American Thought Leaders - The World Health Organization is Creating a New ‘Pandemic Industry’: Philipp Kruse

Episode Date: April 8, 2024

“It is not about health, this entire WHO new treaty, but it’s about creating a new pandemic industry.”In this episode, I sit down with Swiss attorney Philipp Kruse, who specializes in international law. He has examined, line by line, the World Health Organization’s new pandemic treaty, and amendments to the International Health Regulations.“The General Director will be given much more discretion to declare a public health emergency and to maintain it without any mechanism that could stop him from doing so, or even that would force him to justify his decision,” says Mr. Kruse.He has filed and publicly released a criminal complaint against Swissmedic, the government agency in Switzerland that regulates drugs and medical products.“Our safety agency did not tell the people the true risks that were involved. Like the WHO, they told everybody: ‘These substances—they are vaccines, and they are safe, and they are effective. Please take them,’” says Mr. Kruse.Are the treaties really non-binding, as the WHO maintains?“As long as WHO will maintain the special status of ‘pandemic’—‘public health emergency of international concern’—our politicians and our courts will step back from doing their own careful assessment, and will not put in question what they’ve recommended,” says Mr. Kruse.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

It is not about health, this entire WHO new treaty, but it's about creating a new pandemic industry. In this episode, I sit down with Swiss attorney Philip Kruse, who specializes in international law. He has examined, line by line, the New World Health Organization's pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations. The general director will be given much more discretion

to declare a public health emergency and to maintain it without any mechanism that could stop him from doing so, or even that would force him to justify his decision. Are the treaties really non-binding, as the WHO maintains? As long as WHO will maintain the special status of pandemic public health emergency of international concern, our politicians and our

courts will step back from doing their own careful assessment and will not put in question what they've recommended. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. Philip Kruse, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Thank you so much, Jan, for having me. It's a pleasure. In the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, right now in great haste, there are these international health regulations, an update to them and a new pandemic agreement, what used to be called a pandemic treaty, are being negotiated. So give me a sense of what these actually are. Yes, you're absolutely right. WHO called its member states, its 194 member states together to make a decision about the future, about creating two new legal instruments, because in their view, they said we had two major problems.

Number one, we acted too late. And number two, we didn't have sufficient vaccines, substances. So therefore, we need to be better prepared for the future and they created two working groups. One working group was designed to amend the already existing international health regulations that you just mentioned on which basis they managed the COVID-19 crisis and this other new international treaty is to be a totally new international agreement, the new pandemic treaty. And this is dealt with now by all the member states and designed actually to cover all kinds of prevention relevant programs. It is very comprehensive.

It will also be available or relevant between the pandemics. And it covers things like pandemic preparation in terms of surveillance, then in terms of having sufficient production capacities prepared. Then also, of course, this idea of introducing this one health concept that everything is linked together, animals, plants, human beings, environment, all of that could give rise to the next pandemics. And most significantly, this idea of information control, infodemics, is inserted there as well.

And there are many more provisions. Important to note, this is a new agreement. It will take a two-third majority at the coming World Health Assembly to make it adopted by the member states. And then it will need a national process of ratification so we are looking at the minimum of democratic process going on in each of our member states as opposed to the amendments to the international health regulations which are considered to be the rather technical provisions setting standards, medical standards for member states,

and therefore they undergo a privileged treatment. They will be adopted by the World Health Assemblies just with a simple majority and ultimately they shall come into force by way of an automatism. All of that because they are considered to be just technical. But as we will see, they are much more than just technical provisions. Okay, excellent. So why don't, you know, kind of giving the WHO the benefit of the doubt here for a moment, you know, the way the WHO responded to the pandemic was an abysmal failure by any credible account and research that I've seen. So how do these provisions, whether it's the agreement or the international health regulations, address that failure of the WHO itself?

