Interview. Lawyer Philipp Kruse about the WHO, Motives of Its Financiers, and the Problematic New Treaties
Interview. Lawyer Philipp Kruse about the WHO, Motives of Its Financiers, and the Problematic New Treaties
Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse discusses why the international agreements currently under discussion at the WHO pose a threat to individual freedoms and democracy.
Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer, offers an example of how the World Health Organisation (WHO) can disenfranchise us with a simple move. It goes like this – the WHO declares a pandemic and makes health recommendations for member states to follow. For example, it recommends that so-called 'non-essential' businesses should be closed, or that only people who have agreed to inject themselves with new medicines or vaccines should be allowed access to them. If a business refuses to do so, it has the option of going to court. It can be shown in court that there is no logical or scientific basis for these restrictions, but the judge is no longer interested in that. According to Kruse, the judge will only look at whether the country's behaviour is within the limits of international or WHO recommendations. "This is what we have seen in the past three and a half years and what I have seen already so far as a lawyer. That was exactly the approach that the courts took. They did not listen to our exhibits and they did not consider our points with exactly that reasoning – as long as the authorities remain within the guidance and suggestions of the WHO, there will be no correction," he says. If the WHO's powers are now extended further, as is planned, the situation will get even worse, he warns.
Kruse is an accomplished lawyer who runs his own law firm in Zurich. Having previously concentrated on tax and business law, he has in recent years dealt increasingly with legislation around so-called health issues, defending people's rights in the face of arbitrary decisions taken by the state in the Covid crisis. He has also closely followed developments at the WHO and critically analysed the legal implications of the WHO's 'pandemic treaty' and the International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently being amended.
People are not usually interested in topics related to the World Health Organisation (WHO) or the International Health Regulations (IHR) or the pandemic treaty. The reason is that these things are seemingly removed for them and they cannot understand them. In other words, they do not care because they don't understand how the WHO and these treaties affect their lives. Why should people care about what the WHO does and what it doesn't?
There are three points where people can easily see the immediate significance of the WHO in their lives. Number one: the WHO was the international organisation that declared the (Covid – HS) pandemic, the so-called public health emergency of international concern. They did so on the 30th of January, 2020. From that moment on, this was the relevant status for all 194 member states. You know the rest of what happened.
Number two: it was the WHO who declared the PCR test to be the number one sole method to measure the degree of viral threat to public health. PCR test, and not an individual consultation or other tests (the PCR test is not a reliable method for identifying someone as infectious or sick – HS).
And number three – these are just three points out of many – the fact is that the only solution that was officially considered in all of our countries in order to deal with Covid-19, was the vaccine. The Covid-19 vaccines were based on a new technology, the mRNA-based technology. So, experimental and not previously proven, totally new.
These three elements came upon suggestions or declaration of the WHO. So I think that was quite a significant impact. Then you have all the other measures that were promoted sooner or later. They were promoted by the WHO – like the lockdowns, the masks – contradicting WHO’s own previous documents. Originally, lockdowns were not at all on the list of measures to fight pandemics and neither were masks. They changed their opinion and as of then, literally all the countries had this duty to wear masks, and everybody followed.
Right now we are talking about changes in some of the WHO documents. What are these documents?
Well, these are actually agreements. These agreements need to be signed by all the member countries and we're talking about two documents, two agreements. Number one will be a totally new agreement, a new pandemic agreement. It is developed on the basis of the logic that the WHO needs to be better prepared and strengthened for future pandemics.
And then the number two agreement is an already existing agreement, the International Health Regulations (IHR) from the Year 2005. For most countries, these regulations have been in force since 2007 and they were the basis for our Covid-19 pandemic management. They are about to be amended significantly.
Now you have these two documents – a totally new agreement which will have to undergo a national domestic process of ratification. So a certain domestic debate will take place. But with the IHR, they will become legally binding and come into force by way of automatism without any domestic debate and process of ratification. And the content of these amendments that we have on our table since late 2022 is really threatening for our democracy and ultimately threatening our health and our lives as well.
Please explain.
We must be aware that these are drafts for now. But this draft has been on the table unchanged since December 2022 and none of the involved parties have distanced themselves from the content of these amendments to the IHR.
The most dangerous aspect I see within the IHR is the proposals that are on the table. There are four or five points that are easy to understand. Number one is the extension of powers of the WHO director-general to call out a pandemic. He will have in his possession a much wider range of reasons for declaring a public health emergency of international concern. Number two: as of then the WHO will assume the power to issue recommendations that in the future shall be seen as legally binding for the member states. And the member states will have to execute them then. Number three: for you as a journalist, most notably important and also dangerous, is the monopoly of truth that shall be transferred to the WHO. This seems to be so important for the WHO that we can see these provisions in both agreements – in article 18 of the pandemic agreement, the pandemic treaty, and in article 42 of the amended IHR.
