The corruption of the WHO: Astrid Stuckelberger

The WHO appears to have been sold out to private/corporate power in 2017. Stuckelberger explains how the WHO has mutated into a system of global governance, with a terrorist as its dictator.

Astrid Stuckelberger interviewed by the Corona Ausschuss

The lawyers at the Corona Ausschuss (the Corona Investigative Committee) have interviewed Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger,, a health scientist, researcher and long-term WHO collaborator. She says she was asked to "take a mandate" on international health regulation, which led to WHO collaboration on pandemic preparedness. She recounts her experience in this field in the interview below and reveals a number of rather extraordinary facts.

Briefly, they are:

1. Incredibly, Bill Gates apparently attempted to get himself the same status as any other country on the board of the WHO! As one of the lawyers remarks, he tried to create 'Billgateistan'.

2. Gates was rejected in a vote but has seemingly managed, thanks to the leverage that his funding provides, to acquire some sort of special privileges

Stuckelberger proposes deeper research into the nature of these, starting with the meeting in which Gates was turned down. I had a look at these but couldn't find a reference to it directly. I did find these minutes from the meeting in 2017 in which a representative of the International Baby Food Action Network raise concerns about a lack of transparency around the relationship between the Gates Foundation and the WHO, the fact that "Foundation had made substantial contributions to many health initiatives and the fact that it could influence WHO’s nutrition policy was no secret. What was less well known, however, was that the Foundation had invested heavily in the food and beverage industries."

As quoted: "Those investments had been glossed over in the Framework process and the resulting lack of clarity on the relationship had undermined public trust. She echoed the concerns of several Member States concerning the criteria and principles for secondments from nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations and academic institutions. The Framework should be a safeguard; it should not be seen as a funding opportunity. It should be reviewed and evaluated at the earliest opportunity and the terms “partnership” and “stakeholder” clearly defined."

The framework referred to is the 'Framework of engagement with non-State actors'.
Earlier that year a group of organisations, including the IBFAN, issued an open letter regarding their concern about commercial interests formally entering the WHO.

"Making up WHO budget shortfalls with funding from major investors in food, drug, and alcohol companies (which are often headquartered in wealthy countries) further compromises the independence of the WHO. Granting the Gates Foundation Official Relations status signifies a sharp departure from the post-WWII tradition of the World Health Assembly and makes a mockery of the conflict of interest safeguards purported to underpin the new “Framework of engagement with non-State actors (FENSA).")

3. GAVI has diplomatic immunity that means it is almost completely protected and can do whatever it wants from its base in Geneva.

4. Swissmedic, the medical regulator, signed a three-way deal between Gates and the WHO. Stuckelberger believes Gates created such deals with many countries after being rejected by the board.

5. All nation states who are signatories to the WHO International Health Regulations are legally obligated to follow whatever the Director-General decides to do in the case of an emergency. In the end, the decision to move and how to respond is entirely up to Tedros.

This all sounds improbable but, as shown above, there was already severe discomfort about the expanding power of the Gates Foundation and the commercial interests that it fronts for within the WHO. As the open letter mentioned above also states: "It is, of course, deeply troubling from a governance standpoint that the Executive Board is being asked to approve applicants for Official Relations and verify compliance with conflicts of interest safeguards without being provided with any relevant evidence—verified or otherwise—on the public record." Does that means Gates' request to join the Executive Board was entirely unrecorded?

While I can't verify much of it right now, I did check out GAVI's status in Switzerland and Stuckelberger is absolutely right about that. Switzerland has a set of arrangements that it puts into place for organisations that want to set up businesses there. Everyone knows about Swiss banks, but I imagine few know about the Host States Act, a similarly hands-off arrangement for the siting of organisations. This would seem to be an open door to the corruption, which is, as Stuckelberger says, a known problem in Switzerland.

Click here to see the document in German.