Oh, that's actually one of the most important questions here. WHO and most of their member states, they are of the opinion to have done a careful assessment of the pandemic crisis and have come with the right answers. But most of us, we say, no, that's not true. They have not done their homework with respect to the risk analysis. They have over-exaggerated the risk coming from COVID-19, and they prematurely jumped to just a couple of solutions, lockdowns, masks, ultimately recommending mRNA-based substances without having any proof of efficacy, of necessity, and most of all, of safety. And this, in my view and in view of most experts, should have been done first, a careful

reconsideration of WHO's responses beginning of 2020, starting with a careful analysis. What was that phenomenon, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2? How dangerous was it truly? And as we all know, it was not dangerous to the vast majority of the population. And then going to, of course, the mRNA-based substances, of which we know by all standards, they exceed the risk profile of anything we have seen so far. And so, as we all know, the purpose of WHO is actually to protect people's health at the highest possible level. So anything that the last thing they would

be allowed to do would be to harm the people. So in order not to harm the people, they would have to go back and by definition look at the effects of their lockdown policy and most of all, of their recommendations of these mRNA-based experimental substances, which you can still find on the WHO's homepage, recommended to be safe as other vaccines. And this is deception. This is absolutely not true. It creates new risks. In these regulations and the agreement, are ways to mitigate such failures that happened in any way addressed? Well, actually, we would expect to see some mechanism that addresses the fact that WHO declared a public health emergency prematurely end of January 2020 and then maintained this declaration until 5th of May 2023. So we would expect to see some challenge possibility to some stop button. That's not the

case. To the opposite, the general director will be given much more discretion to declare a public health emergency and to maintain it without any mechanism that could stop him from doing so or even that would force him to justify his decision. So that's my first biggest concern and we are talking here about arbitrary behavior. Behavior without any standards. You can just call on the basis of oh we have a new pathogen somewhere in Asia coming from birds, coming from somewhere in the waste waters. Therefore, we think it's time for them for another pandemic. And that's not how modern societies work on. We work on the basis of clear standards. The checks of balances system must be in place.

So some mechanism of control and correction. And that's absolutely missing here with these international health regulations. We speak about Article 12 here, this article that allows to declare a public health emergency of international concern just by this man, the general director himself. But he's challenged that interpretation directly. He said he specifically doesn't have the ability to sort of, I guess, coerce anybody to do these things. Yes. Well, technically, actually, it's not so untrue. That's right. But we also have to consider how did the member states acted in the past? And they have followed recommendations without any objection. Now, in the future, we see in the new wording of the pandemic treaty some elements that I would say we have to object Dr. Tedros.

Number one, we see some wordings that allow him to define the global truth, what can be said, what can be communicated and what not. So imagine you have a world where everybody is allowed only to speak about the huge risk and the only solution being MRMA based substances. Well, then you don't need a legally binding provision, because people already want to do the wrong thing. Philip, I just want to just clarify this. So you're telling me that in these provisions, there's explicit language for censorship and information control that would be recommended from the top. At best, it's just a

recommendation. At worst, it's just a recommendation. At worst, it's the type of recommendation that we saw picked up by the vast majority of nation states. Yes, that's right. And we have that not only in both of these two international treaties. We have it in the new pandemic treaty under Article 18. We have it in the amendments to the international health regulations under Article 44 in the so far official version. In the new unofficial version, it's somewhere in the annex. But in addition, you can just Google WHO infodemics and you will find multiple official pages of WHO where they clearly and

openly speak about that policy. It's already in place. As we all know, it started to be put in place beginning of January 2020. And just to jump in here, you know, there's still when I mean, I'm thinking about YouTube and Facebook and so forth, there's often these kind of labels that are beneath videos saying, you know, this is what the WHO recommendations are. So basically, some of these huge international platforms that effectively control information flow are already subscribing to the WHO interpretations. It's part of the general consumer's conditions, general provisions that you accept

once you are about to use YouTube and all other social media networks. And part of their general conditions is that they have to be compliant with WHO's health communication policy that is defined by nobody else than by the general secretariat of the WHO. So, you know, something else that just comes to my mind right now, you know, we know that in 2019, for example, the WHO actually revised its policies around responding to pandemics.

