Dr Astrid Stuckelberger: Unpacking the Issues Around the WHO Pandemic Treaty

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger is a Ph.D. in Population Health and Privat-Docent at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva and Lausanne. She has been teaching and conducting research for over 25 years, has a BSc in Genetic Psychology, and a Master of Science. She has worked with WHO on pandemic management and International Health Regulation, on the Ethics Review Board, and on human-centered factors in health policy. Dr. Stuckelberger has represented scientific NGOs at the UN/WHO for the last 20 years and is the author of several books, scientific articles, and UN/EU reports.

Dr. Stuckelberger joined the WCH General Assembly Meeting from Switzerland to discuss the WHO pandemic treaty.

First Open Letter on the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on March 7, 2022. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in our multimedia library. This presentation is also available on Rumble and Odysee.

March 7 General Assembly Dr Astrid Stuckelberger

Here’s what WCH members, staff, and coalition partners are saying about Dr Stuckelberger presentation:

“I empathise with Astrid so much – I also wanted to help so much and thought I could do so through the WHO and then found that we were just putting band aids on big health issues and not making any meaningful difference at all.” -Dr Tess Lawrie

“Astrid is so brave! What an amazing bright shining light on the world right now with such excellent info!” -Interest Of Justice

“Thank you for your important voice out there Astrid.” -Christof Plothe

“Thank you so much Dr. Astrid S. for standing up against injustice.” -Dr Pri Bandara

“Thx Dr. Astrid much appreciated for your voice of resistance.” -Fahrie Hassan

“Thank you so much, Astrid! It was wonderful to get to know you personally at the CHD PC in Brussels.” -Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg, AUT