Here's a machine translation of the terms of GAVI's immunity:

"Art. 5 Immunity from Jurisdiction and Enforcement
1. in the course of its activities, GAVI Alliance shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and execution, except:

when such immunity has been expressly waived in a particular case by the Executive Director or by the person designated by him;
in the case of a civil liability action brought against GAVI Alliance for damage caused by a motor vehicle owned or operated on its behalf;
in the case of a seizure of salaries, wages and other emoluments owed by GAVI Alliance to one of its officials, ordered by a court of law;
in the case of a counterclaim directly related to a principal action brought by GAVI Alliance; and
in the case of enforcement of an arbitration decision rendered pursuant to Article 29 of this Agreement.

2. the buildings or parts of buildings, the adjoining land and the assets owned or used by GAVI Alliance for its purposes, irrespective of their location and ownership, shall be exempt from:

a)Any form of requisition, seizure or expropriation;
any form of execution, other official coercive measures or measures preceding a judgment, except as provided in paragraph 1."

With an enormous shield in place, why expect anything other than a horrible outcome from a group of corporate criminals?

If this were a normal state of affairs for Switzerland that would be one thing, but compare that with the terms for GAIN, for example, a UN global food initiative which has no immunity whatsoever (and has a Gates Foundation executive on its board).

Her bona fides established, the rest of what she has to say is absolutely mind-boggling.

I also looked up the International Health Regulations. 3rd edition. Two Articles look particularly interesting:

Article 12

Determination of a public health emergency of international concern

1. The Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular
from the State Party within whose territory an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern in accordance with the criteria and the procedure set out in these Regulations.

2. If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a public health emergency of international concern is occurring, the Director-General shall consult with the State Party in whose territory the event arises regarding this preliminary determination. If the Director- General and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination, the Director-General shall, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49, seek the views of the Committee established under Article 48 (hereinafter the “Emergency Committee”) on appropriate temporary recommendations.

3. If, following the consultation in paragraph 2 above, the Director-General and the State Party in whose territory the event arises do not come to a consensus within 48 hours on whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, a determination shall be made in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49.

4. In determining whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, the Director-General shall consider:
(a) information provided by the State Party;
(b) the decision instrument contained in Annex 2;
(c) the advice of the Emergency Committee;
(d) scientific principles as well as the available scientific evidence and other relevant
information; and
(e) an assessment of the risk to human health, of the risk of international spread of disease
and of the risk of interference with international traffic.


5. If the Director-General, following consultations with the State Party within whose territory the
public health emergency of international concern has occurred, considers that a public health
emergency of international concern has ended, the Director-General shall take a decision in
accordance with the procedure set out in Article 49.

And so, here's Article 49:

1. The Director-General shall convene meetings of the Emergency Committee by selecting a
number of experts from among those referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 48, according to the fields of
expertise and experience most relevant to the specific event that is occurring. For the purpose of this Article, “meetings” of the Emergency Committee may include teleconferences, videoconferences or electronic communications.

2. The Director-General shall provide the Emergency Committee with the agenda and any relevant information concerning the event, including information provided by the States Parties, as well as any temporary recommendation that the Director-General proposes for issuance.

3. The Emergency Committee shall elect its Chairperson and prepare following each meeting a
brief summary report of its proceedings and deliberations, including any advice on recommendations.

4. The Director-General shall invite the State Party in whose territory the event arises to present its views to the Emergency Committee. To that effect, the Director-General shall notify to it the dates and the agenda of the meeting of the Emergency Committee with as much advance notice as necessary.
The State Party concerned, however, may not seek a postponement of the meeting of the Emergency Committee for the purpose of presenting its views thereto.

5. The views of the Emergency Committee shall be forwarded to the Director-General for
consideration. The Director-General shall make the final determination on these matters.

6. The Director-General shall communicate to States Parties the determination and the termination of a public health emergency of international concern, any health measure taken by the State Party concerned, any temporary recommendation, and the modification, extension and termination of such recommendations, together with the views of the Emergency Committee. The Director-General shall inform conveyance operators through States Parties and the relevant international agencies of such temporary recommendations, including their modification, extension or termination. The Director-General shall subsequently make such information and recommendations available to the general public.

7. States Parties in whose territories the event has occurred may propose to the Director-General the termination of a public health emergency of international concern and/or the temporary recommendations, and may make a presentation to that effect to the Emergency Committee.

No voting, just Ted, the war criminal. He runs our lives.