And one of the, I don't remember the exact text, but roughly the message was when it came to these types of shelter in place, or as you call them, lockdown policies, as many of us call them lockdown policies. The suggestion was that this should almost never be done, except maybe for a very short period of time. And obviously, the way the WHO sort of pivoted, and we know without any evidence, because there isn't any, you know, there is no research that supports using lockdowns as a pandemic mitigation measure that I'm aware of and we've looked. So, I mean, doesn't this kind of highlight how dangerous everything you've just talked about is? the narrative and you have even the right to make recommendations that are so far reaching as even lockdowns it becomes really very uncomfortable for everybody most significantly for people but also for the economy and so about this legally binding question you know this is the point where most governments refer to who want to defend WHO.

So, yeah, so far, we must rely on the wordings we have that are officially available. And speaking about the international health regulations amendments, we have on the table since end of 2020, the same wording. And they speak of legally binding in three instances. Article one and the definitions, Article 13A and then Article 42. Member states undergo and commit to. It is a very clear language. I cannot understand how one could then come to the idea that everybody, every country could still do their own solution. And Philip, maybe just tell us those three clauses. What exactly are they committing to?

Well, the first one that is most often quoted, that's the definition article, article 1. It's about the definition for recommendations, and so far we have the word non-binding clearly in it, and this is striking out. But we have two more, 13a, as I mentioned. But wait, so you're saying

before it said non-binding in this new version, it doesn't say non-binding? Well, yeah, doesn't say non-binding well yeah that's right standing recommendation means so far non-binding advice issued by who this word non-binding advice is crossed out so it reads now standing recommendations means advice issued here that might not be very strong yet, but we do have strong wording and That's article the new proposal to the 13 a paragraph 1 and it says that state parties undertake to follow whos

recommendations in the international public health response undertake to follow our legal terms. We as lawyers we understand what is meant by that without any doubt we oblige ourselves. It's an international law obligation. And the third example is article 42 which says that health measures taken present to these regulations shall be initiated and completed without delay, including recommendations. So I don't know what you understand from shall be initiated and completed without delay but to me it sounds like a military order shall be initiated and completed without delay so these are the three sources i'm referring to and the last source is still there in the most recent version that is unofficial shall be initiated and completed without delay. So from these tiny

little wordings, we must conclude recommendations will become clearly more legally binding than they have been before so far. And this is our concern we have. For anyone that's been involved in contract negotiations, as I'm sure you have and I certainly have, the nuances of tiny little bits of text are actually quite profound. You try to find the best possible contract lawyer you can so you don't get caught in a big mistake and taken advantage of. So the other thing that jumps to my mind right away is that during the pandemic, we had elected officials often deferring to whatever the advice that was given as if it were almost a fiat, whether it's from the CDC or WHO and so forth, even though technically these things were advice, they were treated by all sorts of elected officials

and companies in the corporate settings as if it were what has to be done. Thank you for pointing that out. Because I, as a lawyer, I made this experience over 25 times at the court. They said exactly what you just mentioned. Number one, they said, well, in long as they pursue along the recommendations of WHO, we as court, we have no reason to do a legal reassessment. This is, in other words,

exactly what you're saying. The court takes it as if it was legally binding just because we have a pandemic. And so that leads us back to the initial part of our conversation. That means as long as WHO will maintain the special status of pandemic public health emergency of international concern, our politicians and our courts will refrain, will step back from doing their own careful assessment and will not put in question what they've recommended. And this is what it makes so dangerous. And this is why even making it more legally binding must absolutely be rejected and, in my view, must be seen as a sign of giving up sovereignty. Philip, can you just give me a little bit of a sense of your background? I think you mentioned 25 years in the legal field, but give me a picture of what you've done so people can understand. Yes, I started to become a lawyer, a tax lawyer, as of 1997-8, this period, I started working as a business lawyer first and then concentrated, focused on tax law as of 2003 onwards. And I opened my own tax law firm in 2012.

