All language subtitles for ieMwy.fn8Sioooooooooooooo

Hello, my name is Arthur Jonsson. I am honored today to be joined by Professor Dr. Astrid Stuhkelberger.

She is a professor and specializes in public health. Am I right?

Yes, and other things.

Okay, very welcome.

Thank you.

And thank you for joining me. You will be here for a conference in Iceland.

Yes.

You will be giving a lecture on which topic on corruption.

Corruption, like political corruption.

Well, it's many sides of...

what we can analyze today, scientifically, from genetic to population and also in policy

and organization, the United Nations or so, there are really evidence now that everybody

knows and so it is to explain to people what's going on.

hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig hvernig h

various sides, I would say, but let's begin with you, Wastrid, and I think it

would be of importance for our viewers to sort of get to know you a little bit.

You have become quite known as a whistleblower when it comes to the UN and who,

I will tell you, I would be interested to hear more about your background, what gives a person strength.

the courage to go against the powers that be so can you tell me tell us a

little bit about yourself just to start this off yes well I want to say first

that you know my whole career has been science and it's was always science that

could be debated and debated and also at the service of the population and and

the politics policy makers

And science debate was there for progress, not as a fight against you are right, we are wrong,

not at all. So I'm very at ease to debate, which has been pretty rare now.

But so for my background, I started in biology.

And I thought it was very restricted.

So I went into mental health and psychology

and how the brain functions.

And it was a genetic psychology.

So it was very interesting, multidisciplinary.

And then once I had this bachelor, if you want today,

say, I did a master of science.

And this was with WHO.

So very early on, I was in WHO.

And it was with the mental health division.

intercultural differential diagnostics on mental health.

So it meant, and the result was to debate

because every seven cultures, seven countries,

had a different way of making a diagnosis of mental health.

Debate, progress, you know?

It's not only pharma, the US was like, yeah.

So this was an example for your listeners.

After that, I joined in WHO directly a research.

that was a multi-centric with the University of Geneva Geriatric Hospital and

they offered me to collaborate with WHO in the Geriatric Hospital and I said yes, great

and I was only 28 years old and

then I started my career with the Faculty of Medicine.

Paid by the faculty of medicine, but I was already in WHO so it was a fantastic adventure and then they said well

We have we would like you to join the geriatric hospital university hospital

team of research and I started to do

interdisciplinary work in the faculty, from clinical, from analyzing, you know, the brains

of Alzheimer's, to what is going on in the emergency department with old people.

And it was really very interesting because an old person is multidisciplinary.

You can never do one diagnosis to old people.

It is multimorbidity and you have to discuss what is the causality.

So already there I had this tendency.

Because they liked me, they said we offer you another position at the government level and that was half-time for 10 years as

Head you know heading the Swiss research program on aging and that was with the Swiss National Science Foundation

And there I learned to be with all disciplines and with politicians

So it was a huge work for 10 years until your 2000 where I did my PhD on this big

research on

population aging and the difference between men and women in health, in objectives, objective health.

Anyway, it was the determinants of health, the determinants of disease in the population.

So I was very well armed in 2000 to be in any group in the faculty of a medicine and to

understand the methodology. And from 2000, I did many mandates that I brought myself the money to

and that became the Institute of Global Health.

So I did teaching, I have always done teaching,

but my whole 30 years of training, teaching and research

at a very different level.

And it brought me to a very interesting topic,

well, with WHO, but I was already collaborating on aging

since 10 years, but they started to ask me

to join the International Health Regulation.

group of WHO pandemic management because they saw me sitting, they invited to be the external

consultant for the research ethics committee of WHO.

So how do you evaluate a research in WHO internationally so that it can be validated

according to the plan of WHO and that was 2006 to 2009 and then in 2009 I joined WHO for the

international health regulation which is how do you manage an epidemic and management of pandemic

and that's another keyword to define and this is when I did the implementation course for

We were three universities working with WHO, Georgetown, University of Geneva, with me responsible and Pretoria.

And I had the topics that are very relevant today.

It's communication ethics, emergency management, typology,

and case study, how do you evaluate

if it is chemical, radionuclear, foodborne disease,

or infectious or zoonotic.

So I came out of the WHO, and I started training

at many levels from students of the Faculty of Medicine

a group of American, best university students, and then the summer school on global health and

human rights. So I've always been collaborating with the UN Global Health, representing two

scientific organizations at the UN accredited. So I understand the system. I had many

other positions, but I can't explain, you know, I don't want to bore people too much.

But anyway, when COVID came, I was, you know, ending a big,

multi-centric research on the social determinants of health with the WHO.

And I was still teaching and then everything stopped. I was censored completely.

You were censored.

Yeah, yeah, completely.

Because then by that time, did you have other ideas than the institution or the organization?

Yeah.

What happened, and it's good now that you know a bit my background, that people understand

how it happened.

I was doing conferences a bit everywhere in the world and I was teaching also at the

university in Italy and in Russia with a professor and in France, etc.

But when it happened, I was in South Korea for an international conference and it just

happened, it was February and we could see in the conference that some people were using

You know, and I was looking at this amused, you know, thinking, Oh, wow, the Koreans,

they know their technology, they have a scanner, you know, for, so I was very interested, I even

took pictures of how they were doing this. And we finished this. And I go to the airport.

And this message, Oh, be careful, there is a, you know, epidemic after their regulation,

there was strange messages for somebody who knows how the steps.

step by step evolution of validating an epidemic, then a pandemic, how long it takes. And I said,

okay, it's in Korea. So it is seems to be serious that there is maybe something happening, not

defined. And I came to just that to Frankfurt. And the same message was in Frankfurt. And I

thought this is wrong. So this is just for me and the viewers to understand. But

up until this point where you had been working on this international health regulations.

Was the starting point still remained there that every single nation would take its own

decisions based on the situation in each country, right?

So was that the explanation why you were sort of taken aback when you see this,

that this seems to be synchronized in some way?

There's the same messaging in two countries in both airports, right?

Yes, absolutely.

You were taken aback a bit by that.

Yes, because we in HR 2005 that was implemented 2008 and they kept on

There is a very strong human right component where you cannot stop a traveler without a big reason

You cannot stop commerce. You cannot lock down. It can you cannot stop the international commercial life

And you have to have a proof of what it is and you don't have WHO deciding for the world so quickly

right and I had analyzed the Sraskov one it went for

And I wrote an article in April 2020 in Akta Biomedica.

You can write Astrid Steguberger, you'll find it, PDF.

And it's to say that, hey, come on, I charted in Strascov 1,

took eight months to just have 700 deaths,

eight months to cross 24 countries, eight months.

