From ... in Health Social issues Awareness — Sep 24, 2021

WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI

The WHO has turned global health security into a dictatorship, where the director general has assumed sole power to make decisions by which member states must abide

According to a long-term World Health Organization insider, Bill Gates vaccine alliance, GAVI, is directing the WHO GAVI is headquartered in Switzerland. In 2009, GAVI was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity, including immunity against criminal sanctions. It is also exempt from paying taxes In 2017, Gates asked to be part of the WHOs executive board like a member state because of his funding. While the one-man nation-state of Gates was not ocially voted in, it appears he may have been granted unocial power of inuence Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three- way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. It appears other WHO member states have entered into this three-way agreement as well. The facts are obvious, the entire response to the global pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization.

Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth. No one will dispute this fact.

The next data point is:

Who controls the WHO?

Some will dispute this, but the evidence is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO's biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. support in 2020. What does Gates have to benet from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever made, with many tens of billions of dollars running through his "nonprot" GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal suppression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-19 makes perfect sense now.

These natural therapies, with nebulized hydrogen peroxide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine being the best examples, would be serious competition for the vaccines. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their life for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all makes perfect sense. With that framework, enjoy the information our team has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the more pieces we t together, the sooner you will see the bigger picture. WHO Insider Speaks Out In July 2020, four German attorneys founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Auerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss).

In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program of aging since the 1990s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network ^{1 2 3 4} on Ageing. According to her bio,

She is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to evaluating scientic research for policymakers, in particular in health and innovation assessment, pandemic and emergency management training and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.

She's also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientic articles, policy papers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research was and still is highly politicized and primarily done to support and justify political decisions. For the past 20 years, since 2000, she's been involved with public health at the WHO, and was part of their research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got involved with the WHO's international health regulations. Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO's international health regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to not only prevent outbreaks but also respond swiftly when an outbreak occurs. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and undermining this pandemic preparedness training.

The Center of Corruption According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the corruption, largely thanks to it being the headquarters for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity. As explained by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, GAVI has qualied diplomatic immunity, which is odd, considering the organization has no political power that would warrant diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI's immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. ^{5 6} GAVI's immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings.

GAVI is a nongovernmental organization that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong. "They can do whatever they want," Stuckelberger says, without repercussions

The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and collecting evidence if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. "It's shocking," she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger notes is "very strange." Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, willfully or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole host of questions. It's particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is "directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO." Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what amounts to dictatorial power over the whole world.

The director general has the sole power to make decisions including decisions about which tests or pandemic medications to use that all member states must then obey.

The Nation-State of Gates What's more, Stuckelberger discovered that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO's executive board like a member state ostensibly because he gives them so much money. Indeed, his funding exceeds that of many individual member states. Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible the idea that a single man would have the same power and inuence over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It's a brazen power grab, to say the least. While there's no evidence that Gates was ever ocially granted the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn't have it unocially. One thing that raises Stuckelberger's suspicion is the fact that Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. "This is abnormal," she says. Essentially, in summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, essentially placing him on par with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the director general of the WHO says, goes.

They've effectively turned global health security into a dictatorship.

The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the director general what to do? When you look back over the past year, it seems Gates has often been the rst to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an identical message, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim. As noted by Fuellmich, it's becoming clear that many private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private side and they're immune from liability. "This has got to stop," he says. A complete review and overhaul of the United Nations, which established the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or rein in undemocratic and illegal activity. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them. Changed Denition of Pandemic Allowed Health Dictatorship In the interview, they also highlight the WHO's role in setting the stage for a global health dictatorship by changing the denition of "pandemic." The WHO's original denition, pre- 2009, of a pandemic was: " when a new inuenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness." The key portion of that denition is "enormous numbers of deaths and illness." This denition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine u pandemic.

The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high mortality criteria, leaving the denition of a pandemic as "a worldwide epidemic of a disease." This switch in denition is why COVID-19 was and still is promoted as a pandemic. We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal u. It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. Yet we're told the price we must all pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the relinquishing of our civil rights and liberties. In short, by removing the criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and livelihoods. WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Denition of Herd Immunity The WHO has also radically altered the denition of "herd immunity." Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. ^{7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17}

Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness, but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination. However, in October 2020, the WHO upended science as we know it, revising this well- established concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation. As late as June 2020, the WHO's denition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here's what it originally said: "Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection." The updated denition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows:

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that ght disease, known as 'antibodies', just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but crucially vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission. With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.

