OK kinfolks, today “youre in” for a real treat. We have presented many of the articles previously, but this will help settled them in the suitable perspective. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts, we just need to understand what they mean and interpret them properly.

This is a really important commodity. It catalyzed my to improve understanding of what the heck is going on. The realities are obvious; the part 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 information. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will disagree this, but the evidence presented is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO’s biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. approval last year.

What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever realise, with countless tens of billions of dollars running through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal repression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-1 9 procreates perfect sense now.

These natural therapies, nebulized hydrogen peroxide being the best example, would be serious rivalry for the vaccines. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and almost free, who would risk their animation for a inoculation? Virtually no one. It all meets perfect sense.

With that frame, experience the information our unit has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the portions of the baffle together, and the more pieces we fit together, the sooner you will see the bigger drawing. More to come in the very near future.

WHO Insider Speaks Out

In July 2020, four German advocates founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee( Ausserparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1 ). 2,3 In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, 4 interrogations Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D ., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

Stuckelberger has performed as deputy director of the Swiss national planned of aging since the 1990 s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Ageing.

According to her bio, 5 she “is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to value scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and invention rating, pandemic and disaster control training and in optimizing type and population health and well-being.”

She’s likewise a published writer, with a dozen notebooks to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, programme papers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research done was and still is highly politicized and chiefly done to support and justify political decisions.

For the past 20 times, since 2000, she’s been involved with public health at the WHO, and was one of the purposes of their experiment ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got is participating in the WHO’s international state regulations.

Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO’s international state regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, being allowed to is not simply foreclose outbreaks but too respond hurriedly when an eruption comes. Nonetheless, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and subverting this pandemic preparedness exercise.

The Center of Corruption

According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the immorality, chiefly 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. 6

As illustrated by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D ., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee representatives, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity, ” which is odd, considering the organization has no political dominance that would warrant diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of officials. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of booking, including criminal business dealings.

GAVI is a nongovernmental organization that is allowed to operate without compensating any taxes, although we are having total immunity for anything they do wrong.

“They can do whatever they crave, ” Stuckelberger says, without backlashes. The police, for lesson, are barred from conducting an investigation and compiling sign if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking, ” she says. GAVI is also fully tax exempt, which Stuckelberger indicates is “very strange.”

Essentially, GAVI is a following non-governmental organization( NGO) that is allowed to operate without compensating any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they done wrong, willfully or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and conjures a whole emcee of questions. It’s peculiarly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”

Furthermore, papers cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what is tantamount to despotic capability over the whole world. The director general has the sole capability to build decisions — including decisions about which research or pandemic medications to use — that all member states must then obey.

The Nation-State of Gates

What’s more, Stuckelberger have found that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO’s exec card — like all states members — ostensibly because he hands them so much money. Indeed, his funding transcends that of many individual member states.

Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible — the idea that a single guy would have the same strength and affect over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a insolent dominance give, to say the least. While there’s no proof that Gates was ever officially granted the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.

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 epitome, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man person district, Gates composed three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, virtually targeting him on par with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the director general of the WHO says, runs. They’ve effectively turned world-wide health security into a dictatorship.

The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the administrator general what to do? When you looked at over the past year, it seems Gates has often been the first to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an same sense, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.

As noted by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that many private-public partnerships ought to have hijacked by the private surface — and they’re immune from indebtednes. “This has come to stop, ” he says.

A complete review and overhaul of the United Nations, which demonstrated the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or draw rein undemocratic and illegal act. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them.

Changed Definition of Pandemic Allowed Health Dictatorship

In the interrogation, they also highlight the WHO’s role in direct the stage for a world-wide state totalitarianism by changing the explanation of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original description, pre-2 009, of a pandemic was: 7,8

” … when a new influenza virus sounds against which the human population has no immunity, developing in various, simultaneous scourges worldwide with massive numbers of deaths and illness.”

The key parcel of that explanation is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high death criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9 This button in definition is why COVID-1 9 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though it, at no spot, has already caused any excess fatality. 10,11, 12

We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-1 9 is on par with the seasonal flu. 13,14, 15,16, 17 It may be different in periods of indications 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 and immunities.

In short-lived, by removing the criteria of severe illness making high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to dupe the world population into giving up our lives and livelihoods.

WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Definition of Herd Immunity

The WHO has also radically altered the definition of “herd immunity.” Herd exemption occur when fairly people acquire exemption to contagious diseases such that it can no longer spread widely in local communities. When the number susceptible is low-spirited enough to prevent epidemic growing, herd immunity is said to have been reached.

Prior to the preamble of inoculations, all flock immunity was achieved via showing to and improvement from contagious diseases. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include is not simply the naturally acquired exemption 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, rewriting this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that wholly removes natural illnes from the equation.

As late as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of flock exemption, posted on one of their COVID-1 9 Q& A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for contagious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said: 18

“Herd exemption is the incidental protection against an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

The informed explanation of flock immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows: 19

“’Herd immunity’, also known as’ population immunity’, is a notion used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a doorstep of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus , not by expose them to it.

Vaccines instruct our immune systems to create proteins that campaign infection, known as’ antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — inoculations work without moving us sick.

Vaccinated parties are protected from going the disease in question and delivering it on, cracking any series of transmitting. With flock immunity, the vast majority of local populations are inoculated, lower their overall sum of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

After public — and no doubt embarrassing — resentment, the WHO altered its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now speaks: 20

“’Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population exemption, ‘ is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or exemption developed through previous illnes.

WHO assistances 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 fatalities.

Herd immunity against COVID-1 9 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination , not by display them to the pathogen that causes the disease.”

WHO’s Recommendation of PCR Test’ Intentionally Criminal’

Stuckelberger also stuns the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice — December 7, 2020,21, 22 and January 13, 202123 — the WHO issued medical alarms for PCR testing, warning that use of high hertz thresholds( CT) will produce high rates of fictitiou positives, that the CT importance should be reported to the health care provider and that exam decisions be considered in combination with clinical observances, health record 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, sees it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical make alarm was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s inaugural as the President of the United Commonwealth.

In this alert, the WHO stressed that the “CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral quantity, ” and that “Where test decisions do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a brand-new specimen should be taken and retested.”

It too reminds users that “disease prevalence varies the predictive cost of assessment decisions, ” so that “as disease prevalence abridges, the risk of false positive increases.” The alerting goes on to explain: 26

“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive outcome( SARS-CoV-2 identified) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 lessens as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers scheduled for consideration by any result in combination with era of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical watchings, patient history, sanctioned status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

Taking a patient’s symptoms into account and using a scientifically justifiable CT tally should have been routine practice from the beginning. It simply didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the beginnings of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended using a CT of 45,27, 28,29 which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore “cases.” This alone is how they deterred the pandemic fearmongering going.

The technical consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs interprets the PCR test useless, 30,31, 32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives. 33 By lastly recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured purpose to the caseload at a desired age. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would reinstate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO. 34

Time to Place an Expiration to the Global Health Mafia

The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N ., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for purposes of improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible height of health” by all peoples.

It is now beyond dispute the fact that the WHO is beyond accommodation. Because of its fund — a sizable component of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” — it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO dishes corporate employers and through its dictatorial dominances is virtually destroying , not improving, the lives of the world.

In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly( PACE) issued a report3 5 on the WHO’s handling of the 2009 pandemic of fiction influenza A( H1N1 ), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that objective up generating disability and fatality in different areas of the world.

PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health enterprises and national governments led to a garbage of large sums of public fund, and unjustified scares and dreads about the health risks faced by the European public.”3 6

Specifically, PACE spotted “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was enormously overrated by WHO, ” and that the dose manufacture had forced the organization’s decision-making — a claim echoed by other reviewers as well. 37,38, 39,40, 41

The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, precautions against unnecessary affect by vested interests, public funding of independent research, and last but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public state domain.”4 2

None of those recommendations are complied with and, if something, 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 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also emphasized the WHO’s failures and shortcoming of relevant leader during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions required in a global pandemic, professionals at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, year ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that progressive reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role.

Yet here “we ii”, still, and no reforms ever has just taken place. Instead, the immorality festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a supremacy hub for the technocratic late state that was attempting to acquire power and oversight matters over all nations.

As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard-bitten look at the WHO and the U.N ., and decide whether they’re even worth saving. At naked minimum, the disproportionate influence by private vested interest, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, must be thoroughly investigated and routed out.

Read more: articles.mercola.com