All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
38:31
UN Whistleblower: WHO is Tip of the Spear for Global Tyranny
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, some people say, yeah, but they will not listen.
No, don't think like that.
The card house of cards is falling down and what we will do will echo after that.
Welcome everybody.
This is Conversations That Matter for the New American Magazine.
I'm your host, Alex Neumann.
We have a very special guest for you today.
Her bio is incredible.
We could spend all our time talking about it.
We won't, but I just want to let you know she has a lot of credentials.
Her name is Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger.
She has all kinds of degrees.
Just to give you some sense of who we're talking to here, a PhD, In population health and advanced Masters of Science from the University of Geneva in Mental Health, Masters of Science from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, a Certificate in International Human Rights.
She served in the Faculty of Law, University of Geneva.
I mean, it goes on and on.
She's also worked for the World Health Organization and a number of UN agencies, a number of governments, even the European Union.
She's an international health scientist, and she realized that some of what was going on during the pandemic was not proper, was not in line with what was supposed to be going on, and so she decided to speak out.
She also served as the president of the Geneva International Network on Aging.
Which was a part of the WHO.
Now it's kind of a semi-official NGO.
They call them a non-governmental organization.
But she's got an incredible background.
Published 12 books, contributed to multiple WHO books.
Asit, thank you so much for joining us.
I want to start off.
It's great to have you.
We want to talk about several things today, including the transhumanism, but I want to start with this issue of the pandemic.
You were working within the WHO and the UN system on health policy.
In fact, you helped write and work on the international health regulations.
Tell us about the role of the WHO in bringing about this global kind of shift to totalitarianism, the lockdowns, the closing of businesses and schools and everything.
What role did the WHO play and do you think that was appropriate?
No, it was really not appropriate and that's why I reacted very quickly trying to explain to people And even to the Swiss radio, that the PCR was something very strange that had no validity.
And we have never seen that in WHO, that a test and a diagnostic technology, it's not a diagnostic, actually, it's a technology for research, suddenly becomes the tool of the world and the tool of WHO to prove cases.
And cases were transformed into sick people and contagious, asymptomatic and blah, blah.
And that was one thing that was very disturbing.
The other thing that was very disturbing is that from the beginning, they were creating fear.
And in fact, in the International Health Regulations, which is an obligation from states, I can show you the booklet that people can go and download in six, seven languages.
Well, number one is that you communicate ethically, and ethically means that when When you have an emergency of international concern, you're looking for the little criminal.
Is it a virus, a bacteria?
Is it chemical?
Is it radionuclear?
But you have to identify the agent and you have to analyze the agent very carefully and on and on with a validity process.
So when you do communicate, you say, we don't know yet, but we're looking for and we're going to tell you, be reassured.
We're taking all the measures.
You know, and it is located here, and it is moving there, and it's a moving target.
What we saw was lockdown once at all the whole world, like if, you know, the virus that has never been isolated and purified and analyzed up to this date.
This virus just fell down on the heads of people and WHO gave directives that were Totally unconcerned, you know, too big, not commensurate with the research, because the research would have been, OK, we are studying this in China.
We're looking at what is going on.
And they did not give the data.
They did not give the articles that proved that there is a causality between a coronavirus and a sickness, which usually you have to Purify and look, take pictures of a virus and then you have to study and re-inoculate it in animals and in humans to see if this creates this.
And we never had this.
I think at least two to three hundred universities and academia who said we have never found this isolation, this virus by the postulate of Koch.
So this already, can you imagine that normally there is a systemic You have to go through an algorithm in this international health regulation.
You have to look if it's serious.
And what you specifically have to do is not stop commerce and trade and not, you know, lock down people immediately.
That's the thing to avoid.
And the thing to avoid is to lock down the airplanes.
So everything looked very suspicious for me from the beginning.
Do you think we were dealing with deliberate fraud here, Astrid?
Was this, like, just a mistake?
You know, these people didn't know what they were doing, incompetence, stupidity?
Or was this deliberate fraud, deliberate deception?
So, at the beginning, it's like a detective.
You find pieces here and there.
And you think hypothesis is that it's deliberate, but we don't know.