I alluded in an earlier email to the fact that there seems to be a bunfight taking place in the WHO. The leadership seems to come forward with announcements, later they are contradicted. They will push one message out front but their documentation says another. While hyping the threat of the virus they were also forced to publish John Ioannidis' careful study, which pegs the fatality rate to a level comparable to seasonal flu.

Here, the fight emerges into plain sight, as Stuckelberger labels Tedros "this secretary-general terrrorist."

The WHO, meanwhile, is an agency that spends more on fancy travel and hotels that it does on fighting AIDS, TB or malaria (collectively far greater killers than even the grossly exaggerated COVID numbers). WHO head Tedros Adranom is a noted war criminal whose idea of a Goodwill Ambassador is Robert Mugabe. The appointment of Tedros to replace Margaret Chan is a bit murky but old Ted got close to the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation before climbing into the leader's chair.

Speaking of the Clinton Foundation, here's Chelsea Clinton together with Devi Sridhar, thick as thieves, promoting their view on who should run the world and why (in short, they love public-private partnerships). Tedros, the first non-medic to head the WHO. Gates, a criminal twerp who has always lived off the labours of others. Why, for heaven's sake, WHY, are we listening to any of these chumps?

The British government laid out the red carpet for Melinda and Bill, bragged about it on their website, and engaged in heavy petting on Twitter.

Here's a rush transcript of some of the meat of the interview (my emphasis in bold):

AS Astrid Stuckelberger
RF Reiner Fuellmich
JH Justus P Hoffman
VF Viviane Fischer

AS "It was the whole international health regulation is to prepare countries and member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be ready for a pandemic, to act quickly and readily. So the aim then, I thought, was very noble...we won the renewal of the mandate of three years in 2013 and suddenly they announced that there is no funds. Japan has not paid for that. When we had not trained all the regions at all...I always said we should do a publication of training but we never did, I did one for ethics... So I saw there that there is something wrong already.

Then I started teaching this in the University of Geneva on the global health and human rights summer school that I organised with colleagues. I was in charge of the intenrational health reuglation week which I was doing. And WHO's Bruce Plotkin, a lawyer who was working on the international regulations in the WHO, came to tell me that I cannot teach this and I told him, "Well, who are you to tell me what I can teach or not?" And we had a lunch in the WHO which was quite muscly because I said it was my right to teach whatever I want and I don't understand why you don't teach this. I was involved also with the European Union and I have a lot of expertise in the international [...]

Switzerland is the centre of a lot of corruption because we have one of the most important NGO, it's GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initative, which the foundation Bill Gates has, which has, I tell you, I have the papers, total immunity. Total, total. They can do whatever they want, the police cannot come and look into their computer. When the pandemic happened, what they say is a pandemic, I was in North Korea for a big meeting and I realised that something is not right and not corresponding to the interational health regulation when I travelled back. And I think 'this is very weird, the news says one thing and people don't behave the same in the airports' so I started to look and I realise that over the whole year, all the breaches compared to the international health regulation and the preparedness plan. And I'm working now for a lawyer in Quebec, who's called Dominic Desjarlais, you know I organised the Stockholm Peace Summit, post-COVID where I'd invited you and you couldn't come, and he was there with two other lawyers, Rocco Galati and Matt Desjarlais from France.

I don't think we will solve this public health problem and population economic problem without lawyers, it's impossible. So what I'm doing now with Matt Desjarlais, I'm finding out a bit more. And I have four points I can talk to you about.

First, as Silvia is there, it's great because she can confrm and just complement. First that this obligation is signed by 194 member states but it is embedded in the consition of the WHO. So they don't need to adopt it, it is imediately approved and it's an obligation. So it is legally binding.

RF: What the international health regulations or what?

AS: Yes, the international...And this is the trick because nobody knows this. It's in the papers but you have to go and dig and that's what I'm finding out. You have to go and dig. The inconsistencies of everything they're doing to see that they are directing as a corporate agency, WHO. Because on behalf of health security of the international health regulation, they have made a third edition because the 2005 editiion was the second edition. The first edition was in 1969. The booklet of 2005, I don't know if you've seen it, the booklet, this one, is 2005 and it's written second edition and the third edition comes, I saw just now, in 2014 and would enter into force in 2016. And this has made the health security a dictatorship where the director-general can decide on his own to sell vaccines, to sell the PCR instead of all the documents that say you have to have a confirmation of a clinical and there are other tests than PCR, so I'm finding out some inconsistencies that have not been used at all in law.