From the beginning, you know, and they had a K zero, we did not even have a K zero, we did not even know what it was.

Some people said it's the pangolin in the market, some say it's the virus, some say, no, maybe it's something else.

We have a doubt, but yeah, suddenly...

The country's all obeyed with the lockdown, it was so clear that is a coup for me.

Yes.

That it is like, what is WHO doing?

They're deciding suddenly what is going on.

So it leads to you like there's a coup in the sense that the who is all of a sudden has taken on the role of world government, basically.

Well, now I can say it, but at the time, I didn't know.

I said, what is going on?

Right.

And I tried to understand, like everybody, and suddenly I realized that everybody, because

with the media, if you're in your own country, you don't know what's going on with the other

countries. But with my contacts, and I thought, they're not obeying to the protocol of Koch,

if it's a virus that's mutating, it's impossible to catch it. We called it, in the course I gave in

mandated in 2014 to do that.

We called it the moving target virus.

It was the worst case because you cannot make a vaccine,

you cannot catch it, it changes up to one country,

it's a different strain.

And the principle of the flu was each year

that we have another flu, another vaccine.

We don't know where the moving target goes.

So they used a case that we described

as not very important.

And to be important, you have to prove

There are lots of deaths to make a pandemic.

Yes. But this is a topic, obviously, that you know much better than most people.

They were calling this a coronavirus right at the beginning, right?

And am I right to, when I say that they had tried in the UK for decades to make a vaccine

against the coronavirus and that they shut that institution down because they came to

the conclusion that it was impossible.

Is this correct?

that I don't have, but I do have the information I wrote in ActaBioMedica, this article on

IHR, that actually...

the coronavirus, they could never develop a vaccine in 20 years since

Rizkov won, because it was moving all the time.

That's right.

That's the same experience they had in the UK.

Thank you.

It was a government program financed quite heavily and then they shut it down.

So, so this is, this is where you were at then.

You were at the airport.

You were coming home and this is the messaging you see and what do you do then?

Well, I had a cough because it was very cold in South Korea when we were in Seoul and we went to the market and I always got coughing and things and I thought I should not even cough because I don't know what's going to happen to me because they were doing a terrorist media.

I remember that, and this was against what I was responsible of organizing the teaching.

We did a modernization workshop with Christine Faig for CNN Anchor.

And we were doing press conferences, how you have to announce not to scare people.

So that's the ethics of communication in any outbreak.

At that point it was an outbreak.

And then suddenly you have, you know, it's scaring people.

And I thought this is something new.

So that was one of the things that you actually noticed is that the governments or the authorities in both countries

were sort of using scare tactics.

Well, it was difficult to know where it came from at the beginning, because the media

was using pictures of people lying on the floor, and then we know that it was fake,

or that they take one thing that shocked me, you know, I was in the emergency department,

You know, and they were pushing the coffin in the emergency, which is not true.

I mean, I know this.

So the media was using now who was paying the media was my question before accusing the government.

And there was like a media between the media and the government.

Yes.

Organizing this whole media campaign propaganda of fear.

Bizarre. I'm not going to condemn without have more proofs, but like a puzzle.

The puzzle was making more and more, and then the PCR test, and I was, what is that?

We never have been teaching that a PCR, which is a polymerized reaction test in a lab, can

be used in public health to decide if somebody healthy is sick.

This is like a fraudulous way of thinking and using words and using devices to prove

when they're very healthy. So if you put this on top of this and the chain reaction of the lie,

it is enormous. I'm just showing you a few examples. And I also spoke on the radio of the

Swiss radio because they invited me. They saw I was speaking about it for the Friends of the

Constitution. Okay, so this is right at the beginning still? Yes. So you go on radio and

you speak about this? Yeah, and they invited the head of the laboratory of the university hospital.

So I had prepared it very well because I thought, oh, I'm going to face, I don't know how they're going, but I'm going to just speak the way I speak normally.

I explain and I give her logic and the debate has to, that he takes his logic of the scientific debate and gives me another proof and then the public can decide.

That's how I've always done it.

And then I took out the proofs, you know, that Carrie Millis, who is the Nobel Prize, said that

it is not possible to use the PCR to manage a pandemic epidemic or anything in public health.

The CDC document of July 18th, who says it cannot be used, it's a lab tool.

And then even WHO papers say that you have to put the amplification cycle.

Yes.

And you have to have the doctor putting the symptomatology.

and validating it and signing this has never been done so that and I had many many arguments and I saw that he was a bit cornered but then I just leave it there I'm not going to fight it's a debate like I said at the beginning it's an explanation okay and what happened next then after that.

Oh, well, there were many things happening at the beginning, I was like, normally, you

know, when I say something, the media comes to get me, the doctors from a journal of medical

doctors asked me to make an article on the discrimination of old people in the care that

they all wanted to put them in a lockdown that they're all sick and they're poor and

I wrote an article.

I was invited to media like your podcast, and it went in many hundred thousand views and I said, well, there's a need, you know, and then I was on the film hold up of Pierre Barnayras in France, who put many scientists together, who were done on shading during, you know, an hour and a half and we were, I was part, I was saying that WHO has no right to decide.

And then came censorship, like if there was a rolling down, rolling out program,

that the beginning they do their plan, and then they censor those who, like me, were explaining

another version. And I got censored, all my lectures started to fall down.

At the university?

Well, not only at the University of Geneva, but also at the University of Lausanne.

And I was also a professor for study abroad program international for universities of America

and Vanderbilt censored me and said that I cannot be a professor anymore.

Vanderbilt University, and I search and they're a military university, but I

saw that rolling out and I did react to ask for a right of response with a lawyer.

Yes, and they never answered back. So they just cancelled your lectures? Yeah, never answered that. Yeah, the University of Lausanne did that. Yes.

And then the University of Geneva, they admitted that I was on the Priva.cent, you know, I'm a Priva.cent also, I did that in 2014.

It's a 600 page book of all my work at the university scientifically.

And they said, no, you can't teach anymore of that.

And, you know, I've been fighting it.

And now I'm fighting the media because they put programs that that was in 2022.

Wow, that's it's much bigger than I thought. Yes, that I realized this was a global problem.

I didn't know at the beginning, but I realized the WHO had changed.

Right. So the the the organization that you had been working for then by for how many years?

That was three, four years, and the many consultancy, and during ten years I was an expert for the aging program.

Until 2018, I was participating in a book called Innovate Innovation in Policymaking for Health.

Now I understand where they're going.

