Wodarg

I was for 10 years in the council of europe I was the president of subcomittee on health in the countcil of europe
and there i initiated the swine flu examination the fake pandemic swine flu is a fake pandemic and we examined what was happening there in the committeee

I was not astonished to find out that there is a great dependency by the WHO on soponsours tand that those sponrsoo have influenced th work of the WHO to make all this do about the swine flu, because I already had got acquainted with the WHO with the bird flu and with other, yeha, they tried before, they had some exercise, they had some training for pandemics before with smalle diseases like with SARS and MERS, aI learned a lot about PSE, so there were many such smaller periods that were very interesting for someone who is interested in epidemiology, and I found out each time I was in contact with the WHO, that it became worse and worse and that there wer epeople who were very close to the pharmaceutical interests, and that there were lots of conflcits of interest in this organization

WHO changed from 1998 - 2002 - there was secretary general Mrs. Brudeland former norwegian president, she was the head, she was going to Davos, she was inviting the industry in Davos, the WEF, inviting the industry to engage in heatlh problems solving health problems globally and the industry was meainly was phaarmaceutical companies, and they did not hesitate to follow this invitation, ther was Bill Gates with his foundation, Bill and melinda Gates Foundation, there wer other foundations who do this from UK, and there was other sponsorshipfo rthe WHO from nations who get extra money for tehir pharmaceutical industry, so it is washed by the government like this, but it follows the economic intersts primarily and this changes teh work of the WHO a lot
It is a health agency but you can have a look at health from different perspectives if you go there as some statesman who says I want to pay as littl emoney and I want people to stay healthy and so I want prevention and I want WHO to tell us how we can do this the best way, and you acn have a look at health as a field of business - so yuo go there - which new diseases are there worldwide where I can perhaps produce a vaccine or some drugs so I can earn money, I will do something for health says the pharmaceutical industry but they do this because their primary interst is for there investors and shareholders so they have to make money or they will be fired, so they go tot he WHO they are not primarily interested in public health but they are interested in selling their products, and this makes the big difference if you let them set the topics, set the fields of work of WHO, tehy look for fields of work where they can sell vaccinations, and this changes the whole perspective and you can realy easily observe that the WHO started speaking aout vaccination all the time since 2000 more and more an dthey were finding more and more diseases where perhaps you could sell vaccinations or antiviral drugs or somethign like that so I think this has corrupted this institution a lot and it's a very sad thing because we need a good world health organiation that cares for prevetnion and looks after people so they are health and know how to live themseves healthy without the pharmaceutical industry

I wAS WORKING THE last 20 years against corruption as parliamentarian I was responsible for fighting corruption in health care so corruption is what you find is the misuse of entrusted power for private gain and private interests and this I think you can brbibe peopel and they are corrupt buit yuo can also change an instutition you can dchange an instution by sponsoring and giving ear-marked money and saying there's a lot of things to do there, do something there by setting the topics by setting the direction of an institution you can influence it and this can go as far as you can say there is institutional corruption, fi you buy the whole institution you don't need to bribe any employee or any director anymore because you pay it and you can say what they do

those institutions say they don't have so much money, they have thousands of employees over the world, btu this is not so important, the mebmb er states, the 194 member states of the WHO they give theri share so they pay their contributions anually and this is a basic financial thing but the earmarked money isf or projects, and there are only a few people setting those projects and those projects are for a private health partnership they are the private who gives the money and says what you do and they have an idea of what would come out of the project so this WAS THE CASE with ebola, whic was for instance in africa some years ago and I have made an observation that that could have been done, many things befor the WHO started to work there, so there was na alarm already in Guinea and when the first cases came up it would have been very easy to do something, but those local people said we have to wait until the WHO comes and the UN comes and this took some weeks or months until this big machine was working there and many people were infected and they used it for testing drugs and deveoping nwew methods of vaccination with mRNA, so this is the first time they tried out genertically modifying the patient with and then let the patient produce its own antigen so making people like a bioreactive producing of hte vaccine themselves, this was a new method and what you see now with covid19 they do now with this
they got the market allowance for the first time for such a drug so this was a field for experiments and I had thee suspicion that they were just misusing a bad situation in Africa to prepare the markets to prepare fo ra bigger thing we now experience