And then beginning of COVID, I realized that doing tax law actually is very close to considering the constitutionality of the measures because also tax law is heavily based on constitutional law. The government is not allowed to take away more money than you would actually have offered to give him unless there is a clear legal basis. And of course, your voice is being heard. Your legal rights in the procedure are being preserved. And so we have many principles that are the same. I started to have mandates being put under legal scrutiny as of end 2020 in 55 instances literally I submitted all types of corona mandates we have had in Switzerland to a legal reassessment but in the main aspects they always came up with the same very poor judgment telling us number one as long as there is a pandemic,

the responsible authorities must be given a wider discretion. And number two, as long as they pursue and follow WHO's recommendations, there is no reason for a judge to intervene. It never occurred to me until you just said it. It's very obvious now that you say it, why tax law would be rooted in constitutional law. Now, here's the other question that's been running around my mind, and that is this kind of infodemics language that's in these IHRs and the treaty. That seems an obvious contradiction to the First Amendment in the United States. There's presumably some variant of that in Switzerland as well. I imagine it would give rise to immediate constitutional challenges should these things be adopted. This is absolutely right. This is one of the founding principles of our democratic

constitutions. If you take that away, by definition, you cannot have a democracy. If you have no free speech, no free access to information, people cannot come to the right decisions. And not even only in democracy matters, but also in science. There cannot be true science, there cannot be a science, a justice, fair justice. So therefore, we have a clear court practice in Switzerland, in Austria, in Germany, telling us that actually free speech is a founding principle of our constitution. So if now we see that free speech is under attack, this is evidence that amendments to the international health regulations are anything but way for the WHO to suspend basic founding principles of our constitutions as at any time. If we hand that over, if we let that happen in these agreements, it will be impossible to take it back. It will be impossible to hold somebody accountable somewhere on this level of WHO. Therefore, we must absolutely do everything

to prevent this from happening. The first step is to explain that to the lawmakers and tell them, you are not allowed to give away these founding principles of our Constitution, not even just one founding principle. You've been challenging in court the Swiss equivalent of the CDC. Part of this challenge is that based on the way that this organization presented its information to the public, informed consent became impossible. If is that, so if I understand it correctly. Yes. So here we are not looking into the future,

into the pandemic treaty and amendments of the health regulations, but we are looking back into how actually this COVID crisis was managed. And the equivalent to the authorizing authority, the highest supreme medical agency, United States FDA, in Europe, the EMA, in Switzerland is Swiss Medic. And we have an autonomous set of rules on the basis of which Swiss Medic has authorized mRNA-based substances. And I've filed a criminal complaint against Swiss Medic for unlawfully authorizing these substances because literally none of the legal provisions, preconditions was met. In the first place,

there was not a significant health threat to the health of the people. And also there were many alternatives available that would have been safer than mRNA-based vaccines. But there were many alternatives available that would have been safer than mRNA based vaccines. But there were also two more reasons for actually starting a criminal investigation. least to the public, you have to do a product review, a pharmacovigilance process very carefully, risk-based, of course, so equivalent to the high risk, very careful. That was never done. And the third point, that's exactly what you just mentioned. Our safety agency did not tell the people the true risks that were involved. Like the WHO, they told everybody these substances, they are vaccines and they are safe and they are effective. Please take them. And this is actually the most important reproach we make because from the highest medical safety agency you must expect that they provide

true information for true decision making allowing informed consent to happen and if you don't disclose the risks then you don't allow informed consent to happen. And therefore, we have continued after version one submitted mid-July 2022. I have continued to work on that with my team because the evidence was piling up and we have just submitted beginning of February version 2.0 criminal complaint against Twismetic. And today we are writing the 28th of March 2024 we will release it in public and put it on on a specific homepage so that everybody can benefit from that work of more than two years I had a big team I did not do it alone it would be impossible to do it alone I had a great team, but I had a great team of international scientists, all of them contributing pro bono.

And so the result is of very high quality. From everything you just said, that strikes me that this would probably apply to comparable scenarios in the US and possibly even at the international, at the WHO level. Well, yes, here we are. I mean, as a product, medical safety agency has the entire legal duty to make sure that people are aware of risks and are protected from risk from the medical substances the same applies of course to WHO as well so if they create new risks by recommending harmful substances substances with a high risk level then they are acting against their own constitution, against their Article 1.