You thought you knew the organization.

fairly well. Yeah, but I saw corruption already. You saw the corruption already, but you didn't,

but were you surprised then, was it the level of corruption that really... I never imagined what we

were facing then. Yes. Until 2022, I saw that it was recurrent, and then it was just confirmation,

that there was a problem with the private sector entering the WHO.

The private sector?

Yeah.

You mean the pharmaceutical companies?

Yeah, it was not clear.

But I saw, you know, Rockefeller Foundation coming to the aging programs in the 90s.

I saw that the UN had invented a UN global compact only with the private sector in with Kofi Annan in 1999.

I saw also that after with the international health regulation, when I was teaching and organizing the summer school on global health and human rights,

who was a consultant for law from the US. And he said, Astrid, and he knew me. Astrid,

we don't want you to teach anymore, IHR, international health regulation. And I said, why,

why, I mean, it's a democracy. Every academy can teach what they want.

And I was challenging him, and I couldn't understand why, but in a way, in my mind, I remembered that I always said,

if everybody should know how to manage an emergency, we should do a manual, we should do a handbook for the people and for the politician.

Why do we teach three years on for every country, region?

And except China wanted this different one, but, um, and why don't we make a manual and they never wanted because I like to write books and participate.

I did that with ethics research booklet, but it was blocked blocked.

And then I got it that something was going on because they don't want me to teach it.

So there is something much more important there.

Just to, for clarification, would you say then it was like there was no interest in the individual countries taking their own decisions, that the interest was more in having this being centralized, coming from the who itself, from above?

They had a plan and I was going against their plan because I was actually promoting

HR 2005, which is okay because every country manages his own emergency,

security of the border, air, water, but they decide and this not only that, but also that human rights

You have to respect the traveler and in lockdown they did not at all respect the traveler and in the vaccine they didn't either.

That's the next chapter of corruption. You cannot force anybody in the IHR 2005.

you cannot declare a pandemic, this was against HR,

because I have to tell you a very important story.

When I was doing this workshop for WHO Europe in Denmark

for the former Soviet countries,

so I was just reapplying what I have been teaching before.

Every country does his health system design,

they say how they would manage to make them think,

we would help them.

And there was a woman who said, who was from the headquarters of WHO, a new person I never met

before, and said, no, we cannot use the word pandemic. And I said, wow, well, why if we have

levels six, there were six levels to come to pandemic, very carefully designed. And she said

tried to sue WHO after the H1N1 because they bought avian flu, for those who don't remember.

WHO said it's a pandemic and some countries from the Eastern Bloc, they bought Tami flu,

the medication that would heal and they tried to put a vaccine.

And they bought it for millions.

And they said, where is the money going now?

Training program. I think they were training so they sued WHO so for me every country was independent

Yes, but today what you see is every country is either taken in the

In the in the net

You know of the private sector

Or they they are a corporation with the big corporation of

Countries

So

One issue that you mentioned is that the problem perhaps became more pressing when the private interests enter the who.

And we know and we have heard that the who is financed now.

Well, the majority of its finances come from private companies, am I right?

Yes, and there are a lot of things we don't know, but we know that the statistics don't

match anymore.

Right.

Because if you put Bill and Melinda Gates together, foundation, together with Gavi, the

Global Alliance for Vaccine and Immunization, both of them together are more than Germany

and the US funding.

And that's why Bill Gates wanted to enter the executive committee of WHO in 2016-15.

I was in front of the executive board and my friends were talking about it in WHO.

So he wanted to really take over WHO, but he was already there.

because he was leading the global vaccine plan in 2010-2020.

So the former director of the WHO has said that the WHO is, I can't remember the exact number,

but it is somewhere close to 75% of its finances comes with strings attached.

Who said that? Which one?

The former director of the WHO.

The Danish head director general that I met many times, his sons were students at the

master.

Both doctors were students at the master of public health, which I was directing with

others.

Afton Mahler told me when he was retired and that, and already before, that he could

not do more than the private sector wanted.

He made even a sign that he had handcuffs to some friends of mine.

I would say increasingly, increasingly, well, officially, increasingly, officially, yes, but I now suspect and I have proofs that they have been there since quite a long time.

But definitely, the papers that I can show that I have been a witness on the audition

of Rainer Filmes, the lawyer who is today illegally in prison, innocent, anyway, is

that Gavi Bill Gates?

has signed papers on our behalf, all the population of the world with the World Bank after that

James Wolff Watson, which I worked with, stepped down in Wolffowitz from George Bush, you know,

government came in.

So Gavi signed with the World Bank and the Viet Show.

And that was Margaret Chan.

So she was the director general at that time, and so she signed with the World Bank, WHO

and Gavi signed that court called the IFFIM, the International Financing and Facility for

Immunization, and started making a collaboration for funding Bill Gates for vaccinating and

five, four, five like that.

Yeah, so the governments are basically funding a private company.

Well, yes, that's, that's where I have a doubt, even today, because we

don't have all the proofs that the governments have become.

And I think Switzerland had to join the UN, I was part of the campaign for Switzerland to join the UN in 2002, so I suspect 2001-2002, I suspect that they needed that so that after that all the countries are corporations in the UN.

Because then they could sign, because they are just their members of the corporation they have signed.

And we don't know those secret agreements, but it looks actually quite logic and coherent for me that from then on,

they signed on our behalf this collaboration for giving CEPI, you know, the Coalition for Epidemic and Innovation was created then.

And then Gavi came to Geneva, 2006 as a foundation, 2009 as an international organization with full immunity.

I have the papers so I can show you.

And then...

He had total immunity and they started, you know, collaborating together and I have all the

Administrators in there and the UN people like Mary Robinson from the head of the human rights

Hi, hi, come on come here. Yeah from Ireland. Yeah, from Ireland. Yes from a president

She was part of the sign signing signatory of

of Gabby

between 2009 and now, and then Tedros was in 2015, 14, before he became Dr. John.

So this was already infiltrated with the United Nations people.

Okay, so this would perhaps be a classic example of what they call stakeholder capitalism

are sort of intertwined with the governments and the money, public money flows one way

and the influence flows the other way. Yeah, that will correspond. So you say because maybe you

can clarify this to me. I think the IFF I am, you can go and look on the website. They have bonds.

Bonds bonds. Yeah, so it's it's like a business and it's Goldman Sachs who is at you can see in the papers

That Goldman Sachs started the whole program

So it seems to be a flow of money. Yes of each time they vaccinate they get money back or bonds

That's what you're saying, right? They got the money, of course a huge amount of money for the vaccinations for the

Medicines or for the drugs. Let's call them drugs

This money flowed in from public funds, yes, from our taxes, it's our tax money.

Tax everywhere.