And the more you put the pieces together, and the more it's clearly deliberate.
And now we have the proof from the US that it has leaked from Wuhan lab.
It's not a leak.
It's actually an intentional spread.
Now we know this, but what is more intentional that I had not seen coming is that, you see, when we had to teach this international health regulation train for three years, I was employed by WHO, you know, alert and response unit, and with Georgetown and Pretoria University, we had to teach this international health regulation implementation course, that's the universities, and we went for three years and more And they stopped us.
We were supposed to keep on and they stopped us.
And I was like, wow, why would they stop something so important?
And then I went on teaching it, you know, putting up a summer school for American students on the UN system and how it works.
And one week was devoted to international health regulation until 2015.
And I got a guy from WHO, Bruce Plotkin, he came to, I know him, he was one of the lawyer consultants from the US.
He took me to lunch and he said, listen, Astrid, you cannot teach and you cannot train the International Health Regulation.
You have no right.
I was shocked.
I laughed at him.
I said, you know, universities are free.
So what are you saying?
And what happened is that he went probably to talk to the university and he stopped that.
So that was already that they did not want people to be trained.
And the second thing, crazy, is that I understood after another piece of the puzzle political intention is that Gavi, Bill Gates, established a non-governmental organization in Switzerland in 2006.
It became an international organization of a new type that our federal government gave, you know, the total immunity in 2009 in Geneva and from then They infiltrated totally the WHO.
They had already made a deal with the World Bank, the World Bank, GAVI and WHO.
They had already signed an accord to create the Coalition for Epidemic Innovation, CEPI.
And so in 2009, he had his foot in the UN with total immunity, more than governments even.
And then what happened is I saw that he had been assigned You have to look in the papers of the World Health Assemblies that, you know, happen every year.
He had been assigned as the person directing a new decade on vaccine immunization.
And he, but of course, he's the second biggest payer after the US, you know, until Trump retreated.
But what happened, he has, and I have the papers, he was in charge from 2012 And when you read those papers, and everybody can find them on the Internet, you see clearly that his aim is that everybody should be vaccinated.
Everybody.
From the known vaccines.
And at that time, from 2012 to 2020, we did not have, you know, this new strain of coronavirus That has, by the way, coronaviruses have never had a vaccine because they mutate all the time.
It's impossible to do a vaccine.
So 2012 to 2020, he had a global plan and he did a midterm review in 2016.
And you can read the papers.
They say, we are very upset that we did not manage to vaccinate everybody.
We have to do an accelerator.
So we are going to put ACT Accelerator Program on.
And they're using that now.
And what happened in 2020 is COVID-19.
So there is, you see the plan.
There is a plan not to train.
There is a plan that WHO takes the leadership with Gavi in the seat.
And Gavi has always existed, but first for children.
And Bill Gates has been condemned in, I remind people who don't know, Bill Gates has been condemned to death sentence in India.
for killing with injections and also in Africa for sterilizing women.
So he has not a very nice record.
So that's where we stand.
There's clearly a plan until now and from now it's even clearer And you want me to develop that?
Yeah, well, you know, Bill Gates obviously is a key player and we've been exposing a lot of what you were just talking about.
In fact, his sterilization campaign in Kenya through the WHO and UNICEF.
It's just unbelievable.
So my question for you is, who all is involved in this?
And what do you think their motivations are?
Because, you know, we hear a lot that maybe they just want to make lots of money.
I mean, Bill Gates has a lot of money.
Is this about money?
Is it something else?
Who else is it, in addition to Bill Gates, that's involved here?
And what are they hoping to accomplish?
Well, what has happened is that the WHO has opened its door to the private sector.
The UN had already done this with the Global Compact in 1999, Kofi Annan announced, with all the private sector coming in as a bubble.
But WHO has made a very strong move To accept a private sector, but also non-state actor, whatever that means.
You can put anything there.
So it's not just non-governmental.
And so they have moved now clearly into a global governance.
And the way they are handling WHO is not like coordinating member states that can decide for themselves.
Because before, in the IHR, we trained everything should be customized To countries, to culture, an island is not the same as a mountain area.
