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:
Yes.
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.