I have a friend who is working in western Africa and he gave me a phoen call in March and this was and it was he told me that there were cases of ebola in Guinea and he wanted to help becauase he had contacts with a laboratory you could easily maek the diagnoses and stop th spread of the disease to find the contaminated peple and tot each them how to move and how to prevent the spread of the disease and this could have stated in April, but Ebole picked u there wer more nad more cases nothing was done like this and it was realy bad in ltae summer and it spread over several countries andat this time they startefd remesdeisivir and they started deveoping vaccinations and I think it was not hwell done and it could have been done much easier and much easlier and there are people who profit from this yeah bigger outbreak because with this bigger outbreak they could test the drugs they could try to find out how to prepare the vaccinations so they had an economic profit from this and when the outbreak was stopped there was another short outbreak in Congo where they had already the drugs the vaccination and they tested it there, so for me I have veyr big suspicion that they ebola case was just managed in a way that tthe pharmaceitcail companies could do their things there could develop their prodocuts there this was misuse of WHO for drug development and there is another misuse of WHO fror making panic to sell the drugs and this is what we see now and if you can use such an agency to increase fear it h people then you can use it for any purpose and you paaralyze people and wjen you do something taht you don't want people to demonstrate or fight against, ou can just paralyze them with fear say there is a big pandemic and they will do everything you tell them, they won't oppose

What we have seen last year I think this was a very well-planned thing. WHO had the role to say to define how the pandemic looks like and WHO just took the test developed by Mr. Drosten and colleagues and this test was there very quickly and with this test they defined the virus, because there was no, the virus was never cultivated, it was never isolated, the virus was from the very beginning defined by the test by Mr. Drosten - and WHO said this is the virus, when the test is positive, this is the virus, and afterwards we saw the spreading of the virus and this was the same figures on the map and this was the spreading of the test - everywhere where the test was used there were positive cases and WHO and everyone who is in the ? knows that each winter there are cases with coronaviruses, coronaviruses are there every year they make 5-15% of the flu viruses, and so you can be sure you find some coronaviruses and the coronaviruses who are on the way in all those last years they are very similar to SARS viruses, there are still the old ones where we have other tests to find them, but most of the coronaviruses now are SARS-like viruses, and you find them all over the world, and they change they have mutations they change almost every day you find some coronavirus that has changed if you look for them intensively, and this is what they've started. And showing us this thing as a very dangerous thing because they have connected them with pictures from intensive care units and from coffins and they showed us very frightening pictures and in the same time they told us there the test of corona was positive. They never look for any other viruses there are more than 100 viruses who could have done who could have made people die in the same way they were to die from coronaviruses but they were only using this test and saying the test is positive and this is a very bad thing spreading

WHo and its role as a norm-setter -> the WHO has the power since 2007 when the international health regulations were published and were in power the WHO has the power to define in health they can define what is a pandemic, they can define viruses and so the reason a pandemic spreads, they can define the diseases even, say what is an infection and how you can recognize an infection so they have the power of defining anything about infectious idseases that are possibly spreading around the world and this is what they do and we see, ro we have seen that they define the pandemic, in 2000 the pandemic was smoething very serious and dangerous with many people getting very ill and dying, you would see them in the streets, ou would see them everywhere nad you would see the entire population being endangered - this used to be a panademic, spreading rapidly over many countries and making many people ill and letting them die, and this changed in 2009 with the swine flu because the swine flu was a mild flu, it was one of the mildest flus ever, and they had prepraed all those vaccinations stuff and they made all those contracts worldwide the pharmaceutical industry so they pressed the WHO to change the definition of Pandemic and they just wiped out that there should be many severe cases and many death, they just took a disease rapidly spreading over many countries with a new virus, because a new virus new viruses are laways new otherwise they can't spread so you can have a pandemic each year and this is what they did not change. They changed the pandemic again just some months ago when they said we have something like a permanent pandemic, we have an interpandemic period and then we have a postpandemic period and then we have a pandemic period and they said they made us thinkg and understand a pandemic as a permanent thing with waves coming again and again and this is the picture teh WHO nwo uses and what bill gates uses and the pharmaceutical industry uses and the frighten us with next wave to come and with new mutations so it's a very good business model where they for sure promise that they can earn a lot of money for many years. It came out when there was a press conference, Mr. Fukuda did he was responsible for the swine flu pandemic and he was speaking in fron to fthe public and he was asked because some countries had opposed they had found out that there was something happening that the definition was being used by WHO and those countries had warned WHO to change the pandemic because this would be a case and there would be lots of expensive and not very useful methods and they were afraid that there would be a very big - I think it was Japan, was among them, there were about 7 countries, but japan was among them and it was a journalist just citing those questioning countries and WHO said "yeah you are right, but we will think about this matter and we will discuss it again" but they didn't change it, they left it like that, and they just declared the pandemic and this was when the trick was in all those contracts with all those states the secret contracts was fixed that if the WHO says this is a pandemic then these contracts with the pharmaceutical industry and between the inudstry and the states would be in power, so the WHO was at the trigger for this business.