You don't, you know, take care of a pandemic the same way with rivers, with lakes, with desert.
So this was clearly customized and not standardized.
They have brought everybody to obey to one governance, to obey to a standard, and this standardization of PCR to the world.
It's crazy.
It's not even, it's not scientific.
You know, the CDC has said that the PCR is, is, is cannot do it.
Carrie Milley's The Invention Nobel Prize also, but you know that already.
But WHO is now more and more taking power of the world together as the only organization to be able, that's how they, they make the rhetoric of inverse values.
They are the only and the best actor, so they start to be one institution, actor to direct any epidemic preparedness plan, any pandemic preparedness intervention plan.
So they have been saying this more and more and now they met, and that was very strange, they met on 28th of November until 1st of December for a 75th Extraordinary World Health Assembly.
So every country meets, and it's a World Health Assembly in Geneva for people who don't know, in May.
Six months before, they create Extraordinary, the second in the history of WHO.
And at that meeting, suddenly pops out a guide to a pandemic treaty, for those who want to see this, which are the things you must know to help you make a decision on a pandemic treaty.
And they voted, and nobody knows They have voted to accept not the treaty, but the procedure to start and finalize a pandemic treaty or international instrument.
So it's not just about a treaty.
It can be anything because, you know, they are so sneaky.
They're going to take the instrument that will be adopted the quickest.
And the instrument to be adopted the quickest is like the International Health Regulation.
It was not voted, it was adopted, it was not signed, it was adopted.
It is a word that's very important to understand.
Because in the World Health Constitution, and this is where the key of understanding this puzzle, last piece of puzzle, to say this was intentional since a long time.
Because the first question is, why is WHO the only UN agency that has a constitution?
And the answer, I think, is a hypothesis, but it seems very likely, is that as every government has a constitution, the most likely instrument to make sure that you can supersede and, you know, take over the world and all the constitutions is to have a WHO constitution.
And that's what happens.
And this is how they want to adopt Through the WHO Constitution and the International Health Regulation eventually, because it's not very clear the role that this document has, it seems like they want to discard it and they want to take over with their WHO Constitution.
And I invite everybody to go and see the Article 21, which tells you how much you can change the the whole world if they manage what they want to do.
So 1st of December they announce to the whole world that they are going to, they have adopted, they say even that the world together established an intergovernmental negotiating body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and they announce that they have a procedure going on.
So they have They're already in the process from the 1st of December.
So what they can adopt is very scary.
I don't want to scare people.
So we need the truth.
So if it scares people, so be it.
We need to know what's going on.
So the first thing I discovered is that you have to find the right WHO constitution for those who are looking for it with all the footnotes.
Because the one they have on their website doesn't have footnotes.
And that's where you have the clue how you can oppose.
You know, and the timing.
So Article 19 to 22 are the most important.
And in that, that's the procedure of voting and opposing.
And Article 21 is everything you can change.
So I can read it, you know, I take the main points quickly.
Yeah, please.
Okay, so Article 21, the Health Assembly, the World Health Assembly, so that's the meeting they had You know, in December.
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning, and then they mention five points.
So this means, this is what they have done.
Okay.
A. Sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.
So, in the name of prevention, they have already done sanitary measures And quarantine, which is the lockdown of people, the lockdown of airplanes, the mask, the PCR test in the nose, which is never seen also in the history of WHO.
What else?
The mask, oh yeah, the hydrogel on the hands, which is also, you know, full of toxicity for the hands and for the body.
Okay, so the number B is the nomenclature With respect to disease, so they can change the nomenclature, which means the definitions with respect to disease.
They have done this with pandemic.
And before it was only very high mortality and very high disease from the strain that has been proven.
And now it's any disease that crosses the border.
It's crazy.
Then they can also define causes of death.
That's what they did with PCR tests in the middle of the nose of people dead.
And public health practices, for example, you have no autopsies anymore.
And this is also what they have done, which is unprecedented.
So, you know, they have already done A and B. C, they can decide for standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use.
PCR tests that they are using.
PCR tests are sold and also manufactured by the International Atomic Agency.
So they are preparing more.