So the first one is an obligation, so if it's an obligation, what Tedros says, this secretary-general terrorist in the WHO, when he says something, all the countries have to obey under law.

RF All the member states of the WHO, everyone who signed the agreement with the WHO, because automatically, because, as you're saying, this is part of the constitution of the WHO, this is binding law for everyone who is a member of the WHO?

AS Right.

RF Okay.

AS: With two reservations, there are two countries, cause I was teaching that and I know, there were two countries in 2009 in the second edition that made reservations and it's very interesing: it's the USA and it is Iran.

RF: Uhuh.

AS: They don't want to obey the WHO completely. The 2016 third edition, what happened in the WHO, maybe Sylvia you were there when it happened, Bill Gates was already around, he was already mingling, saying that he pays so much money, that he because visible when, I think it was in 2017, or you correct me, I know this through my colleagues there, he requested to be part of the executive board of the WHO like a member state.

RF: Ah!

AS: And it's incredible! I was...I said "How can he dare to do this?" And they went to the vote, the executive board meet every January and it changes every year and the lobby, they tried to lobby the countries, of course he tried to bribe, but it's really an event because it is not mentioned. Maybe we can get the minutes of the executive board. They even accepted that he would be considered as a member state because of the money he gives. So, this is unprecendented in the constitution of the member states.

RF: Is he now being considered as a member state?

AS: Not officially.

RF: But unofficially yes? And that's probably, that's why he has this immunity, right?

AS: He has total immunity in Switzerland.

RF: Unofficially, he probably holds that kind of status, right?

AS: Yeah. Well, I can tell you why it is very suspicious, it because I think he has done something which every member state the same contracts. What I found out with Swissmedic, Swissmedic is the FDA of Switzerland, because I gave the paper to a jouranlist and I can't even find it...Swissmedic has signed a contract with Bill Gates and the WHO.

RF: Aha.

AS: And this is abnormal.

JH : So basically he tried to lobby himself into the WHO as a member state, to basically found the country of Billgateistan. That's basically what he did. At that point he would have been basically a one man country.
AS: Yes, he could be a dicator because he could influence the... But the fact that he was not accepted by vote, that's why the minutes would be very interesting, by vote to be a member state, he then started to sign papers for countries, that's my hypothesis because he did it with Swissmedic. So WHO, Bill Gates and the country in charge of accrediting treatments and vaccination are signing contracts

JH So he didn't get in in an offical capacirty, he didn't get voted in, so then he tried to circumvent that and just basically went around the middle man.
AS: Well, yeah. How can you, if you're a country, sign a contract between three signatures, Bill Gates, A country and WHO. Becuase WHO signs with countries but not...and even that I find pretty weird, you know? I mean why does the WHO have to sign with a coutnry an agreement. You see, this is a corporate agency doing that, but not WHO, I mean correct me Sylvia. The WHO accepts to have a company, a private company, selling, a merchant signing, together the three to make the surveillance and choose the medication, I think, you know, Swissmedic, had posted it on the website. I tihnk that every country, that's my hypothesis, they have done this everywhere. That's why everybody says the same thing in the train, the same message, every week there's the same thing happening.

RF: Tell us more about this immunity. How does this work?

AS: Ok, yeah. I can find again the document, it's also in German because Switzerland is also in German, and you can have a look, it's shocking. Normally NGOs, because I have been and I am an NGO activist with academics in the UN since 20 years. An NGO has a status of accreditation to the United Nations. You can come and speak, you're an observer, but you annot intervene in many things. And you don;'t have immunity is you open an office, you are submitted ot taxation . GAVI has no taxes to pay. This, already this is very strange. Switzerland is shosting an NGO, interntaional, who doesn't pay taxes and who has total immunity. There are clauses in there, you can just read them, I will find it for you. I mean, the police cannot come and take a computer if there is a criminal problem in th office. The police cannot get in.