Since the bird flu of 2005 there was a pandemic preparedness and part of the pandemic preparedness were contracts between pharmveutical industry who said they would produce vaccines and the member states of the WHO there were more than 100 contracts and they were all secred and in those conracts it was fixed that if the WHO would say "This is a pandemic" those contracts would be in power and so with the swine flu it was a mild flu, there realy was no pandemic, and so they had to change the definition of a pandemic and when they had changed the definition tehy could say "now we have a pandemic" although it was a mild flu and thne the contracts were in power and the pharmaceutical industry earned 18 billion dollars with useless vaccines.

The WHO changed the dedinition of a pandemic because they wiped out the condition that there woudl have to be many severe diseases, many cases of severe diseases, many deadly cases, many people dying, and so they only left that this is a disease that can spread over several countries with a new virus, and this happens every year, and so they had a new definition they could use every year, we have a pandemic according to this each eyar.

If you would watch a real pandemic, as a busdriver as a teacher as someone moving in public, you would see that people get ill, and you would find out that your colleagues at work were ill and you miss them and so you really see something happen you see people getrting ill in your neighbourhood in your enterprise and so a pandemic is something where you could count the people that they get ill easily, and now you need a test to find out you test healthy people and you find lots of positive tests and so you say this is a pandemic, whic his ridiculous, the people are not even sick, they just have a positive test. So this is how they changed the definition of a pandemic. But I think the WHO was influenced by its sponsours to change this definition because the sponsors they build fabrics, they build vaccines, they foudn out how to produce them cheaply, and they were prepared for a pandemic but there was no pandemic and they knew that there woudl not be a pandemic so they made one by changing the definition which is very easy for them

I'm a doctor because I liek to be useful for people and I like people being healthy and loving this and you know when I found out that many doctors they are there in teh ward and they are waiting for sick people and they earn more money when they have many people ocming and being sick and so tehy earn money with sicknesses and with ill people and this I did not like so I went to public health I wanted to be paid for health, paid for prevention paid to watch after the health of people, and so i became the director of a public health institution and I like this work very much and I made a sentinel to find out whether there comes a flu that is very dangerous and so I chad a secretary with a telephone and she was ringing kindergartens every morning and factories and hospitals and doctors and so within 4 hours she could tell me if there was something coming or if there was nothing, and we had a standardized schedule with the questions and I could easily observe with the sentinel if something extraordinary was approaching or not and I was responsible for 150000 people and when there was a flu there was more 15000 people ill the same time, they were not going to school they were not at work and you could easily recognize it and so I knew how a flu wave what the flu wave does and I really know when something serious comes and this is every 3 or 4 years, the flu wave is a little bit more serious, and in between you don't feel so much, so when they said that in Mexico there was a big catastrophe pandemic approaching I saw the numbers and they were 600 cases not even 1000 cases, I was jus thinking what I find normally in my region with 150,000 people I find 10,000 cases and they with some 10 million 10s of million people living there and they only had 1000 and spoke of a pandemic which was ridiculous so I was doing some research on WHO from that time on and I was suspicious why such things happen. I think there is a lot of corruption because there are people earning money with people in need and need is a driver for business and they are looking for people in need this is why they want our data now you know the whole pandemic is used for colllecting health data this is the goal of the future if you know where people are iun need or could be in need if you know their genes and weaknesses, you can prepare drugs and you can blackmail them, I have a patneted drug, but you need it beacuse we know you are at risk and there is a big they find out they try to trace the viruses and they find viruses where they can fear monger just tell us that we are in danger because they know, they have the data, no one else, and we have to believe them because we don't know better we odn't have data, they have data in private hands from google nad other big enterprises.