Yeah, so whoever has his hands in public funds is certainly in no financial trouble, it would

seem.

Anyway, we are now, we are still, where are we still with your, the timeline where you

have given your opinions, you have the universities have started to cancel you, and then what

was the next thing that happened?

Oh, what happened in Switzerland is interesting because we have a so-called best democracy

in the world.

So the people, it's a confederation of 24 counties, always could contest with the vote

and we do a referendum, we need, you know, 50,000 signatures, also a petition.

We have many mechanics to say no, we don't consent.

in autumn 2020 by the friends of the constitution,

les amis de la constitution,

who had made a big campaign signature

and won the vote that took place in June, 2021

and November, 2021.

And I was one of the scientific experts.

And I did the first press conference I did in autumn.

They really wanted me and I said, yeah, sure.

So I took the H or book, I took everything,

and I just explained how it should have happened

and how it did not happen

and how it's absolutely right to do a referendum.

And so then 2021, I was legitimate.

Officially, to say, yes, you can vote, you can choose this and that, I'm to go against

the COVID law, because every country in the world, I remind you, because we forget, every

country in the world had a COVID emergency law.

So, we had the referendum to say no, I don't know how it was in Iceland.

We were never asked about anything, and here it was like that.

What happened here was that the parliament basically just stepped back, the government

was supposed to step in, but they didn't, and they handed the powers of government to

Well, one of them was basically a policeman.

So there was one policeman and two doctors that ran the country here for what, more than

a year.

So you mean the emergency law was in the hands of three experts for the government?

Yes.

But the parliament had nothing to say.

They absolutely, they took no responsibility.

So the parliament should be like the number one institution, calling the shots, but they absolutely failed on every test, handed the government basically all the powers, never tried to take back the reins or step on the brakes or anything, and the government basically handed the decision making to this panel of experts.

So this was just a scandal, this was the, I would, I have called it the biggest scandal of our constitutional history here in Iceland since 1944, when we were established as a republic.

And there has been no discussion here, no looking back, no sort of reassessment of what happened.

the doctors association has failed, the media failed spectacularly, the universities failed,

there was no criticism from there, so it was just an absolute sample of, it was a debacle

what happened, and it is so serious that that has, when the day will come when we will have the,

you know, the opportunity to discuss this, but you did that in Switzerland, you did have,

Yeah, so you had the referendum.

Yes, and it was our only mechanism as a people.

Right, and the decision of, and the result was what?

Well, it was each time rejected.

But what I did, because I...

So the Swiss rejected the emergency law or what?

Well, don't say the Swiss, the system, because the system of vote has changed.

Yes.

I was calling for the Lanzge Minde, you know, the Lanzge Minde was the way that Swiss people

were voting on the central public place and they were putting hands up and saying, I agree,

I don't agree.

Yes.

And you could count the votes.

Yes.

And the people could count the vote.

But with electronic vote, with paper vote, I was so sure that they were going to...

to corrupt, that we have the right as citizen to be there when the counting of the vote happens.

So I went, and I went the whole way. I stood up in my little county, and I said,

I want to see the votes. And I did the exercise because I knew by talking with experts that are

on the resistance, like François-Zipental, who denunciated really the wrongdoing of votes,

I went and I saw nothing wrong until the police came to take the bags with the vote and the

little thing they put for sealing the bag of the vote that you can cut with a scissor.

I kept one to bring to the group and I said, well, from there on, I cannot follow the policemen.

And you see, so it just to understand how the vote was going is very important in the country because that you can corrupt anything.

And I think that's where we stand today. We cannot.

So yeah, so I said that and also what we found in Switzerland, which the media just put a little announcement.

But in fact, we knew is that those bags were sometimes thrown in a car.

And some people found that it was never delivered or that the person who came to take the bag was a French, not a Swiss, who is he?

We don't know who he is.

And or suddenly the boxes were in front of the post office with the votes and in front of the post office in the open.

So we saw signs that there was really corruption and we could not be sure of the vote was right.

And one proof that it was not right is we had exactly the same percentage of vote in June than in December,

and in fact in November, and in fact it's not possible because...

Everybody was getting more and more mad at the situation, so the percentage should have grown, and the other fact is that some counties said no, but they didn't take care of that, you know, and I was calling for counties can be independent from the decision.

If this don't want to lock down, it's their right, you know?

So that's what we saw, and if you had had that, you probably could have turned over because your country is smaller in population, it's easier to control.

Yes, so some of the cantons in Swiss said they rejected this emergency law, but was that then overridden by the government?

They put it and I could I analyzed I know the counties where it was refused. It's in the mountains

Yes, it's very difficult to corrupt those people

Yes, because they're more on the land and they can go and they know each other and they they have their own statistics

So they know if they have lied at the central of this the county of the county

So if you had had that if you had voted you you probably could have controlled much better than in in a in a country like Switzerland because

We have grown bigger now, so we should cancel

of those correspondence vote.

The mechanics of voting should be county by county.

You don't agree?

You can, it's okay.

There are central things we can control and we can agree on.

So this was an interesting because Kennedy came for November.

Robert Kennedy came. So I was with him at breakfast and and he was saying Switzerland is the only

country who can do that. Let's hope that they will vote no. But I knew this and I was calling,

I was also speaking, I was calling for Lanzke Mindy. I said you should refuse this vote.

You should ask for an examination.

But I was speaking in the wind because the system crushed us.

Right, so that's what I could say, like you here.

Right, so your estimation is that the system basically crushed whatever

resistance there was, so that the result was that...

There was no rejection, basically, from the Swiss, popular, well...

Yeah, there was submission.

There was...

That's submission.

They were working on submission with the media.

Yes.

Already then, I saw the media was attacking me on things like, what is this?

They never did this before.

You see, that's how you can compare before and after.

They were really one before and one after.

Okay.

And they tried to use the media.

I would say that there is one key factor is the emergency, the fear and the emergency.

And they have no right to keep on this emergency law.

And if you look at it now, those who are listening now, go and look when did Tedros say the emergency

is over?

He said it like in a one line, nobody talked about it in the media, there is no emergency

anymore.

Is there are you still in a state of emergency? No, no, no, no, October 2024, but when did he say there is no more emergency anymore?

He said no, there's no emergency anymore. What when was that? Do you remember? It's at least one year to two years ago. Yes. And and the country's never said it's over. No.

And they should have, like Margaret Chan, no, yeah, Margaret Chan said it's over.

No, was it Wundland when the Strascov one was over?

Yes, she said it's over.

Okay, but you have to say it's over this time around.

They didn't say it's over.

But what happened was this war in Ukraine happened.