And the interesting thing here is their immunity from criminal prosecution is limited to the acts that they perform under their constitutional duty. So here we see they are acting outside their constitutional duty, recommending all kinds of toxins. So this is outside of their immunity protection of under article 67. And so yeah, one could actually take this criminal complaint, Swiss Medic, take out the evidence and do a very similar thing against WHO. Are you aware of any efforts basically being led to using the logic of your criminal complaint to the Swiss Medical Agency in the context of the WHO or other countries? Well, no, I'm not aware, but the principle is very simple.

This logic is very simple. Just look at WHO's purpose according to this constitution, Article 1, and then you can refer to these two immunity articles, Article 66 and 67, who clearly provide a limitation to immunity protection with respect to just WHO's article 1. So you can say that by promoting dangerous mRNA for general use and by thereby spreading this information about the effective mRNA risk profile, WHO has in fact caused harm to millions of people. So this is a very simple concept. Everybody could do it.

I don't recommend to do it if you are not a lawyer, because then we will just flood post-mail of WHO. They will not take seriously the lawyer's work. But as a principle, this is how it should be done. And it will be done, I'm sure. Sooner or later. I was reading Dr. David Bell's recent article from Brownstone, also in the Epoch Times, The WHO Pandemic Agreement, a Guide. It's actually a wonderful document to get an overview of the whole nuance around the pandemic treaty and the international health regulations. It's quite a long piece. It looks at some of these specific provisions in there.

The language in there is a kind of a one-size-fits-all language, right? Which is very much one of the huge problems in what was actually enacted during the pandemic. So countries that have, for example, much younger populations would have a completely different requirement, obviously, than countries which have very old populations. A lot of these countries, for example, in Africa, that have much younger populations, they would need to redirect a whole bunch of resources that are actually very needed for existing diseases towards something that potentially is much, much less of a problem, which is indeed actually what happened.

Yes, absolutely. David Bell is a great researcher, and he has experience with Delvejo, I think, for over 15 years. We have had some joint conferences together. I benefited a lot from his experience. So, yes, this is one of the key points with both of these international new treaties. One size fits all. And we all know that human beings are different from age, different locations, geographies, different cultures. So you cannot provide safety. You cannot uphold this illusion of safety with this one size fits all approach. This in itself should be evidence enough to show

everybody that it is not about health, this entire WHO new treaty, but it's about creating a new pandemic industry, have a pandemic industrial complex monopoly to be permanently fed by WHO, as soon as WHO declares a public health emergency, they are the winners without any liability. I'll say, well, and if I can jump in, the budget being proposed for the WHO for pandemics, and I'm not sure if this is in the treaty of the IHRs. Perhaps you can elucidate this for me. But it's more than $30 billion annually, which is an astonishing amount given current numbers being used. This would obviously, in significant part, be used to feed this

complex as you described. Yes, so this is actually a policy that you can find in the treaty in Article 20, sustainable financing, and it comes from the Chronicle under financing in the past, at least from the perspective of WHO, that 80% of its budget is coming from voluntary contributions. And the huge part of these voluntary contributions is specified, is earmarked. So WHO has to do with the money what the sponsor wants to do. For example, the Gates Foundation. And this is against one of their own principles. In Article 37 of their constitution, we have a clear provision that prohibits any kind of influence from third parties. And so here we are. We have these 80%

voluntary contributions specified by the Melinda Gates Foundation. They are under the top donors together with the Gavi Vaccine Alliance. They together provide even more than the highest voluntary donator. So we need to consider that. Absolutely. This influence is undue third-party influence. So as we finish up, these international organizations and bureaucracies are not, at least in my experience, known to do things very quickly. But in that context,

there seems to be this incredible rush to pass this pandemic agreement and international health regulations. Why do you think that is? Well, there must be a huge financial, economic interest in having these two treaties signed, because from that moment on, we have these treaties. We have on the one side one person who can declare public health emergency of international concern and then directly linked to that will come the emergency use authorizations for the pandemic industry. This will allow them to ultimately have guaranteed profits profits and this is what they want. You can see this rush in every meeting where the General Secretary or the one who is leading these negotiations keeps on