Transcript

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger === [00:00:00] In terms of our meeting proceedings and our agenda for this general assembly, our guest speaker is of course, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger and she is going to be talking to us about issues surrounding this particular, WHO pandemic treaty. She a PhD in population health and a private medicine at the faculty of medicine at the university of Geneva and Lausanne. She’s been teaching [00:01:00] and conducting research for over 25 years and has represented scientific NGOs at the UN and the WHO for the last 20 years. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: The format of our conversation is going to be Q and A with Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, but let’s welcome her to the general assembly of the World Council for Health, Doctor Stuckelberger, you are warmly welcome. Thank you for making the time to join us. Is, Astrid with us? Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yes, I can! Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. I’m very honored [to be here] and I have been with you and with South Africa before. So I’m glad to be there and to be able to help stop this craziness. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Absolutely pleasure and an honor to have you join us and to work with you. Thank you very much, Astrid, for your commitment and your consistency. Perhaps let’s start here for those of us who don’t know you yet. Please tell us about your professional background. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yeah,you described it quite well. I will just add,all my [00:02:00] career. I have been, in parallel with WHO and I did my master of science with the mental health division of the WHO. And I liked to so much that I was always accepting any, operation, even volunteer. And I was all through my life and that, to me, more than 25, 30 years of career, in the WHO, in and out and in the United Nations. And, I think of it like a second university because it was so complicated at first. I didn’t understand and living just beside it, in Geneva, I’m, I can see the human rights council every morning, waking up the flag of the UN and the moon blowing. So make it short. really was a learning lesson. I was like many very idealistic and thinking, "Oh, it’s great. The whole world can gather to make everything better, improve the world and health and women’s issue and aging issues, or so one of my big topic and the morals and spirituality in ethics, research, [00:03:00] ethics and science ethics. My life, took me to be an expert, and rapporteur for the aging unit. Then with the ethics review committee, then I was working with a pandemic engaging on contracts with the University of Geneva and WHO for more than three years. And I kept on teaching it at University of Geneva. And,co-direct and, co-created the local health and human rights, summer school during, for years, with IHR, the International health regulation as a key, a key topic for international students and the United nation, and WHO governance. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: So it’s, that’s why I have the ability to clarify as much as I can, how what’s going on. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you very much with that introduction. I think we can understand why we’ve invited Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger to speak to us on this very important topic and theme today. Dr. Stuckelberger what is the WHO pandemic treaty in your understanding as an expert in this area and as an insider, and [00:04:00] why is it an issue we should be focusing on? First it’s very important to focus on right there because the governments are deciding without us and the United nations is doing the same. And WHO is governing today, a pandemic in a totally different way. The whole UN is locked down and NGOs don’t have access. I have the NGO badge and everything is complicated. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: First let’s come back to, why, what is this pandemic treaty, so for that you have to take it a step back because, the first aim is FInland and the International Health Regulation and International Health Regulation. I’ll show you the booklet because many have seen it. Yeah. It’s you can fit it on, on the website of WHO and, you, you can download it and study it. And it is very simple. It’s for lawyers. Why? Because it is an obligation legally binding for the 194 members state of WHO, which means for all citizens, because member [00:05:00] states actually represent us at the United Nation. The member state label. We come there. And every year at the World Health Assembly. That’s for health. It’s the same for work for, yeah, International labor office. It’s the same with migrants strikes. The Disneyland of a global world in the United nation in Geneva, in particular. So every year they come to United Nation in Geneva and they have a world health assembly and there with member states decide for global health and the destiny of our health in the world, and a pandemic. But what happened is that, this International Health Regulation (IHR) which came after SARS-CoV-1, which only made 700 dead and eight thousand sick people and went on for eight months. So you see already, there is a problem that now we, after two years are still talking of COVID 19. There is some slight little issue here that doesn’t correspond at all with International Health Regulations [00:06:00] but from then on what happened is that,WHO started to, implement its International Health Regulation using the WHO convention. And when we were training, the whole region, during a few years, that was one of the key questions coming up all the time. How can you adopt this international binding law for all countries? Uh, and so quickly, and this is the clue of what’s happening now. Now what they want to do is strengthen this international health regulation who has become an issue of global health security, and they are using this international regulation in a fraudulent way. And I’ll explain why, because, they can actually earn with the WHO convention, article 28, for article 2 and 21 A; they can decide any measure and a lockdown as they wish, [00:07:00] because there is a law on emergency things to do with the international regulation. So this treaty is with the aim of strengthening this international health regulations who has already locked us down already. They use this measures of quarantine. They use the definition, they have changed the definitions, changed the standards, that are strengthened this. So that’s the first aim, the second aim they say, and I’m reading actually what they decided on 1st of December, I’m not going to read it