They have not Stopped this when everybody is proving today that it doesn't work.
OK, so number D and E are the most shocking for a WHO, for a UN agency, because they talk about commercial, international commercial market.
So they can decide the standards with respect to safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international concern, commerce.
So this means they can decide if you are sick or not.
You can decide what is safe or not.
They can decide the purity of a virus or not.
You know, they change science.
And the last one is they can decide of advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
So they are creating the business of health and disease.
And very clearly they can change everything and they have already started to train people that this is possible because people who have accepted are already trained into the fact they're going to be saved by WHO.
Except that people who got their second dose don't want to take their third, there are many.
So the three other articles are important for people to understand The first one, Article 19, is to say that more than two-thirds of hands up are enough to adopt.
That's what they did on the 1st of December.
Then in Article 20, they say that within 18 months, a country, a member state, has to oppose to such a convention or agreement.
We can consider this as an agreement.
And they have to notify the Director General of what they are doing.
What they're opposing and their motives.
So the countries have 18 months, but the little trick that I found out because people write to me and give me clues.
It's very, it's interesting.
And they gave me a clue.
And I want to raise that with you.
Is that in Article 22, there is a little footnote A. And it says that you have to oppose Before it gets into force, like there's a time to go into force, you have to oppose and notify the Director General of opposition, rejection or reservation within the period stated in the notice, and in the notice it is stated six months.
So we're almost out of time, huh?
Yeah.
If you take six months from the 1st of December, it's 1st of June.
So we really have to oppose.
You know, some people say, yeah, but they will not listen.
No, don't think like that.
The card house of cards is falling down.
And what we will do will echo after that.
You know, so we need to oppose as citizens together as groups and to oppose not only oppose to any document that WHO will not only to this treaty or international instrument, but to all decisions and adoption that our government would do in our name.
And I would even say, we could even ask to stop and retreat from the UN and WHO until things are clear.
Because the UN is so big, they are doing a lot of things in parallel to the WHO, like they are trying to put their strategy together.
I know that for sure, like climate change.
And the Agenda 2030.
With the Sustainable Development Goals.
So, please, people who listen, you know, get together and make those signatures to say we oppose and we oppose from, you know, the time of the 1st of December anything that would be adopted, ratified or, you know, done in our name and that we retreat.
You know, I don't know how Trump did it, but there's certainly a language We retreat from the UN and WHO.
And you have to write to the Director General and also to the Secretary General of the UN.
And then two more is your Minister of Health and your President.
So there are four, at least, people who should know.
And I suggest that you could make a copy to, you know, Rainer Filmisch or a lawyer in the US who is, you know, very knowledgeable about the situation and would go with the people.
And you have a few now.
And you can make a copy to De Santis as a governor because he's really good.
He really is good.
He's going exactly towards this liberation.
So we have to get liberated from the United Nations.
It was a nice system.
I really believed in it.
But now it's occupied on purpose, intentionally.
And as NGOs, you cannot go in as before.
I mean, you have you cannot go in as before.
It's become a bunker in Geneva.
You know, so.
Austin, if I understand you correctly, you're you're just correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying here, but they're they're adopting through a very shadowy, opaque process, more language, more text of these agreements that basically usurping more text of these agreements that basically usurping more powers and and really getting on the way to becoming a global government where they're going to be able to tell news.
Nations and people, what policies they must implement to deal with real or imagined future pandemics.
Is that an accurate characterization of what you're trying to explain?
Yeah, we should say that.
Absolutely.
I would just say that it has already happened because how did they manage?
It's extraordinary.
They have planned everything.
How did they manage?
And Dr. Fauci got an email on 15th of March from China saying to him, lockdown now.
Did you get that?
I think it's the number 1233.
I'm not sure now.
Anyway, his emails.
In his emails, there is one very important.
How did they manage this in the whole world?
Well, I think every country, and I've analyzed a few as an expert, like Quebec and Switzerland, and they have managed because they have put in their law of epidemic or in their constitution, a little article saying that the WHO has, in case of emergency, W.H.O.
takes power over the country, which is unconstitutional, anti-constitutional.
So you have to look for that.
And I think maybe Switzerland has a breach.