And then nobody was talking about next emergency.

You see, they're taking you.

Taking your fear and people by him if it had gone slowly

You could have reacted. But by creating this, everything is so scary and everything in the media is keeping rumbling about a fear of this, of atomic bomb, of this.

Yes.

I think that was a policy of fear and censorship.

Yes. You know, Chris Wichty, who is like the, what is he? He is a professor and chief medical officer for England.

ég er því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að

He said he was this year, 24 this year. Yes, there's a COVID inquiry going on in England and he said on the 26th of September, I worry we overstated the danger of COVID at the start of the pandemic.

Oh, so nice.

So he's saying that now they overstated it.

Oh, yeah, like it's still stated, but it's overstated.

So there was some truth, but there is maybe too much.

So there was a project fear like campaign.

going on in England. Everyone knows this. This is now common knowledge. And then here

in Iceland, they even, they ran a, a fear, uh, uh, well, propaganda. It was like a, a,

mongering that took place and then then even the doctors in Iceland there's one

doctor Henry Reykjavík who is running a big facility here in Reykjavík said we

ran a fear propaganda machine and I think we we did relatively well he said

he said this on radio 21 I think it's cynicism no yeah he was not being

cynical he was just being completely honest

probably accidental that he used these words, and he was so honest. But that's what they did.

Was he censored after that? Well, I think you can still find this, because some, a lot of people

actually like took screenshots and saved it. But this is what he says, this is what Chris Witte

is now saying, and this is what you are saying. The governments basically were trying to scare

I mean, I guess you would be justified doing that as a government minister, or as a chief medical officer, if the danger was...

You know clear and present which it was not by any standard was it we know it now well

When did you when could we I mean we I think we could know know it pretty early on we had this for example this

Crucian the diamond princess and that was quite early. That was what April 2020 or something so there were

more they were not only indications you had like

Pure examples or just like a laboratory examples even

proving that this was not so terribly dangerous, that it could have justified emergency law.

No, no. And I don't know how many universities have analyzed if this virus follows the protocol

of Koch, which you have to isolate, purify, use the causality, prove the causality of

They said, we never find anything.

And even Professor Montagnier, at the end of his life,

said, who found the virus of HIV,

said, yeah, no, we didn't know what we were looking at.

And it's all.

It's all synthetic, it's all nanotech, it's all technological, it is all of a, it is a

computer-based virus.

It's like Bill Gates liked to do.

So what is it exactly?

You know, today we still wonder exactly why they use that name and why they use that and

the strains.

And it is not clear because the name COVID is a very strange name.

Yes.

We can talk about that.

And SARS-CoV-2 is the genome.

And then you have coronavirus.

So what is coronavirus compared to COVID-19?

So they, and Divock is in Hebrew, the opposite, Divock-91

is a Hebrew for devil.

So, you know, and then there's also COVID-19 is corona.

There is something in even the coronavirus name that is all symbolic.

It's symbolic.

I mean, if you read the book of revelations, then you can see, I think it was the second

writer has a crown on his head.

So the book of revelations.

symbolics in many places when we come to that. But I want to tell you that the disappointment

was so heavy for many of us, seeing even here how the courts obeyed also, refusing basically

for a scope of estimation for the authorities to do what they deem is necessary.

So the courts...

did not protect the public, even though it was tried, and we tried to file cases objecting to this authoritarianism that we were seeing.

trying to turn into a world government without any sort of democratic foundation,

you see a picture where the governments of the world sort of...

suddenly and in a consistent and synchronized manner turn into subservient authorities.

You see a picture where the universities sort of absolve themselves from seeking the truth

uh teach something that goes against the the main uh stream narrative at at that point in time

which is a breach of everything that you would consider would be the the obligations of the

universities and then you're seeing you know you're describing also like a picture where the

being overridden in some sense, perhaps even, we don't know whether the election was rigged in

some way, we don't know, but anyway, the even Switzerland with its strong democratic tradition

could not defend itself at that point. And then you are also saying that there was this massive

scare propaganda that everyone was subjected to. So then what did you do then? What was the next

thing you did? Yeah, so when the referendum didn't work, it's good you start to talk about the law

because a lot of legal suits started lawsuits. And it is very strange. Now I want to say this

because I thought about it a lot. When somebody lies in a family,

With the consequences that are pretty bad

You you can stop the person and say listen this is not correct

Please you know and you can you can control it, but when a collective a system lies. Yes, there is no legal

there is no legal system to stop somebody lying.

So you have to prove and it takes time to prove.

And then, so I thought it is such a huge lie.

I mean, at the end of 2020 already,

we saw with

many researchers of what's his name already, from the University of California,

he said, no, there's not more mortality than any other year, and others showed no.

So it's a lie. So the media lies, if the media lies with very horrible consequences,

there is an article in law, in the Constitution, in federal law, that shows that this is a criminal.

So, you're supposed to be able to stop them.

But what we're seeing now is an extent where the judges are afraid, or they're obeying

to something else than the people.

And then that's where my supposition today is that they're part of this corporation,

And this is very disturbing. So there are some lawyers who are really true and, you know, that's where I saw Rainer Filmes, I saw groups who are trying to...

To ask me to write for lawyers so that they could prove the point. So I started writing and that was in 2021

I was called by Quebec in Canada

To write a report on the public health aspect and the WHO and the UN on all the fraud and

from I did that it's a hundred and fifty page document that

Yeah, I can show it translated now because it was already in 21 and it was for incriminating

the government of Quebec because of the emergency law. So that was one. The other one was with

the judges of France because that was one of the first one to start talking of the vaccine

That were already crazy and that's where research ethics as soon as you have 50 deaths you stop the research

So experiments stop it and and I thought they're not stopping it

They're not stopping and so I was like what's going and so I was with a group of lawyers

You said can you write something shocking for the law the judges of France? So I did

25 pages with one the first one the all the official mortality of Odra vigilance

You can find it on the web.

Erdravellige and V-A-E-R-S, which is for the America.

And you could already see 15,000 deaths and more in the virus,

never seen before.

That was September 21.

First part was that.

The second was that.

What was the fraud of the vaccine was not justified.

And I put all this.

And the last part was what is the content that was found

and all the hypothesis that this researcher, these engineers

find this, these others find this, these others find that.

Stop, you know.

And there was Professor Arne Bruckert,

who had made an autopsy of, and there's the autopsy also,

but the autopsy of what is in the vial

and what is coming postmortem.

And I showed all that, they distributed to all the judges of France, and nothing happened.

It was like, okay, you know, what's going on, and so there was this report, then this report,

then the Reiner film, the audition of Reiner film, and we were trying to find a way. I was in the group of...

thinkers, I would say, of the corona audition at the end, what do we do?