What do these articles say exactly?
They say actually that member states shall fight an 'infodemic'. That is what they call statements that in their view are wrong or qualify as disinformation. They call it 'infodemic', because for them, for the WHO, the so-called wrong information is as dangerous as the virus itself, the pandemic itself. So, we see provisions that force the member states to control the flow of information and to eliminate any information that is not in line with the WHO's information policy from social media, from any public space. And we all know that here in Europe we also have the Digital Services Act and this Digital Services Act in itself is already a threat to the free exchange of information and free speech (DSA requires social media platforms to take down content deemed 'illegal' by the authorities or face huge fines. We have written more about it here. – HS)
I already mentioned that the right to call out a pandemic will be extended. Number two: the so far non-binding recommendations will begin to be considered legally binding. Number three: the right to control information. And what we have for number four is that we do not have any checks and balances, we don't see any process that would allow us to correct any one of these previous three points. The member states might object individually, but this will not be an effective tool to stop a pandemic that turns out to be a non-event or to correct information or misinformation about an experimental medical substance when it turns out to be totally unnecessary or detrimental. Or also to object against any wrong recommendation that turns out to be harmful. So there will be no mechanisms in place to effectively revert the errors of the WHO’s decision-making.
Now with these four points, as a citizen, you should be concerned about your human rights because if you have such a regime established, a global regime, how would it possibly be possible for a judge to protect your human rights, when he only hears one sole truth and when the WHO is considered the number one authority to issue recommendations. In all health matters the judge will then always say that, okay now, what did the health authorities decide? Did they remain within the recommendations of the WHO? Yes or no? And as long as the health authorities remain within them, everything will be regarded as legally correct, and concerns shall not be reconsidered or corrected.
This is what we have seen in the past three and a half years and what I have seen already so far as a lawyer. That was exactly the approach that the courts took. They did not listen to our exhibits and they did not consider our points with exactly that reasoning – as long as the authorities remain within the guidance and suggestions of the WHO, there will be no correction. This, I think, is quite concerning and dangerous for our civil liberties, but also for our democracy, because from the moment the WHO and its director-general would decide to declare a pandemic, our entire public life, our economy, and our personal life will change directly.
What would you say is the motivation behind such plans?
The official motivation is easy to follow. Officially the WHO declared in 2021 that we were underprepared when Covid came. We were totally underprepared and when we finally had the Covid-19 vaccines, we did not have a sufficient amount of vaccine for everybody. So in the future, we must be better prepared and we must make sure that the vaccines are sufficiently available for all the countries. So their motivation is to strengthen the role of the WHO in preventing new pandemics from happening and that shall be done with a wide concept of supervision or control of whatever could give rise to a health-related problem. And data shall be exchanged. States shall exchange data in this respect. Most notably they shall exchange genomic sequences of potential viruses. Genomic sequences as we all know are by far not at all proof of an actually existing disease. A genomic sequence could be produced on a computer just as a digital ID is not evidence of an actually existing person, nor of a criminal. So the motive of the WHO is to widen its powers underneath the banner of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and better reaction against pandemics. This is the official motive of what is behind the changes.
But the real motive? All we can see is that the changes will not really serve health purposes, the public health of the people, not at all. We have seen that during the past three and a half years – starting with the lockdowns, harming the economy, but also harming the health of people, the psychological health. We never had a problem with children and Covid-19, but we have had long queues to psychologists to treat children who have developed mental issues. And then talking about the victims of mRNA-based vaccines – we can see so many victims. And regarding Covid-19, the only group that could have potentially really been threatened by it, are the oldest people in our society, at the age of 80 and plus. These were the ones who actually became victims of Covid-19 and this is the same age group that is threatened also by the ordinary flu.
All these damages that we see are clearly the result of the WHO's bad pandemic management. So what is behind it are obviously business interests in promoting these substances, promoting these mRNA-based vaccines, and beyond, the entire industry of Big Pharma with all its products. And it seems that a healthy human being is not a good healthy being. Only a sick human being is a good customer and will create profits for Big Pharma. Of course, this is a very general statement, but it is hard to avoid this conclusion after the past three and a half years. Because there's no other sense to be discovered or identified. At least I don't see any other reason or motive in the WHO.
Should we also need to consider the financing of the WHO?