So we know that we can supersede that with that breach legal.
I think the U.S.
can also.
Yeah, because we have a procedure in our Constitution where for treaties and international agreements to be adopted, our Senate has to ratify them, but from what you're saying and from what I've seen, it sounds like they think they're going to do this through the back door and just attach it to something that's already been approved and pretend like there's nothing new, there's no reason for the Senate to reconsider this, huh?
Right, but you have to know one thing, because it was very important at that time.
In this international health regulation adopted in 2005, What's his name?
Bill Gates made an amendment of 2016, but they kept that one.
But in this one, there are two countries that pulled restriction, because I was training also people from CDC and things, and we were trying, I was trying to show them what is human rights and what is violating human rights, because there are lots of articles on human rights in there.
And we were showing the film Outbreak, you remember?
The film Outbreak with Dustin Hoffman.
And actually, there is a restriction.
I was making them do the exercise, you know, with post-its and stuff.
And one thing important is in the restriction, the US and Iran have made a restriction that if there is a question of national security, they can intervene and it's not WHO.
Nobody can intervene else than the US.
So that's, you have a bridge, you have something there to lie on that is very important.
And there is another worry I have is that in the human rights, there is the principle of Syracuse.
The Syracuse principle is precisely then when there is a global threat, the military takes over, over the people and they can do anything.
And this has to be carefully watched, because the Syracuse principle, they know about it.
And this restriction, they're not talking about it.
So we also have to oppose that the Syracuse principle be applied to any circumstance at the moment that is not admitted internationally with independent people.
Because they're not taking independent people, they're paying everybody with money.
Wow this is unbelievable and it definitely sounds like something that America's governors and mayors and sheriffs and everybody needs to resist and say that's that's not going to apply in our jurisdiction.
Yeah before we let you go I want to ask you about transhumanism and this whole effort to to upgrade is the term they're using now people by putting technological implants in them by using Genetic engineering, genetic modifications.
You've been in this field for a long time.
How realistic is this?
Is this really an agenda that's coming to pass?
What's the end objective?
Thank you for the question.
I think one of the priorities is to stop technologization of the world with In artificial intelligence, blockchain, etc.
Because at the moment, we don't know if the information coming is from a robot or not.
We have difficulties also with deep fake in the information area.
And I had to talk to the senior counsel at the federal level four months ago, and I did not want to touch on COVID, except one point, because I've been an expert for them.
And I said to old people, I said, you know more than anybody how Technology should not be standardized to everybody because some people don't want to work with technology and you have to refuse.
When you go to the postman, there is a postman, it's not a robot.
If you go to the bank, you know you're a banker, you trust your banker, you see a human face, you know that is a human person and it is someone that you talk to.
With the mania of QR code mania, I cannot call it elsewhere.
I get crazy.
They are sending QR codes to everybody to get people used.
They're even obliging people.
This is anti-constitutional.
And old people, that was my area of expertise, have the right not to live with technology.
Anybody has the right.
And they're not doing that.
And I was an expert for this anti-aging regenerative medicine.
With technology, you can do great things.
You can, you know, change hips in Titan.
You can change eyes.
You have sights.
You can see.
You can put, you know, a new ear implant.
They're fantastic things.
But when they put an ear implant with a USB key or, you know, some AI in it, you don't... They can hack you.
They can biohack your body.
And that is a danger.
And I had to talk in Shanghai University with a group of French lawyers About that in I was taking the aging and I saw there was a there is really a problem about regulations.
There is no clear regulation of the limits of technology.
They can go as far as they want China.
Definitely.
That's why everything started there.
But I think that we have to really now also with the votes to refuse electronic votes to you know, get back to normal because you imagine the United Nation again.
There is an agency that's quite important.
It's called the ITU, International Telecommunication Union.
They take care of technology.
They take care of the communication all over the world.
So they have the, you know, they have the links, the buttons to direct all the ministries of communication in the world and force them into what they want their dictatorship.
So there's also the meteorological, Organization in Geneva has more UN agencies than anywhere in the world because they have total immunity and it's a peaceful country.
But still, you imagine this problem?