all. But on 1st of December, they met to discuss, we can’t make treaty, in WHO extraordinary meeting assembly, World Health Assembly. And this has happened only twice in the history of WHO. And they decided, to accept the proposal for strengthening IHR, International Health Regulation. The second is addressed jabs in preventing preparing, responding to health emergency, including all the distribution of acting of [00:08:00] access to health, because in their judgment, they have, we have all failed to manage and have, been treated well and it’s are making the drama drumming. And would this excuse the implementing the Treaty. And the third- so the first is strengthening. Second is addressing the gaps and you can list it. Let’s say everything they want. And the third is gather a comprehensive and coherent approach, strengthen the global health architecture and recognizing that the member state’s commitment,is part of a new architecture, to approach pandemic prevention preparedness and response with the "whole of government and a whole of society approach", prioritizing the need of equity, both put values, inverse values. What you have to know is in the history, and it’s important to understand, in the history, the person who wrote this pandemic treaty guideline which [00:09:00] you cannot find any more. So I think you have it, right? So you have downloaded it. The person it’s been done by Geneva University Institute of high-grade cities and Ilana, and there are many people now investigating her. She was the first one I met in WHO she was taking care of aging, but above aging, of mega cities already at that time. And when I, in 2016, I took a course in WHO that they invited me to take and she was addressing health in all policies. That’s the one world government. And the third term they’re using is ‘one health’. But you can see very well this pandemic committee wants everything in a standardized the way; one health, one government, one emergency all the time. So that’s the first question. It’s very important that we respond to this. Absolutely. It would appear Dr. Stuckelburge [00:10:00] that the COVID-19 chapter is being utilized to launch this particular WHO pandemic treaty, and not only the ability to attempt to enforce decisions around lockdowns treatments and mandates, but also there’s this biosecurity and bio data harvesting aspect, talk to us about those impacts. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yes. So we have to understand that we are still the whole world under emergency law. They have used international health regulations to force national constitutions because or law in the pandemic. Every country has been forced to adopt something like that, to have a state of emergency, public health emergency of international constraints. And so we are still in the world under fake. Under this label they can do what they want and they can impose whatever they want. So what is very dangerous, is that this treaty [00:11:00] can, under the WHO constitution and understand that, in the United Nation look around the room- it’s the only agency, or a specialized program on health that has a kind of a constitution like our countries, like if it was premeditated. And when you read this thing about, how it is adopted, I think it’s good to understand because there is something to propose, but we can also talk about it later, but I think it’s now. In Article 19, they say that if a two-third of members accepted, this new regulation or in, or new adoption of any, new strain or new, vaccine or new product, two third have accepted a new regulation, it’s one health, for example, one whole of government, whole of the society. The, it is adopted by everybody, so it means that even if South Africa or any other country doesn’t agree, if it is a majority of two third, [00:12:00] that counts for the option and it will be given to the whole world. And you have eighteen months to react in article 20, eighteen months after the adoption, by the health assembly of a convention or agreement to take care action. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: And you have to furnish a statement of the reasons of non-acceptance. So the question is when is it adopted and what are the adopting is the 1st of December an abduction or not. This is for the lawyers to see, but the, your second question, yeah, bioweapon though, I would say more the breach, the harm, because in ethics, there’s no harm in health, values are reversed in everything they do. So in article 21, that’s the core understand they really say that the health assembly have the authority to adopt regulation concerning, five points. The first is sanitary measures and quarantine lockdown measures, at random. Yeah. [00:13:00] Even because they have to have a changed definition and that’s point B, they can change definitions as they want. They have already stated that each pandemic. definiton is any disease that crosses the border, which is not what was in international health regulations at the beginning, you have to go through Annex 2 and go through a whole, a whole system to make sure that you declare a pandemic. You cannot declare a pandemic like that. The C is for standards on diagnostic procedures. It’s exactly what we are living now. It’s the PCR has replaced the doctor and replaced the medicine that we know, and this is a very important. See, ours are now purchased even by the atomic agency in Vienna, by the UN related agency, and, C. So that’s the diaganostic, the C is standards, they can change standards with respect to safety, purity, and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar [00:14:00] products moving in international commerce. And this is,I don’t understand, we had not seen this before. It is like, what, why didn’t we see this? They added this now because it’s so crazy. And the last one is even more strange is they can, they can adopt regulation, turning advertising, and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical, similar products, moving in international commerce When you see this, it’s if they have the new business and they have their boutique and they have a big commercial agency just outside WHO and all the products, all the diagnostic, and they have game, game of Disneyland of sick people all the time, it is the business that brings the most money. So people, they know this, even Bill Gates had said once that the vaccine is the most [00:15:00] lucrative business he has ever seen. So this article 21 is where it is very dangerous because they can manipulate B4 labs, and B4 labs are one of the most dangerous strains and that’s where Ebola and that’s where everything, you cannot just have B4 lab anywhere. We wanted to put one in Barra. So there is a will, to create strains that make us sick, and then we will be in purposeful sickness and reparation and, the business of their life. And they, they were, they play with this on the market action, we know that auction. So that’s what, is their weapon is? We, you know, it’s already there, we don’t feel- Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: There are massive implications in terms of what they call commerce, of profiteering from this treaty, but also in terms of bio data, digital [00:16:00] IDs, the harvesting of information on people in the unprecedented level, but let’s move in a constructive direction. