In this recent
episode of American Thought Leaders, host Jan Jekielek talks with Swiss attorney Philipp Kruse, who specializes in international law. He has filed and publicly released a
criminal complaint against Swissmedic, the government agency in Switzerland that regulates drugs and medical products. He has also examined, line by line, the World Health Organization’s new pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations.
Jan Jekielek: In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, there’s an update to the international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty. Please give us a sense of what’s happening.
Philipp Kruse: At the end of 2021, the WHO [World Health Organization] called its 194 member states together to make a decision about the future and the creation of two new legal instruments. They created two working groups. One group was designed to amend the existing international health regulations on which they had managed the Covid-19 crisis. This other new international treaty is designed to be a pandemic treaty.
It covers things like pandemic preparation in terms of surveillance and production capacities. Most significantly, this idea of information control, called infodemics, is inserted there. There are many more provisions as well. This new agreement will take a two-thirds majority at the coming World Health Assembly to have it adopted, then a national process of ratification.
The amendments to the international health regulations are considered technical provisions and set medical standards for member states. Therefore, they’ll be adopted by the World Health Assemblies with a simple majority, but they’re much more than just technical provisions.
Mr. Jekielek: The way the WHO responded to the pandemic was an abysmal failure by any credible research I’ve seen. How do these provisions, whether it’s the agreement or the international health regulations, address the failure of the WHO itself?
Mr. Kruse: The WHO and most of their member states are of the opinion to have done a careful assessment of the pandemic crisis. But most of us say, “No, that’s not true.” They exaggerated the risk from Covid-19. They prematurely jumped to a couple of solutions: lockdowns, masks, and ultimately recommending mRNA-based substances without proof of necessity, efficacy, or safety. There should be a careful reconsideration of the WHO’s responses beginning in 2020.
The mRNA-based substances exceed the risk profile of anything we’ve seen. On the WHO’s homepage, they’re still recommended to be as safe as other vaccines. This is absolutely not true and creates new risks.
Mr. Jekielek: Philipp, can you give us a picture of what you’ve done?
Mr. Kruse: In 1998 I started working as a business lawyer, and then concentrated on tax law from 2003 onwards. I opened my own tax law firm in 2012. At the beginning of Covid, I realized that tax law is close to the constitutionality of the measures, because tax law is heavily based on constitutional law.
I started to have mandates put under legal scrutiny. In 55 instances, I submitted all types of corona mandates in Switzerland for legal reassessment. But they always came up with the judgment: “As long as there’s a pandemic, the authorities must be given a wider discretion. As long as they follow the WHO’s recommendations, there’s no reason for a judge to intervene.”
Mr. Jekielek: I imagine it would give rise to constitutional challenges should these things be adopted.
Mr. Kruse: That’s right. You cannot have a democracy if you have no free speech and no free access to information. People cannot come to the right decisions for democratic measures, but also in science. There cannot be true science.
We have a clear court practice in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany telling us that free speech is a founding principle of our constitution. If free speech is under attack, this is evidence that the amendments to the international health regulations are not just minor, technical changes.
Therefore, we must do everything we can to prevent this from happening. The first step is to explain to the lawmakers, “You are not allowed to give away these founding principles of our constitution, not even just one founding principle.”
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. David Bell’s article “
The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide” is a wonderful document providing an overview of the pandemic and international health regulations. It looks at some provisions which have a one-size-fits-all language. Countries in Africa that have much younger populations would need to redirect resources for existing diseases towards something that is potentially much less of a problem.
Mr. Kruse: This is one of the key points with these new international treaties, a one-size-fits-all approach. Human beings are different with age, location, and culture.
You cannot uphold safety with this one-size-fits-all approach. This in itself should be enough to show everybody that it’s not about health. This WHO treaty is about creating a new pandemic industry.
In the new pandemic treaty, the WHO encourage member states to do gain-of-function research. They don’t explicitly call it gain-of-function, but you can easily read it out of this agreement. Ultimately, they are creating new risks for fake pandemics to allow the pandemic industry and probably associated industries as well to benefit from this cycle of pandemics that they will control.
Mr. Jekielek: What’s the language that implies support for gain-of-function research?
Mr. Kruse: It’s hidden behind the words “innovative research for developing new pathogens with pandemic potential.” Pandemic potential and innovative research are the keywords under which gain-of-function will be done, unless it will be prohibited.
Ultimately, we are looking at the pandemic creation cycle. They can define the pathogen on which a fake emergency will be called. They can declare a public health emergency, activate the emergency use authorization list, and then make recommendations for what pandemic products shall be delivered by the member states. Ultimately, they control the entire information cycle.
The price for that pandemic creation cycle will be paid by the people and by our economies. Therefore, we need to stop these two international pandemic treaties by any means.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