telling this is a unique chance, we must make sure these treaties will be voted upon and adopted in May. I don't feel that this is a member states driven process. I don't see this pressure coming from the representatives of the member states when I look at these meetings that are openly at display. And by the way, it is in violation of their own statutory rules they speaking about the international health regulations they must absorb this four-month period that comes from the international health regulations article 55 paragraph 2 whenever submitting an amendment of this international health regulations to the member states for consideration for a vote,

that must be four months in advance. So it should have been done by end of January for a vote to end of May. And so that means they are not allowed by end of May to vote on these latest amendments. And many people from our community have pointed that out. And most recently, there was a high qualified, excellent letter from the Global Health Responsibility Agency directly to Dr. Tedros, the Director General, and this letter framed excellently the reasons why this Director General is responsible for stopping this process and having the amendments subject to a vote at a later World Health Assembly. Not now. But I don't want to pretend to know all the reasons for this rush it is just my best guess that they want to have this these two agreements in place to have this new pandemic industry being satisfied they

are pushing the sponsors probably are pushing but there might be other reasons for it they might fear that in a year year later there might be other reasons for it. They might fear that in a year, year later, there might be different political actors voting clearly against this development. And, well, we cannot look behind the scenes what is really going on. Clearly, the boss there is not the director general, but the sponsors. They are directing the faith of WHO and the member states. I can't help but remind our viewers of the incredible influence that the Chinese Communist Party, this totalitarian dictatorship, the influence it has over the WHO as a key stakeholder, which was evidenced by how the WHO responded to, let's call it, the Chinese regime's dictates or needs or credulity to their data or any number of things.

Yes, absolutely. Just upon first email to the United States sent by China, the United States declared a lockdown and other things as well. It seemed that China was in the lead when it came to the mirrors. The pandemic risk, as Dr. David Bell describes in this piece that I mentioned earlier, is greatly overblown looking at history. The overall pandemic risk as demonstrated by the pandemics of the last century, the risk appears to be overblown. Absolutely. And of course, if we want to really eliminate the risk for further pandemics, then we should have a close eye on this gain of function research. Obviously, we see that COVID-19 did not have a natural source. And so we should put clear sanction and restrictions on this entire gain-of-function industry.

And what we see from the new pandemic treaty, the opposite is true. I mean, WHO, with this treaty, even encourages their member states to do gain-of-function. They don't call it explicitly gain-of-function, but you can read it out of this agreement easily. So ultimately, what we have to say is they are creating new risks for creating fake pandemics in order to allow the pandemic industry and probably associated industries as well to benefit from this cycle of pandemics that they will be in control. And Philip, could you just tell me exactly that language which you say basically implies support for gain-of-function research? Well, it is hidden behind the words research and development of new pathogens. And in the previous drafts it was more obvious in this

Article 9. It is always in Article 9. Now it is a bit more hidden, a bit more difficult to see that, but as soon as they speak about strengthen and sustain capacities for research institutions, innovative research for addressing pathogens with pandemic potential. So pandemic potential, we are talking about the future, innovative research. So these are the keywords under which gain-of-function will be done, whether we like it or not, unless it will be prohibited. And therefore, we must assume that this hidden language here shall cover their efforts to still promote gain-of-function. This is an interesting hypothesis, but the incentive structure, given everything you've just described, We've learned a lot of these large pharma concerns are not the most ethical entities, right? Basically, the incentive

structure lends itself to the interpretation that you just described. I think that's a fair assessment. Yes, absolutely. Ultimately, we are looking at the pandemic creation cycle. They can define the pathogen on the basis of which fake will be called public health emergency. They can declare a public health emergency. They then could activate the emergency use authorization list. They can then make recommendations for what kind of pandemic products shall be delivered by the member states. And ultimately, they are in control of the entire information. So, I mean, this is a perfect business case, isn't it? And this must be understood by all the lawmakers that the price for having that pandemic creation cycle that will benefit certain, just few businesses,

the price will have to be paid by the people and by the countries, by our economies. And so therefore, we need to stop these two international pandemic treaties by any means. Well, Philip Kruse, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Thank you so much, Jan, for the invitation. It has been a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you all for joining Phil Kruse and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.