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, how do we move forward? What is your advice to people if our world, as individuals, as organizations, as countries, um, for example, would one of the solutions, to counter this move on the pandemic treaty be for countries to withdraw from the WHO. Surely democratic processes can be engaged in an, a country level to stay to say to representatives of countries that we do not subscribe to this treaty. And we therefore do not want to belong to the WHO any further, your thoughts? Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yeah. There are a few options and I think strategic is probably the most important, I would say the most rapid action is the best, to withdraw, from WHO, takes a government decision. I know Trump, President Trump’s withdrawn WHO, [00:17:00] this Biden, if he is still President really, is, has said that he is the back in. So by a decision of a president it’s easy, but with civil society, we have to make two, three steps here. First and that’s what you did. You descibe very well, the world, you have done a very good job, because you have, addressed the government to say, stop. Don’t make a decision in our name, and this is the ministry of health and the president or prime minister. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: I don’t know. It depends on the government. This is the first stop is to say, you do not represent our interests clearly. So we, oppose and its decision, you would not done it in WHO, but probably in the United Nations. But first it is this because it’s most important, but I would best it extend it to all other agencies because they are linked and are related. You have to know that health is also in the international labor office. [00:18:00] It is, which is in Geneva. It is also in the human in the high commissioner for refugees is also a health section, in the IOM, in the immigration, even in the metrological, we organize the course for the university there. So I think I would say, yes, you do not make any decision anymore without consulting us, stop any decision on WHO, on this Treaty and on in general. And then other one to address the UN directly. And the UN is also the director and then the specialized agency, for the big note address, you did that copy for the secretary general, or you can even, and this is something you discuss with a lawyer. The Secretary General, which is responsible of the WHO by law, because by law internally, because the organigramme is at the head of all the agency and specialized programs. [00:19:00] You can find it go and Google ‘organigramme of United Nations’. Understand the Ponzi big, big organigramme! The Secretary General is Guterres, is, representing the UN assembly, like an NGO. It is a UN, like what you’re doing now, UN assembly and in the assembly, there is WHO every September in New York. So you’d see that, if you get out of everything, my, my guess, being revolutionary, but it’s not only getting out of WHO, because the climate change agenda, and the 17 [SDGs] and 169 targets that a hundred sixty nine- no, the seventeen objectives of, um, the agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals is something that also concerns us citizen very heavily. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: So we could take this opportunity, you know, like in Utica. [00:20:00] Take the WHO Treaty as an excuse. To say, listen this we stop. We oppose. And you have to follow the article 20. You have to exactly what they say. You have to notify the Director General of WHO, refer to this article of the WHO constitution. Take action they ask. And if you do not accept such a convention or agreement within the time limit, you have, we have to address this first and it’s urgent. You have to furnish a statement of the reasons for nonacceptance. So you take the position of the member state. You say to your country, you do not represent us anymore. There was no, you have a bait and, but you unharmed our, all the measures for reparation, but that will be later or now, but at the same time, you have to, you have to do ‘article lists’, a statement of the reason for nonacceptance. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: So legally you have to do the same with your country. I would really go on the food[00:21:00] levels, the national, and the international. And on both you may copy to everybody, you make copies to the ministry of health, the ministry of health, copy to the president. You have to see with a lawyer. Every country can have different laws and same with the United Nation, Ted Ross, as director general of WHO now, but also to the secretary general, as representative of all the countries in the world. Because going on. Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you very much, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger for this very constructive information that you’ve shared with us, that I know we’ve got the public watching via the World Council for Health website newsroom, as well as our Rumble channel. So certainly the word will be exponentially increasing and things spread around the world in a good way. So thank you very much for sharing that insight. I want to turn the mic over now to my colleague, Dr. Tess Lawrie, to field Q and A from our partners and the public. Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thanks Shabnam, and thanks so much [00:22:00] Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, it’s so great to have your expertise with us today. We’ve got quite a few questions from,partners as well as in, from the newsroom. So I’m going to take one from the newsroom first. Emma asks, how can the WHO launch something when they have failed so many times already? Why is there still any credibility for them as an organization to lead. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: We must understand that we live in a parallel world. We are aware of the lies that are going on in the media, but they are part uh, WHO I was the first one surprised and I, when it started, and when I saw the messages of fear. They were giving fear, with the loud sounds, so quickly that I could see that it was not the WHO I know that was governing. Yeah. Your question. Wait- Dr. Tess Lawrie: There are many others, so thanks very much. I think you’ve answered that one from inside the room we’ve got, am I correct, this is Fahrie Hassan, "Am I correct when I [00:23:00] understand you that this treaty effectively gives WHO the power to become a defecto world government imposing their policies on governments around the world, they can thus override national constitutions?" Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yes, it is correct that in the pandemic guide, you can see at the end of this pandemic guide, the idea is that the member states, because the other associate members, the private sector. With in the one world, they will not, no longer be necessary because WHO has a constitution. So why have another constitution? And so everybody’s together in this big family and there is only a one world and one constitution. It’s correct. We have to see how, oh, I can give you a clue because I found out something is that they are mentioning very much the framework, WHO framework convention on tobacco control. And this look that’s it. Dr. Tess Lawrie: They are taking this as a model, imposed on the whole world. [00:24:00] One section, like the one on tobacco control. but we are the tobacco. We, we, we, it is our constitution. It’s, it’s not the tobacco’s. Know this, so you go and have a look at what the other thing to eliminate our constitutions. And another one from the newsroom. Can we vote no confidence in WHO as citizens of this world? Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Absolutely, today, today. Absolutely. It is it’s gross lies. It’s systematic ethical fraud to have, WHO telling uh, telling uh, the vaccine that is experimental. You imagine that product is an experimental research that has not been tested, it’s being sold. Is it be given to everybody? Yes, of course. I can [go on]. Dr. Tess Lawrie: There’s a question from one of your Swiss countrymen, does the treaty not have to pass by a national vote before being [00:25:00] adopted? Even if we are a member state? Very good question. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Well, I was, just a week ago in a vintage store, with,and they wanted me to intervene on this. I said, I will only intervene if there are Swiss lawyers and there was also Reiner Fuellmich to intervene and Philip uh, Cruiser. And we were discussing this exactly. And he found a breach in the, in our law. Because the problem you have to go and look in your constitution or in your economic law. And we have in Switzerland, article six, has, a beat and it says that the law of the people and the citizens will always be superior to any international law. This, so we have a hope in Switzerland. Now look in your country if you find this legal gap, where can you turn over the power for yourself as citizens. Dr. Tess Lawrie: Yeah, I there’s a few other questions that are similar in vein, really with people just saying, [00:26:00] surely there’s so much evidence that they really don’t have any, they, they really don’t have the justification for seizing any more power, or suggesting that they on a position to, to advise or, guide us in any way. So it’s bewilderment, frustration coming through with the questions, just who on earth do they think they are? But- Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yeah, people have to understand this is a global hack by your heart it’s global. So they have organized the whole world through the Minister of Health, the Minister of Work, the Minister of Telecommunicationand this is what we have to dismantle. So we can see that big organization that usually in an WHO have a lot of power. Our CDC, which was one of the guidelines with FDA, of all the measures, we were having people we were teaching there and they always knew better before, CDC was an army and military, I guess it still [00:27:00] is. So now we see that CDC is admitting failure that you see that FDI is making failure. You see that Fauci is, is in the procedure of being judged. So the, the whole castle is falling down because of CDC. It has in the US Pfizer has to submit. Fauci is going to fall. You know what I mean? It’s not arrested because the whole castle of cards has to fall. But it is, I think for this, that WHO and this will be dismantled through our actions. We, they really need us to do that so we can take it all down. Dr. Tess Lawrie: Absolutely. We can do this. I agree with you. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: It has already started already! Dr. Tess Lawrie: Yeah, we with everybody watching and,and spreading the word, we can definitely do this and stop them in their tracks. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: Yeah. And you can ask, just want to add, so I don’t forget. You can ask, because they say, [00:28:00] that they requested the Director General for this pandemic treaty to be holding a public hearing, in line with, it’s under WHO- it’s a public offering. So let’s do that, you know, a public hearing, but first they have to stop. Dr. Tess Lawrie: Yes. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge: And it’s a public hearing. Maybe the grand jury of people of world, who will oppose the UN because how can we oppose the United Nation in another way than being altogether, like Reiner Fuellmich,, in most, you know, bigger scale. I don’t know how, but I’m sure that some people have imagination enough in the laws, in lawyers to think like this. And we, what we are doing now is a type of, you know, um, an essence, of a garden starting to grow of this fantastic movement internationally, to get our rights back and to make a grand jury international. Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thank you very much, Dr. Stuckelberger. The last words you ended up on this international garden of [00:29:00] solidarity, I think is very beautiful. Thank you very much for joining us at the World Council for Health General Assembly and we look forward to working with you in this campaign against the WHO issue pandemic treaty, and more importantly, building a better way together. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. It’s an honor.    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

3 Comments

  1. I would appreciate it if Dr Stuckelberger could email me. I have a question about informed consent that I would like to discuss with her.

  2. As a citizen of the United States of America I am calling on my Senators and House of Representatives of both my state and country, to declare the joining of our country to the WHO to be null and void. This is a terrible ‘treaty’ of immeasurable destruction to our Constitution and Bill of Rights from which our founding fathers protected us. The very health of our country is in jeopardy!