The PCR test just takes out some samples of your nose and mouth and tries to find some RNA some traces of RNA and there is a suspicions that if you have cells that yuou can sequence the cells and you can find out the genome of the person being tested and this is a precious thing you could have all the information about the genome you could have a data bank and find out your future customers and what products to prepare so knowing the million of genome data it's a very valuable thing

I was speaking out this question, I was asking this question, and they said "no it's not allowed we do not" but the problem is that if those big enterprises now laboratories who do the testing the mass testing you know they have a PCR machine here and in the next room they have a sequencer. There is no data protector running around in Germany and watching them, and it's very difficult to find out what they do with the material they get from us, what the effect us that they get material from the whole population now they collect biological material they have giant biological databanks now which are very very valuable and you know if they have the gold in their fridges it's a very very big temptation to use this gold and it I have the question "how do you control that they don't misuse our data?" and I don't get an answer, and I mistrust.

You know the WHO is just a room where they meet, WHO has many committees and suborganizations together with the World Bank and others and they make plans to not only change the health but the living conditions of people too. And because WHO has become a part of the World Economic Forum where there are very different plans that have nothing to do with health but have to do with shaping new societies, WHO is engaged in this and is imsused by those people because those people they pay the WHO for its services and so WHO has a good name, still has a good name, and is authorized to define health and illnesses and they misuse the WHO to define our health, to define the viruses, to define what is a good test, to define which diagnosis you give when the test is positive, and then the doctor gets money for the diagnosis, and all these things together this is a big machine and where you can pay people for those people who follow the WHO and follow those plans and proposals they are rewarded because if you say "this is Covid19" you get extra money, if you say this for someone who just died that this is Covid19 you get more money, if you put it on a ventilator you get much more money, if you put it on an intensive care it's really a good thing if WHO gives the possibility to say "this is covid19" with a person who had only contact with someone whose test was positive they made a number for this and then you get you can make every patient make it a case a covi19 case, and this is the reason why in some hospitals 60 or 70% of the people now are covid19 cases which is impossible, which is just a big big fraud and no one cares about this because they need hte cases to frighten us.

An infection is something you feel, an infection is a reaction by the body. There are always viruses and the viruses they are kept at a distance from our immune system they can't harm us normally they are there but they don't harm us and when yuo have too little level of Citamin D in winter, for instance, or if the doses that you just accept from other people when they come to you, when somebody coughs or sneezes or so an you get a big dose of certain viruses then you get an infection and then you feel it, you have a sore throat or running nose or you cough or something like that.
So this is an infection, and then you can spread, if you have an asymptomatic infection, you cannot spread the virus because the virus doesn't reproduce itself, there is no real activity of your cells multiplying the virus, and so you cannot produce enough virus to infect someone else. If the virus is creeping somewhere over the mucosa and you test positive, this is not an infection and you cannot spread the virus because ther eyou need a big dose. So, the difference, the positive test is one thing, a healthy person can have a positive test, a healthy person who cannot spread any virus can have a positive test, a positive test doesn't say anything about na infection, it doesn't say anything about the possibility to spread this infection, so this is what was misused all the time last yuear and which is making a big damage. For sure you have cases where the virus gets deeper where the immune system is not stron genough if you are an old person or if you take certain drugs to slow down the immune system then you may get really seriously ill, but this may also happen with other viruses with influenza and with Human Papillomavirus and others and so the funny thing is we are shown severe cases of illness and the test is positive so it is covid19 and many clinics do not even look for all the other viruses that could be responsible that coul dbe really responsible, they just look for the positive test and then say "it's covid19". What is missed is a differential diagnoses, we don't do it anymore, not even if the people have died they make the test say covid 19 and perhaps they die of many other diseases, you may know it's easy to understand that if it's itching you scratch yourself, ti may be fleas you have, it may be lice you have, but you may have both, it's the same with viruses, so I think the reality of the virological reality is very different from the picture which is shown us by the test, the test is spreading we have a test pandemic and we don't have a serious pandemic from a virus.

