals, the World Alliance of the alliances of alliances.


And a lot of British people are in charge. You have to also know that a lot of militaries are there because the CDC in the US was formerly military. And I think it still is, by the way.


We must, I think, disentangle those WANGO, it's the world NGOs or the Bingo, the business and industry of NGOs because there are the mechanics, where it's very difficult to find them, and they have a lot of power more than we think.

Reiner Fuellmich:

The people have to learn that they have to disconnect and start grassroots democracy, look into their regions and their communities.

They know best what's good for them.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt:


I just want to talk about, Doctor Silvia, you were mentioning global health security.


And I would like you to perhaps maybe just put it in perspective when it comes to the definition changes from the World Health Organization in 2009.

Silvia Behrendt:


Well, you mean that you refer to the "'pandemic' criteria"?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt:


That's correct, thank you.

Silvia Behrendt:


Well, my personal view is that WHO just realized they don't need a 'pandemic' definition anymore because everything that is needed is a PHEIC, a public health emergency of international concern, because they want to manufacture vaccines.


It doesn't matter how the 'pandemic' is defined in non-legal documents.

They actually alleviated the very high threshold because they realized they can, at any time, make a public health emergency as long as there is international spread and as long as they have diagnostics.


So, they focused no attention to this theme, and that's our problem.

Lawyers are always looking for this 'pandemic' definition, but there are no legal consequences linked to the definition of a 'pandemic'.


But there's a huge legal consequence if the Director General takes his authority and proclaims the public health emergency of international concern.

Virginie de Araujo Recchia:


Does it explain, perhaps, why they use the models of Sir Ferguson to increase the fear and explain that there is a 'pandemic'?


Because with the epidemiology and mathematics that they use and that is not useful, it's wrongly used to study the spread of the virus, they use this synthetic information from these models perhaps?


Because it seems very strange that they use the models of Sir Ferguson that don't work at all. And these models were duplicated in other countries, like in France, for example.


And we took this for granted. And it's not based on experience and medicine at all, it's only mathematics.


We can't use that at all.

I would like to know if it's for this reason that we use these models to increase the fear of the 'pandemic' and to mass manipulate.

Silvia Behrendt:


I don't know any specifics about it because actually they had everything, they needed to proclaim a public health emergency.


They needed it for the population because there was also the first PHEIC declared in 2009 where the vaccines were manufactured but nobody was threatened, at least I was not threatened by this PHEIC, because there were no media releases that threatened us.

But now they needed the population to stay at home during the lockdowns and to get the vaccine in the end.

Virginie de Araujo Recchia:


Yes, because from the model of Sir Ferguson, the only solution was the vaccine and no treatment at all, only vaccines.

Astrid Stuckelberger:


But I could just add that there are many scientific definitions they have changed, not only "'pandemic'."


They have changed the definition of "health professionals," it's everybody. They have changed "data privacy," there is no data privacy anymore.


They have not made ethics, for example, in communication in the International Health Regulations implementation course - and you have to do it, it's to reassure people that "we don't know, we are looking for something, you will know what is going on", and step by step you keep people informed.


And there it was, fear right away.

Not only this was a psychological operation for that fear, that constant fear with cases, with images, with deaths - that were not deaths, because we know today there is not more mortality in 2020 - but also with contradictions, that we said before.

And this is in Melanie Klein psychology. You make psychotic people and children when you say "I love you but I hate you", and you push or you say "I love you and I hate you" at the same time with behavior.


So, they made a very crazy nonsense of coherence, no control, no sense of control. It's also another concept in psychology.

They make people totally insecure, which diminishes their immunity, by the way.

What they also did psychologically, they took away all the religions and all the belief systems. This is something that keeps people up, and they censored religion, they censored death.


They forbid the ritual of death, which is one of the most important rituals if you want to have a good grief, development, coherence and healing.

So, there are many things they have done, not just this manipulation. They reversed completely the values. And this is a bit of this Melanie Klein psychotic.

I call it the Hansel and Gretel Syndrome because,

"I love you; I'm going to give you this, I'm going to be ethical, we are going to treat you well with the vaccine" and they're killing them.

They have absolutely abrogated ethics research guidelines that we developed in 2006 to 2009, and I was involved in that. So, all the values are also a psyop.


They have changed the values and the definition.

Reiner Fuellmich:


One thing for certain: this is not about health.

Debbie Evans:


In 2002, Professor Ferguson modeled 50,000 deaths would happen in the UK from mad cow disease. And he modeled it completely incorrectly, where we saw the burning of all our cattle for 150 deaths.


So, he was very incorrect.

We were very surprised in the UK when we found out that Neil Ferguson was responsible for the modeling of this 'pandemic', because he was so incorrect in the last one.

Reiner Fuellmich:


It is astonishing, indeed, how many people who are completely incompetent at what they're doing.


One of them being the person who runs the EU Commission. She failed at every single job she's ever held.

It's incredible how many completely incompetent people are kept in office, obviously, by the people who put them there - those super rich people who somehow seem to be fueled and kept alive through the City of London and its fifth columns that seem to be everywhere in the world.