RF: So they're criminally immune.

AS: Yes.

RF: Immune from any sanctions.

JH: They have qualified diplomatic immmunity.

RF: Aha.

JH: Within their area of operations

RF: What's the name?

JH: They have qualified diplomatic immunity and they don't pay taxes since 2009. I just looked it up. They ratified the law in 2009.

SILVIA [speaks German]

JH : You just said nobody knows about but it's actually even published on Wikipedia.

RF: Yeah but people don't know because nobody cares because obviously...

JH: That's the thing, nobody cares.

RF: Yeah, nobody...

AS: The details, we don't even think that it's possible.

RF: Yes, exactly.

AS: As citizens

RF That's why we're not thinking about that, that's why we're not thinking about what's the basis for all this. Because we simply accept what is being told. And now we're gonna start thinking and I think many more people are going to start thinking, because this is extremely important information. It is...everything is out there in the open but most people do't wanna see it because they don't believe that that can be possible.

JH: And I mean, it's not about saying that anyone's doing, you know, running around harvesting organs from African children or something like that. Nobody's claiming that Bill Gates is doing that or anyone is doing that...

AS: But he could!

JH: That's the problem. We as a society should ask ourselves, should we endow any single person or any conglomerate of persons with such an incredible amount of power without any kind of democratic responsibility or legitimacy behind themslves? That's the question we should ask ourselves.

AS: Yeah.

JH: Not if somebody is going to abuse that power, because abuse is inevitable. As soon as somebody has this kind of power, they're going to abuse it. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually they're going to abuse it, simply because they can.

AS: But why them and not us, you know, other NGOs? Wh can they do it and not another NGO? This is the question.

VF: There's a normal difference with like a normal diplomatic immunity because this is usually, these people come and they just whatever, you know woerk on relationships and maybe they have a speeding ticket or... I dunno

RF: They have some kind of polictical legitimacy

VF: Also, yeah.

RF: But not in this case, nobody ever voted for him.

VF: But someone comes into another country and has total immunity also for like all business transactions and all that, I mean that is really, that's crazy, that's absolutely crazy.

AS: They have less immunity than Bill Gates. Apparently, that's my friends telling me. so many you know more. But the diplomats don't have total immunity.

VF: No, they don't.

JH: Similar relation when we were dabbling with European agencies. We found that in the national regulations about, for example, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, they have literal diplomatic immunity and there's no regulation to lift it. So the head of the European Central Bank for example, if he says I don't want any kind of seizure of my computers, I don't want the police in here, they can't go in. Literally, it literally says that in the law, if he says no they can't do it. And that's basically the same for every European agency and there are no regulations in place. Who would be respionsibe to lift that immuity? It's not even conceptually possible to do that. And here it's the same but at least with European agencies you have some kind of democracy behind it but here it's just, well, now there's immunity and he can do whatever he wants.

AS: And the extent of this is much bigger because I know also that in Basel they have the Bank of Settlement.

RF: Yeah.

AS: Which is I think is a very important organ of this whole supranational...

RF: Yeah, International Bank of...IBS, I think.

AS: Which can take the property away from people or something like that, I'm not a specifalist in that. What I'm saying is that it's not only GAVI, it is a whole system organised and it's very interesting to look at the historical chronology because in 2009 was the first year of the implementaiton of the huge health security governance and that's when Bill Gates started to sign things and start moving.

RF: That's how... We just learned about these public-private partnerships, I mean I've known for a long time that this exists, buit from what Frau Behrendt told us it becomes very clear that the private part of this public-private partnership has taken over control. And not only have they taken over control, they're immune from everything. They're not responsible for anything. This has got to stop.

AS: I'm wondering, what is the role of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and of the Commision of the Human Rights here? Becuase they are very interested .... I made a manifesto, I can give it to you, from Stockholm, that was the aim - where I'm asking for a survey, [inaudible], that they have to go and make order in everything, we have to review everything in the United Nations, because the United Nation has been brought into this corporate agency, I have no doubt. They have not done anything since the beginning of this COVID.