So, when I heard about asymptomatic cases, I was very curious what they meant, so I started researching and trying to find out how they came to this idea, and I find out that there was one publication also by Mr. Drosten and his team, and they said there was a case which was asymptomatic where they found the test was positive and afterwards a journalist found out this first case it was a woman from China, she had symptoms, she even took pharmaceutical products because she had symptoms before, so this was a misunderstanding and then, I'm very happy there was a Chinese study from Peking where the cChinese population examined lots of people, oh no it was in Wuhan, they examined about 9,000,000 people and they made tests with all those people in China there it's possible and they foudn only few cases less than 400 cases around 300 cases, I don' thave the numebrs here, and they found out that those cases have contacts, and they examined the contacts o those people, they examined about 1,300 contacts, and they didn't find any person of those 1,300 that was infected, or had symptoms or had apositive test, so there was no spread from those asymptomatic cases they found in China, and this is a very big study and it' sclear and the results are very clear, and I think we should not talk anymore about people being asymptomatic and being some threat for others. We know from anoher big Study in china now that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission of covid19. You can change some definition and you can change the world. We had this change of a definition adn with this change of a definition it was a tool for how the fear was driven worldwide.

The topic of a gene-based vaccine is very interesting because it's no vaccine, it's a gene therapy. People are changed, there is some nucleic acid injected and the cells of that person who gets this starts producing proteins and those proteins are spreading in the body and the body produces antibodies against this and so we become a bioreactor because we are genetically modified. We are genetically modified organisms when we get this injection. And this is very cheap for them, before they had to take have big factories, they had to have bioreactors where they had to produce the antigen and now we do it ourselves, and it's very easy to produce the mRNA it's very fast and much cheaper than breeding the antigen on eggs and cleaning and all this. So they have less cost, they are faster in production, and we have the risk. And so that's the new method and we are genetically modified organisms which has lots of consequences, illegal consequences. We are modified by gene technology and how long this lasts and how long the effects in our body are detectable this is not very clear. It may be only for some weeks, it may be for some months, and it may be in some cases that mayb something is lasting life-long or is even passed in your family, but we don't know it, it's a new method, we don't have any hard data on this, so its' a very big experiment and it's a human experiment and I think the risk is too big to allow such things.

About the changing the definition, WHO is adjusting definitions adjusting definitions according to the needs of its sponsorrs. WHO has changed the definition of a Pandemic during the swine flu, and they took away the many sick people and the victims as a criteria and then they changed it again and now they have some definition which is defined as something in waves, they have periods of Pandemic then they have inter-pandemic periods they have the pandemic going away and coming again so they have all these phases to described what a pandemic is and we can expect that those waves come every year and that the pandemic is something according to the definition of the WHO we shall experience each year, which is a very good business model for vaccine producers. Oh there is another thing which is very interesting at Christmas it was just at Christmas the WHO published a news and they spoke of the herd immunity. You know most people are immune to most viruses because they come each year and we know them and they don't hurt us and only some people have to refresh their immunity getting a little bit ill, this ist he normal thing, so we have a herd immunity against all of the respiratory viruses and WHO suddenly defined "You cannot have a natural herd immunity, herd immunity is only existing when the herd is vaccinated, so herd immunity is something you can only reach through vaccination, you have to vaccinate a certain amount of the populationt o have herd immunity" so they just denied herd immunity and just made it something for marketing. Herd immunity is something which is shown in your vaccine passport, and not in your immune system anymore. Something which is ridiculous and criminal at the same time.

I think we lost politics in public health you cannot trust them anymore, they just like misusing all those tools we normally use in public health and paying scientists to do the wrong thing and to betray us. And I think there is a lot of corruption and it's nto that single people, it's that the system is corrupt, the system is following the money and not the truth, and this is why we cannot trust it anymore. And this is very sad, because we are without orientation, but the good thing is that if really there is a pandemic coming we would see it we woul dheard it from our neighbours. If you have certain interests and you want to control people you can find scientists who give you the information you need and who spread the information you need . If you're a sponsor and you have lots of money you can heven found a laboratory and buy a university and make a private science and only pay the results you need. And so this there is no science anymore, they produce power and money but not knowledge, and this is a very bad development.

When you think how long ti can go on you have to think that we live in ademocracy and we are governing and it's the people who elect politicians and the politicans do what we have elected them to, btu I think we have forgotten that we are living in ade mocracy an dit's our faul that things developed as they did and we aren't watching with the laws and the independence of science justice nad many organizatiosn and institutions we have to rely on, we entrust htem because they are specialized organizations with specialized functions and if we don't watch them and someone else payds more, they follow what the other one wants. We have to do something so we can rely on these institutions and have reasoned trust int hem again. We have to engage in politics.

People are being mae afraid of viruses and they are being made afraid of being controlled by an authoritarian system, and what we have the people don't need to be afraid that they are in danger of a virus, but they need to be afraid tht athey might be controlled by an authoritarian system in the future.