Absolutely. This was the next point I wanted to come to. Financing is the key to respond to your question. You can just go to the homepage of the WHO and there you will find that less than 20% of the WHO's operations are financed by the ordinary contributions of member states. More than 80% is financed by non-mandatory contributions, sponsoring. And out of these sponsoring payments – more or less again – 80% is tied to a condition in the interest of the sponsor. I have calculated that all together 74% of the entire financing of the WHO's operations is based on or is coming from sponsoring that is tied to a condition in the interest of the sponsor. So now, who are these sponsors, right? This is the ultimate question exactly. The major players here are Germany, number one currently. It is Germany or the United States – one of them is always number one. So number one right now is Germany. Then you have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and then you see already Gavi, which is the alliance for vaccination and which is significantly financed and also controlled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So if you take these two organizations, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you have the top number one sponsor for all the business operations of the WHO. So now we can have a reason to look at or to ask the question: who is Bill Gates and what are his interests? In an interview a couple of years ago alongside or at the occasion of the World Economic Forum in Davos, he said that any investment in vaccination is actually one of the best investments you can possibly make. He said it there into the camera that he is able to make a 20 times capital gain, 20 times profit from his investment. So the motivation here is money. It is profit. The bigger the business and investment into vaccines, the bigger the profit. So they have an interest, these people, that we will have more and more pandemics. This is a pandemics-based industry and the sooner the people realise that, the better for us. (Gates has, for example, earned back his investments into Covid vaccines 15-fold. In Davos in 2019, however, he seemed to be arguing that the 20-fold return on his vaccine investments is not direct, but indirect since it reduces child mortality in poor countries and helps the economy – HS.)
Regarding these new WHO treaties again – how are they going to come into force and is it possible to just ignore them?
If you're asking how good are the chances for countries to simply not follow these agreements, then firstly we have to look at how many votes there must be, and what is the quorum for acceptance. With this new pandemic treaty, it must be 2/3 of all the member states of the WHO by May 2024. Whereas for the amendments to the IHR, it's just 50%, hence much lower. And then the IHR will come into force just 12 months later. So far this deadline is at just 12 months by way of an automatism without any form of ratification process. Countries have to reject these amendments to the IHR. This is the official way to step out of these amendments. If a country, within 10 months after the end of May 2024, declares the rejection with respect to all or part of these amendments, then this country is out. So there's still hope that your government, our governments, will ultimately declare a rejection.
For the new pandemic treaty, there will be a public process of debate, ratification. And there is the chance actually to foster a public debate, to foster the democratic interaction, and ultimately to build up pressure from the parliament towards the government to say no, we will not sign and ratify this pandemic treaty.
We have seen in the past that the governments are obeying very strictly even to what are just suggestions from the WHO. So it could be presumed they will act still more strictly when they will be under a legal obligation to perform and execute recommendations. And to make sure that there's only one truth – and this particularly is in my view the most dangerous aspect. If you have only one truth, then it will be impossible for any free science to develop which is always based on thesis and antithesis. You will have only one thesis and the same goes for justice. You will have no justice because the judge will just listen to one side, not to the other side. And then it will be impossible to have an open democracy with pros and cons and with a real debate because people will be scared to speak and take the other side. But most of all, in my view, the most dangerous aspect of all of this control of information is that people will be uninformed. They will not be informed about whether it is necessary for them to take whatsoever medication, whether the particular substance will be effective, and most of all – whether the substance is safe or not. If you see on television only one story that, yes, we must take it, otherwise the elderly people will die, so you have to do something and this is the effective tool to do it and by the way, it is super safe, then, yes, people are uninformed. It cannot be said they have signed up to an informed consent.
My position in the past 3 years has been that 99% of people have accepted to be vaccinated without proper informed consent. And this is a crime in every country. It's by the way also forbidden by international law. I'm talking about the Nuremberg Codex, which has been codified within the covenant of political and civil rights from 1966. Read Article 7 and Article 4. It is absolutely forbidden to subject people to an experimental treatment without their full informed consent, which presumes full information and freedom of choice. And this applies even in times of emergency. This is how bad it is what we have done in the past three and a half years.
You mentioned the financial motivation behind all of this. What about global political motivation or agenda?
In my view, it is clearly there. We see a similar development driven by the United Nations. They have also got the green light when it comes to emergencies that are in the public sphere. I think that we see that global governance and government are more and more based on the logic of emergencies that are called out by the WHO and the United Nations themselves. They can self-empower themselves just by calling out an emergency for whatsoever reason. I have not yet mentioned this new concept of 'One Health'. 'One Health' is a very vague concept that shall allow the WHO to actually base its decision, its declaration of a pandemic on even climate change or the reduction of natural species. Literally, anything that happens in nature can give rise to a pandemic and so this is a process of self-empowerment. It aims at power at the global level and that means total control. We have that with the WHO. We have that with the United Nations. Therefore we have to resist and therefore we have to say no to these two new agreements. And we also have to inform our fellow citizens. We have to significantly increase the pressure towards our political representatives so that they can hold up the red card to their governments, to our governments, and say no, let's stop it immediately.