RF: Yes, I know. Well, we've seen a few statements from indivduals that are members of the United Nations or work for the United Nations which looked encouraging, but you're right, there's nothing, no official action. Just like we've seen nothing from the churches. No official action that would have told the population that there's help, that there's another way of doing this, that they would step in to stop the most egregious activities of these crimainls. We, this is a very clear picture now, we are dealing with a bunch of crimainls. But we've seen nothing from the United Nations, so that's another of those organisations that we seriously need to think about, do we need them?

AS: They actually are meeting this week until the 31st of March and I would really suggest that you write to the...

RF: High commissioner.

VS: Yeah, high commissioner on human rights, Bachelet, very quickly. And request, really, that things move and that lawyers take a hand on this because.

RF: We will. We will. We've spoken with human rights lawyers last night and we're in the process. They've prepared something for us and we just have to read it. We have so much stuff to read.

VS: Because you saw the statement of the Secretary-General?

RF: No.

VS: That there is massive human rights violation and that the United Nations has to take care of it.

RF: Okay, very good.

VS: He said that two days ago, I've posted it on my Facebook right away. But 50% good, 50% he's promoting the vaccine. So my hypothesis is that he's changing but he cannot change completely otherwise they will put him out or something.

RF: [Laughs] Yeah.

VS: Because he has had a discussion with Pompeo a month ago or two months, so there is some signs that he is a good guy but he cannot move on, through.

RF: Okay, good to know. Okay, Frau Stuckelberger, we are in a little bit of a bind because our next guest has only so much time.

VS: Okay.

RF: Is there something else that we need to know?

VS: Okay, I'll tell you very quickly then. I can send you an article from David Fiddler, who's a lawyer who has written an article on 'From international sanitary convention to global health security.' He was very worried of the international health regulation when he wrote this, saying that it is becoming a global governance. So I think that would clarify some things too.

RF: Very good.

VS: The second is that you have to see very clearly that the change of definitions of two major things that justifies this international emergency declaration, from all the countries, is mortality and the number of cases that are, but it's not only that, they are taking definitions that they changed in 2009... Two things very important: the pandemic definition has changed from being the number of cases, abnormally high in deaths and disease, to ‘there are diseases that are spreading all over the world’.

RF: The definition originally existed of three elements: One, is that it's a worldwide disease, that there are high number and I think what they called an "abnormally" or an "enormous high number" of very sick people, and an enormously high number of deaths. And they cut out the last two and now the only requirement is that we have a worldwide disease. That means that any flu can be turned into a pandemic. Actually, any cold can be turned into a pandemic. Yeah.

VS: Yeah. And it comes from the WHO and I think when Bill Gates started to change with his crowd the definitions, what we just talked about, the immunity, everything. And the other one, you know that the immunity, they changed the definition of the immunity, right?

RF: Yeah.

VS: Yeah. So now the only immunity is vaccine.

RF: Ja, das ist ganz wichtig. And this is probably no coincidence because this happened in 2009, that's when Bill Gates appeared on the picture, right?

VF: The herd immunity is now.

RF: The herd immunity is now, yeah.

VS: Immunity is very recent.

RF: Yes. But he's still there.

VS: And the last small thing, very rapid.

RF: Yeah.

AS: I'm sure that you sure that WHO has issued twice now, in 7th of December and 20th of January, "alert" to a medical alert to a product called PCR. It is written in small that it is 'alert'. So it is intentionally criminal to say 'alert, this PCR doesn't work with the Cts, you have to find the Cts,' and to not say stop.

RF: I didn't know that.

AS: Oh, ok.

RF: So they have an official alert, meaning you can't use PCR tests to detect infections, and at the same time they're still pushing the PCR test as the only means to detect infections?

AS: Yes.

RF: That is very interesting to know, okay.

AS: And it's intentional because they say in the recommendation that you have to ask for the Ct when you do the PCR. In fact, I can give you the reference and you can look. Because this is a key. They are intentionally putting a small alert, they are delaying the time and they are not saying 'stop it'.

RF: Ok, wow. I think...Well, I think we pretty much covered everything thus far. We're probably gonna meet again but I'm very grateful for you taking the time and being here with us today. Same with Frau Behrendt. [Speaks German].