It's that we have to stop technology before it's too late.
We have to refuse this QR code because they're going to stop us from getting food.
They're already doing this in Saudi Arabia, by the way.
The Saudis cannot go and live without taking three jabs.
Because with QR codes, they showed it to me, they came to the UN and And they showed, because I said, why did you take these jobs?
You know, we collaborate with different countries and they already have a QR code in different colors according to how many vacs you had, how many injections.
And this injection has nanoparticles of oxide graphene and it has AI in it.
So we, they are injecting people with AI.
Because oxide graphene or hydroxide graphene, some have found, other scientists, engineers have found, can not only be a receptor and emitter, you have an ID that is on the oxide graphene, even after you're dead, even in your cemetery, it still emits your ID.
Can you imagine?
Some lawyers have done this in Belgium, they told me about, they measured that.
But not only do they have an ID, but this oxide graphene, from engineer experts told me, That it has a kind of a broadband in terahertz that is ionized, and it can stock data, send data, receive data, and it can transform.
So this is where they're going.
They're going into such an advanced technology that we are not aware of.
You know, it's like in doping.
The anti-doping has always, you know, 10Ks late.
So they know.
It was part of the DARPA defense research.
I saw you can go and look at a video on YouTube that is fantastic of Charles Morgan, Dr. Charles Morgan talking to a military about oxygraphene and how you can take the command of people at a distance.
It's fascinating.
It's on psycho-neurobiology, I think it's called.
Wow.
You imagine this, where we're going, we don't belong to...
ourself anymore because they have patented uh vaccines and if you take four different vaccines experimental you have a problem clash of patented you're patented four times with different companies
i mean we are going to an already absurd science fiction world and i'm a bit worried also of this metaverse taking over reality from people and we have to get back to a standard of what is a human Can you imagine the law of Anissimov on the robots?
It sounds like terrible science fiction, and yet, you know, I've seen, I've read the books, I've seen the papers, I've seen the talks, and that's, we've got Yuval Noah Harari at the World Economic Forum talking about humans are going to be hackable, no more free will, you have no soul, you're just going to be a biological machine.
It really does, it sounds like terrible science fiction, and yet we know the technology's there, we know that this is what they're up to.
Astrid, before we let you go, what's the best way to follow you?
How can people stay updated?
Do you have a website?
Are you on social media?
Yeah, I have a website where I put more of my CV and they can donate to me if they want to support me.
The most important now, because I don't put anything on my website because I don't want the Swiss or anybody to say that I'm doing it on my website.
I don't want it.
I have a Telegram channel.
I think now it's 12,000 people in a few months.
And I was before on Facebook, but I'm censored so much that it becomes a game, you know, cat and mice.
But so sometimes I post, but whatever I posted on Facebook is very good.
I'm on LinkedIn, but it's so professional that I'm not touching it so much unless I have really an important news.
And then I am I go mostly on VK, it's Russian, and Telegram.
Telegram I have personal, but I have one, it's dr__stickerburger, and you see an image of me, and that's where I post many, many things, and you can comment in English and French.
I do bilingual even sometimes, when it's really important, even in German sometimes.
But yeah, I'm really trying to clarify and put some light on this big puzzle we're living to prevent.
If I can say something more is that people should be very careful with the water they drink.
They have to filtrate it.
We are 80% more water and water can heal.
It can make you sick.
And you have to be careful also with what you eat because you go back to the farm or we have to go back to local food.
So we are in a very strange but fascinating period.
Yeah, no kidding.
Well, I want to thank you so much for coming on and speaking with us, Astrid.
It's been absolutely fascinating.
I hope we can get you back very soon.
I hope everybody will go follow you on Telegram and the other platforms.
So I really appreciate it.
Thank you so much, Astrid.
Yes, thanks to you.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
All right, folks.
That was Dr. Astrid Stukelberger, an incredible health scientist.
Been around and working for UN agencies for a very long time.
I'm Alex Newton.
This is Conversations That Matter for The New American Magazine.
I want to thank you all for tuning in.
Really appreciate it.
We'll be back with much more, so keep it tuned right here on our channels and our platforms.
▲
Export Selection