Dalelorenzo's GDI Blog
22Mar/210

WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI

OK tribes, today you are in for a real treat. We have presented many of the fragments previously, but this will help articulated them in the proper position. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts of the case, we just need to understand what they mean and read them properly.

This is a really important essay. It catalyzed my understanding of what the heck is going on. The knowledge are obvious; the entire response to the world-wide pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth.

No one will quarrel this point. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute 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. endorsement last year.

What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever compiled, with countless tens of billions of dollars operating through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal smothering and censoring of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-1 9 establishes excellent smell now.

These natural therapies, nebulized hydrogen peroxide being the best example, would be serious event for the inoculations. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their being for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all induces excellent sense.

With that framework, experience the information our squad has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the parts of the puzzle together, and the more slice we fit together, the sooner you will see "the worlds biggest" depict. More to come in the very near future.

WHO Insider Speaks Out

In July 2020, four German attorneys 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 interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D ., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program 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 professional on issues relevant to evaluate scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and invention assessment, pandemic and emergency handling training courses and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”

She’s too a published scribe, with a dozen records to her recognition, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, plan newspapers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research done was and still is highly politicized and principally done to support and apologize political decisions.

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

Stuckelberger notes that the whole purpose of WHO’s international state regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to is not simply prevent outbreaks but likewise answer swiftly when an eruption results. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and subverting this pandemic preparedness schooling.

The Center of Corruption

According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the bribery, largely 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 academy 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 superpower that they are able to authorize diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s exemption covers all aspects of booking, including criminal business dealings.

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

“They can do whatever they require, ” Stuckelberger says, without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and mustering exhibit if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking, ” she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger memo is “very strange.”

Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization( NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they done wrong, voluntarily or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole legion of questions. It’s particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”

Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what is tantamount to autocratic influence over around the world. The director general has the sole ability to build decisions -- including decisions about which tests 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 council -- like all states members -- ostensibly because he returns them so much money. Indeed, his funding surpasses that of many individual member states.

Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible -- the relevant recommendations that a single serviceman would have the same dominance and force over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a audaciou dominance grab, to say the least. While there’s no proof that Gates was ever officially conceded the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.

One thing that promotes 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 summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man society position, Gates made three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, virtually locating him on equality with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the general manager of the WHO says, croaks. They’ve effectively turned world-wide health security into a totalitarianism.

The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the head general what to do? When you looked at over the last 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 identical sense, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.

As pointed out by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that numerous private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private surface -- and they’re immune from obligation. “This has get to stop, ” he says.

A complete review and overhaul of the United Commonwealth, which supported the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or draw rein undemocratic and illegal work. 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 too highlight the WHO’s role in settled the stage for a world health dictatorship by changing the interpretation of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original definition, pre-2 009, of a pandemic was: 7,8

" ... when a new influenza virus looms against which the human population has no immunity, ensuing in several, simultaneous outbreaks worldwide with big numbers of deaths and illness.”

The key segment of that description 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 simply removed the severity and high-pitched death criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9 This substitution in description is why COVID-1 9 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though it, at no time, 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 calls 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, by removing the criteria of severe illness motiving high-pitched morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic "worlds leaders" have had the opportunity to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and supports.

WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Definition of Herd Immunity

The WHO has also radically altered the definitions contained in “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occur when enough beings acquire exemption to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the amount prone is low-grade enough to prevent epidemic raise, flock exemption is said to have been reached.

Prior to the preamble of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via revelation to and recuperation from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired exemption that comes from prior illness, but likewise the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

However, in October 2020, the WHO upended discipline as we know it, revising this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that altogether removes natural illnes from the equation.

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

“Herd immunity 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 revised definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows: 19

“'Herd immunity’, also known as' population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting beings from a virus , not by uncover them to it.

Vaccines study our immune systems to create proteins that defend ailment, known as' antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but -- crucially -- vaccines work without performing us sick.

Vaccinated people shall be protected against coming the disease in question and passing it on, separating any series of transfer. With herd immunity, the vast majority of local populations are vaccinated, lower their overall sum of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

After public -- and no doubt embarrassing -- backfire, the WHO reviewed its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now predicts: 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 immunity developed through previous illnes.

WHO supportings achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination , not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the person, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

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 scandalizes the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice -- December 7, 2020,21, 22 and January 13, 202123 -- the WHO published medical notifies for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds( CT) will create high rates of inaccurate positives, that the CT importance should be reported to the health care provider and that research decisions be considered in combination with clinical observances, health history 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, establishes it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical produce alarm was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s kickoff 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 consignment, ” and that “Where test makes do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.”

It likewise reminds users that “disease prevalence adapts the predictive evaluate of test outcomes, ” so that “as malady prevalence reduces, the risk of false positive increases.” The alert goes on to explain: 26

“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive ensue( SARS-CoV-2 spotted) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 abridges as prevalence weakens, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, healthcare systems providers must consider any result in combination with going of sampling, specimen kind, assay specifics, clinical observations, case autobiography, strengthened status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

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

The technical consensus has so far been that anything over 35 CTs makes the PCR experiment useless, 30,31, 32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% -- 97% are false positives. 33 By ultimately recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured result to the caseload at a hoped age. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would rehabilitate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO. 34

Time to Position an Culminate 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 position of health” by all peoples.

It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond settlement. Because of its funding -- a huge portion of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” -- it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO dishes corporate masters and through its dictatorial dominances is basically destroying , not improving, the health of the world.

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

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

Specifically, PACE noticed “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was enormously overrated by WHO, ” and that the remedy industry had forced the organization’s decision-making -- specific claims repetition by other examiners as well. 37,38, 39,40, 41

The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against unwarranted force by vested interest, public funding of independent study, and final but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health 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 degenerated. Other reports, two be made available in 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also highlighted the WHO’s failures and shortfall 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 necessary in a global pandemic, experts 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 are, still, and no reforms ever has just taken place. Instead, the fraud festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a supremacy hub for the technocratic late state that seeks to usurp dominance and oversight matters over all nations.

As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard-handed 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 interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, is required to be thoroughly investigated and routed out.

Read more: articles.mercola.com