And they wanted to do, you know, International Court of Justice.

And I had already then, and I said it, I said, listen, I don't think this is going to work.

Because if WHO is dictating the world and is corrupting the truth and lying, taking

taking a position with Ted Ross, who is not a medical doctor and who has been re-elected against his own government in Ethiopia.

Don't you see it's a world government already?

So if we go to the International Court of Justice or the Criminal Court, it's the UN who holds it, it's the...

Secretary General and the Security Council, five countries who have veto, you know, it's Britain, the UK, France, China, Russia, America, five countries veto, and so is the same countries making the veto for what they want.

So I said, if we go this way, we're going to lose time, it's going to be in their hands, you can do it, but I don't believe in that, they have to find another system.

So they found a system of people audition.

And so I was in day one and day two for WHO and the violating their own law.

So now we can go on to all the violation they did.

They're violating their, the UN, and I'm coming now after, you know, two years more reflection,

but already then they're violating the international health regulation because they did not obey the annex to...

to the fact you cannot validate a PCR test, you cannot just declare an emergency of international concern

without having a proof and to make it a gain and a gain, and every country they should have validated it,

not just one, the whole one, one virus, one world COVID, fantastic, you know.

So they're violating the international health record, they're violating their own constitution.

because the function of WHO, article 2 in the WHO constitution, is that they are just coordinators.

They cannot decide the country, they decide for themselves.

It's written in their constitution, WHO, in one or two parts.

Then you can go up to the UN.

The UN Charter says, you cannot take a dictatorship, it is a collaboration of people.

And then you have sovereign nations, sovereign nations. Yeah. And so in the UN

Charter, you can go and read it. It's the International Court of Justice who is organizing

the disputes. But if the UN Charter is violated, who are you going to go to? And then there is

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right of expression, the freedom of association,

the fact that you can decide for autodetermination of yourself, of your people.

everything has been violated. So this is at the international level, at the WHO level,

and then the constitutions of the countries have been violated. Switzerland has violated its own

constitution. Freedom of expression. We are censored all the time. I have proof of how

they censor. I'm responding to the media all the time now with the Swiss TV. So with the

First day, WHO, UN, second day, the PCR, and then there were even the autopsy guy, Mr.

O'Looney from England, it was fantastic.

He showed that in the autopsy, which is the first thing you do in a crime scene, there

is plastic, there is polymers, there's nothing to do in there, in the vials, there's nothing

to do in there.

This was another audition. I tried many different tribunals because they came to get me.

We tried to condemn also WHO.

And all the pacts they're doing with the animal health, with UNESCO, with OMP,

they keep on signing together without us.

So we did with the...

It's an international court of common people from Canada for the whole world.

They managed to incriminate the Vatican for the whole child abuse they had.

So I also did with them.

and nothing happened. Then I also did with Finland, with PCR, you know, so this is pending.

I also tried to help Greece, who is one whistleblower, he's doing great work and I did

gave him all the files so maybe this can help him. Nobody's moving in the government. So and even

That's the last I will mention, because it's very significant.

It's really a case study for what you're saying is happening.

So it is the torting, it is the court of Oslo,

and it's just about a nurse being thrown out,

lost her job for the wrong reason,

and Barbara Poulsen, the lawyer.

and Torkel Snelling, the doctor said,

I straight come and witness, please.

So there was the head of the hospital witnessed,

Torkel Snelling, he witnessed,

and the minister of public health

and then the minister of health.

So if you take the chain reaction.

The doctor said, no, there is no reason justifying that she loses her job because there was no reason to force a consent.

Then we go up to the hospital, he said, yeah, there is no reason to do that, but I did not decide, it's the Minister of Health.

One question. So was she refusing to be vaccinated and she was fired from her job?

Yes.

Okay.

Please continue.

So who decides why this was unjustified by the doctor?

Then the head of the hospital said, oh, I did not decide.

It's the head of public health decided.

The head of public health said, oh, I did not decide.

It's the minister of health.

And the minister of health said, it's not me who decided.

It's WHO.

And that's where I said, wow, what an incredible.

What an incredible shift revelation a revelation because it's very easy to see the chain

It's exactly what you said. Yes. And so the lawyers are committed to those who pay

So was that and was that

Was that then justified before the court? Did the court not, did the court accept that this is the chain of command, and this was...

Ah, the judge said no. Because the judge is paid by the top.

Yes.

So they have, I think that's my hypothesis, but the judge was on the side of the government.

Right. He was on the side of the government saying that they could basically fire her from her job since she refused to be vaccinated.

Yeah, there was no reason or they tried to dismiss. I think I have the article I will give to you so you can, you know, put it this way.

Okay, so that basic human rights of deciding what medication you take are dismissed basically.

You, well, at least you lose your job.

You there is no you have basically no right to refuse and keep your job. So that's yeah

They don't phrase it like that

But that's the core like the core message. There is no reason, you know when they're trapped

They did that with the media for me now. I'm going to the federal level. Yeah, they're saying oh

There is no reason of this obstruction she's doing.

Why is she suing?

No, there's no reason to take into account this case.

So is part of the argument that the court was accepting

in Norway is that she had no rightful reason

to object to being injected with this because it's harmless

What are the arguments?

I think the argument was more at the political level, that there was no problem, the justification

of the government was correct, so it's more reversed.

That would come back to, again, the level of danger that we were facing, and of course

Oh, no, they don't, the effectiveness of the juridical, you know, the legal system is the problem, because the legal system is diverting and will never go to the real case.

Right.

So that's where I say that the corruption is in the wording, like if they have prepared protocols for doctors, for lawyers.

And they just look how they have to respond on, you know, on their phone.

So I see that more as that problem.

But of course it was not justified because forced consent is the worst thing they did

to human rights.

Right.

I agree.

Let's say you face a situation in a family where a family member has been caught lying.

So there will be a huge loss of trust in that family towards that family member, right?

Yes.

Maybe.

Yeah.

Well, if the father is also corrupted, I don't know, or the mother.

Right.

So it would be a human, understandable human response to sort of have less trust in that

And now that we have, well, the authorities have admitted that they basically lied to the public.

They used fear-mongering. They went too far with their scare tactics, and they admit it now.

Well, do they admit it legally? Is this punishable? You see that this is where they say...

we went too far. No, you just should not go with that. You should not even have done any lockdown.

Yes, well, it is admitted and it has come out in the UK that they decided to take the fear

fear or whatever they call it.

They confessed.

They didn't have to confess because all the documents came out.