^{18 19}

After public, and no doubt embarrassing backlash, the WHO revised its denition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now reads:

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity,' is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths. Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease

WHO's Recommendation of PCR Test 'Intentionally Criminal'

Stuckelberger also shocks the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice December 7, 2020 and January 13, 2021 the WHO issued medical alerts for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds (CT) will produce high rates of false positives, that the CT value should be reported to the health care provider and that test results be considered in combination with clinical observations, health history and other epidemiological information. Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, it has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infection. This, she says, makes it intentionally criminal.

The January 13, 2021 medical product alert was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden's inauguration as the president of the United States. In this alert, the WHO stressed that the "CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient's viral load," and that Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.^{20 21,22 23 24,25} It also reminds users that "disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results," so that as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. The alert goes on to explain:

This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS- CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specicity. Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specics, clinical observations, patient history, conrmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Taking a patient's symptoms into account and using a scientically defensible CT count should have been routine practice from the beginning. It just didn't t the geopolitical narrative. Since the start of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended using a CT of 45, which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore cases. This alone is how they kept the pandemic fearmongering going.

The scientic consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the PCR test useless, as the accuracy will be a measly 3%, meaning 97% are false positives. By nally recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured end to the caseload at a desired time. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would reinstate the U.S.' nancial support for the WHO.

Time to Put an End to the Global Health

The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of "the highest possible level of health" by all peoples. 26 27,28,29 30,31,32 33 34 It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond compromised. Because of its funding a large portion of which comes from the "one-man nation-state of Gates" it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves corporate masters and through its dictatorial powers is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world. In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) issued a report on the WHO's handling of the 2009 pandemic of novel inuenza A (H1N1), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that ended up causing disability and death around the world. PACE concluded "the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustied scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public." Specically, PACE found "overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO," and that the drug industry had inuenced the organization's decision-making a claim echoed by other investigators as well.

The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against undue inuence by vested interests, public funding of independent research and, last but not least, for the media to "avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain." None of those recommendations were followed and, if anything, the WHO's mismanagement of public health, thanks to private-public partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only worsened. Other reports, two published in 2015 and one in 2017, also highlighted the WHO's failures and lack of appropriate leadership during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, years ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that radical reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role. 35 36 37,38,39,40,41 42 43,44 45 Yet here we are, still, and no reforms ever took place. Instead, the corruption festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a power hub for the technocratic deep state that seeks to assume power and control over all nations. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard look at the WHO and the U.N., and decide whether they're even worth saving. At bare minimum, the disproportionate inuence by private vested interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, must be thoroughly investigated and routed out.

Sources and References

Acu2020.org Auerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English Algora October 4, 2020 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German) AstridStuckelberger.com Bio GAVI.org June 23, 2009 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness May 1, 2009 (PDF) Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF) Bitchute, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk) Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived) The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived) Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352 Breitbart May 7, 2020 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF) John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF) WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology June 9, 2020, What Is Herd Immunity section WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19, October 2020 (Archived) WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19, December 31, 2020 WHO Information Notice December 7, 2020 (Archived) Off-Guardian December 18, 2020 WHO Information Notice January 20, 2021 The Defender January 21, 2021 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF) WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF) Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23, 24, 26 25 27 28 29 30 Jon Rappoports Blog November 6, 2020 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491 AP January 21, 2021 Assembly.coe.int June 24, 2010 Engineering Evil February 10, 2014 Wikileaks December 9, 2009 Wikileaks December 10, 2009 Prevent Disease December 10, 2009 Forbes December 23, 2019 WHO.int Report of the Ebola Interim Assessment Panel July 2015 The Lancet November 22, 2015; 386(10009): 2204-2221 Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26; 372(1721): 20160307 31 32 33 34 35, 36, 42 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Who controls the WHO?

WHO's Recommendation of PCR Test 'Intentionally Criminal'

Time to Put an End to the Global Health

Subscribe to The Article Feed