All of the messaging that had been going

between the ministers came out

and they were discussing between themselves

How they would scare the pets or frighten the pets of everyone so that they would adhere to the COVID rules.

So they did all sorts of things like stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives, etc.

This was how they did this in the UK and they did this all over the place.

I'm mentioning this, talking about the level of trust that is lost between the public on one hand and the authorities on the other.

academic you see how the institutions that you had put your faith in how they

are thoroughly corrupted it seems and when I as a lawyer see how the courts

fail you know completely and well that leads you to as an individual it leads

us to

to a dark place, and this is what Carl Jung called the dark night of the soul, so an individual

in your position, and I will say for me, I had this experience too, and I'm perhaps going

through it still.

How do we proceed when we come to the conclusion that whatever we had put our faith in,

that what we had thought would be some sort of a guard railing against authoritarianism?

We find that it has absolutely no strength, there is no protection in it.

The what is our response? How can we continue? And what can we say to the general public?

What is the the beacon of hope in this? I mean when we're confronted with all of this?

Yeah, well the first thing is that in the second world war

some people were condemned

at different levels of the chain, they somewhere hanged.

But there are many who said, oh, it's not me.

I was just obeying to orders, and legally.

It's like a child who said, oh, I was just obeying or, you know, an adult say, I was

just obeying to my work because I could not do it otherwise.

So where is the responsibility in chain reaction?

That's pretty awful to see because you say, okay, so are those people going to shift right

away when they understand that, you know, they went too far?

And then you have the other second who said, yeah, we went too far.

We are so scared that we cannot admit on both sides we can get caught and maybe those are going

to be the real victims because this is really a war. And then you have really the evil ones.

And the evil ones are those who should really be arrested, not failing like the Second World War.

They just fled with a paperclip operation that just fled to the US and took over the US again, you know?

And the Nazis are now rampant, calling Nazis, ionists, whatever.

So, I think it's a fantastic evolution.

Opportunity, if I can talk about that.

We can perhaps say that it is possibly a moment in history where we will see some sort of

a dawn where we have the opportunity to shed light on what has happened.

I agree with you.

I think the people like in the government, the people in the courts and the government

but they are they are serving their own like purpose they are serving their own careers

and they want to stay safe within their own little bubbles and they are prepared it seems

and that is of course a disappointment to do whatever they need to do to protect themselves

Even though it's disappointing. And then we have a layer above that of people who are absolutely

I agree. We could possibly say just evil because they know

What will be the consequences?

But they're willing to do it nevertheless because there are financial rewards for them or they will get more

power more authority so that

We will have to I think it would be really helpful Astrid now if you could sort of tell

From your perspective

What has been the damage that has been done?

I mean on the layer on the level of shall we say

Public health

How would you describe that?

It's enormous. Yes. Yeah

It's so big that, yeah, I had my, you know, darkness of the soul a moment because I thought it's so horrible, nothing went right, you know, and I mean, I can take the whole chain reaction.

But what to go to the end of that and then we can come back to the spiritual side that I think is one

You know, it's very important for the future because the mea culpa of the of those

Politicians that you we can forgive but not forget this. This is going to be their exit

How is going they're going to do a nice exit or terrible exit and this will be a spiritual choice for them in their soul

facing this evil. But if I take this public health horror, for me I have today taken the position

because I have zoomed back.

And I say, OK, I know, I see, and I go very far sometimes.

And it's thanks to the spiritual side

that I keep it light, because there

is a bigger purpose to all this.

But it's a criminal investigation.

It's CSI, the films that we saw on TV.

Miami CSI, Los Angeles, they have prepared us.

It is a crime.

There is no question how many hundreds, even the UN,

says there's a million deaths already.

It's not only this injection and what is in there. It is at many levels.

It can be the water, it can be the chemtrails, it can be all these electromagnetic fields

and many other ways of killing a soul, a culture, the destruction, you know this.

What is in front of the cern is Shiva, the destroyer, which is the basis of creation,

the cosmic cycle. Yes, we really are in there, but to take it... Okay, so we saw the first year,

the fear, but this fear did not just destroy...

and destabilize those who had no faith, but it was an open door to a corruption within the family at many levels.

But of locking down everybody in a cage where some people only went on the video, on the internet,

did stop going out, stopped the relationship, some people became addicted to alcohol, to other things.

You see, they did it on purpose, right?

But during this lockdown, they started putting 5G, changing lamps everywhere in the world,

starting to build a smart city.

You have to see that it's a coherent, you know, I have now coherence in what I see.

It's not just public health on the population medical level.

It's completely, it's huge.

We never saw it, and that's where it is shocking.

Never before did we see suicides in young people as young as eight years old or ten years old?

Where did they get this motor from?

If it's not that it's been instilled in their brain or their parents have done it and they do it the same, they saw it on films.

There's also this whole thing called the voice in the skull.

which is DARPA-CIA operation, where you can put voices in the head of children through songs,

through subliminal images, through this.

And we saw things we never saw before, mental health problems, depression, young people,

destruction of the school education system, people coming like drag queens, you know,

in Geneva. So I can talk about Geneva. I know it's all over the world by doing its propaganda

of destruction. I mean, I have to, I have this giggle of nervousness when it's too terrible.

And I know this, I know this from many people, direct source, that the parents are refusing.

that the vokist and drag queen come in the school of children under 10 years old

to do courses of masturbation to children.

No, but this is really there.

And the parents don't know until the child talks.

And the teacher is put out of school so they don't know what they're going to teach in Geneva.

a Calvinist country, you know, very quiet.

And I see that it's happening all over.

So they're attacking the people, the world, the genetics.

You don't have to, you're asking the child,

are you sure you're a girl or a boy?

Are you sure?

You don't want to change.

You look at the fashion trend.

Did you see the last fashion trend of Paris?

It's awful.

It almost naked the guys with,

or the girls with, you know, leather and, you know.

you know, even gothic is nice or metal is nice compared to what they're doing,

that you cannot make it worse. And in a way, the worse they make it, the more some people will

wake up and some people will get better. But anyway, so let's come to this public health.

So they rolled out this first year where they destroyed with fear.

lockdown, subliminal images, voices, everything, and there they had the trigger word COVID.

So everybody now says, oh, it's COVID, it's long COVID, it's no, stop it.

It's never been proven.

It could be many cause, many causality.

Norwegian Anders Bohnstad, he made a correlation of public health between the 5G towers in

rate of mortality. There's a very strong correlation. So if you put, if you electrocute

someone, you can breathe. It's a different symptomatology. People falling down like,

I have lists of thousands of elite and amateur sports people who died suddenly.

You don't have a virus falling on the football match and making a heart arrest.

It's something else.

This is where the criminal scene is.

So the causality, like I did graphics, you don't only look at a virus.

I have WHO scheme where I teach, I say, when you have an event, you look at death, you

look at autopsy, you look at where the people live, and you make a causality.

And then you can make correlation.

something they call a virus. It can be a bacteria and a parasite which is much more dangerous and for parasite and

bacteria, you take what was forbidden to treat with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine,

azitromycin, antibiotic, or doxycycline. So, those two, hydroxychloroquine and

antibiotic, and parasites, you take ivermectin, which is Niger, which is black,

human oil, yeah, black oil, human oil, it's the same. You have equivalents like

and grapefruits for hydroxychloroquine is very efficient. This healed and it even heals

sicknesses like cancer to the point where we think, oh, the causality of cancer is a disturbance of

the cell. So the disturbance of a cell is now proven to be a parasite also. It's many causality.

So the criminal scene has many causalities. So one is infection, but it's not always infection.

of a virus is the smallest element of all. They really wanted this coronavirus name,

something and a mutation so they can say, oh, it's back, it's back. But there is the second is

foodborne disease and waterborne disease. And this is very worrying because we had a little

outbreak, I call it outbreak, in Geneva, in eight cities, places of water contaminated.

outbreak. This only happened in middle age, you know. So there is an intention. That's where

I had a hard time to accept that there are so evil people they want our destruction.

But anyway, so there is an outbreak. Be careful the water, be careful the food. In this island,

you are much more protected. What comes in, you have to test and normally islands are much safer.

They don't get all these things because the international health regulation is working.

Then you have chemical and that is interesting because if you put mercury in chemical or you put

Strontium or you can put radio or nuclear elements people get sick

And it can block the natural regeneration of the body.

We are natural divine beings that regenerate.

And then you have radio nuclear, which

has to be proven how you get it exactly.

But anyway, so this is the whole thing of the criminal scene.

And now we have this other radiation of the smart city

and the electromagnetic field, which we are electromagnetic.

I always say we have electroencephalogram and electrocardiogram.

Why the heck are we not talking of diseases that are created by our bed who is just beside

a plug with electricity and keeps on banging in your head by computers and smart phones?

Smart phones.

If you put it on your heart, you will feel that it is affecting your heart.

So be careful with that.

that we have.

So, that was the causality, only 2021, but it keeps on.

They kept on.

And you have to see that we have the sand dust from the desert coming on our cars like

never before.

And actually, you can see about 30 elements of the table of Mendeleev between 2748, according

to different studies, of all the chemicals they have put in the air, in the rain with,

you know, HAARP program.

the weather. Even in Dubai, I put a post on X on that. It's official. It's official now.

So they can engineer our weather. It's fantastic. I can say it. So that is in public health 2021

and keeping on. The second is 2022, they rolled out the, no, 2021. 21, they rolled out this injection.

And now we know

For sure, this content of the injection has been with many type of vials, many numbers.

They all have nanotech, nano, nano, microtech, that everything is synthetic, or let's call

nanotech technology or synthetic or something else, but it is not biological because you need

phosphor and nitrogen and that's dr.

Nagase in Canada who was the whistleblower of that that if there is no nitrogen and phosphor then it is not biological

not one vial analyzed by all the groups of people sincere,

independent, not paid to only talk of biology,

which there is nothing biological in the vials.

So what is it?

Why, why didn't they not denunciate?

Why did they not talk about it in the informed consent,

which you always should,

you should pay for secondary effect, they don't pay,

you should pay for the death, then they don't pay.

Nobody's talking about all the deaths of the vaccination.

I'm a godmother of at least three or four French community of vaccine victims who have lost a child,

lost parents, and they're touring around France and nobody talks about them.

It's so terrible in that way. So the injuries of the vaccine are not paid by the

a vaccine. And very rare cases are reimbursed by the government. We've had one case now,

it's in discussion in Switzerland. But come on, there's so many. And there's so many

deaths and they don't talk about it. So you see that we have a creamy scene where the

autopsies are forbidden, never seen in WHO. They have forbidden the autopsies. And the

And now we have the victims speaking themselves of their child who died in front of them and nobody talks about it.

So in this whole scene, we're coming to the deaths, which is probably one of the worst situations.

But I want to talk of something else that is coming up.

technologize everything. They want to put AI surveillance everywhere, and I know this

also from the UN because they are the loudspeaker of what's going on in the world. They decide

for the world today, I see. It's the ITU, the International Telecommunication Union.

They take part in the smart city, but they have a big poster in front in Geneva, AI for

artificial intelligence for good, good in the sense of beneficial, which is not, and in the way that it's forever.

So some claim, and I agree, that it is the most dangerous thing today.

is that not only our government is deciding,

they're not deciding, it's the entities behind,

it is the UN, it is the system of WEF,

the foreign relation, the 300s.

I mean, you can put all these big groups a bit secret or not,

now it's not secret anymore.

But this is very important to say no to that.

Because ultimately, if they control the information,

and that we don't know how it is controlled.

then we are actually losing our sovereignty completely.

And legally, it would be very hard to combat if we don't say no now to the regulation of AI,

that they cannot kill anybody randomly or as they are planning.

I don't think we're going so far now because I see things changing.

I don't want to scare people.

I'm not here to do that, but I really want to make sure that you understand how dangerous it is to be connected.

everything to everybody, the internet of things, the nano things.

Because this is a world where we don't want to be trapped in.

We want to come back to other values.

You mentioned the spiritual side.

And there is certainly a spiritual side to this.

And I would just want to say it because I think it is of importance that

people can call our

European culture, whatever they like, and then they many say that we are now living in a post-Christian world.

Be that as it may, I don't know whether that is the situation.

Yeah, they want one world, one religion government.

Yeah, that's what they want, but the teachings of Christ have one fundamental issue, and I would think...

er það er hvernig, hvernig og hvernig individuálir því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því að því

Then this is then, again, reflected in the principle of sovereignty, the sovereignty of individuals, the sovereignty of peoples, the nations.

So that you are saying that we may be entering a time where they will try to, the authorities, the powers that be, will try to sort of take that away from us.

I can imagine a terribly dangerous situation for everyone, so there will have to be...

some sort of a pushback from the from the from the public that's the only way we

can you know throw the chains of slavery from away from us and and so

what what do you see as the as how I mean we are faced with all of this media

constant media barrage and the

And the authorities using every method possible to sort of steer us in that direction or this direction.

How do we wake people up? How do we help people to sort of see the picture that you have been describing?

Yeah, it's good to finish on this positive thought because I see two ways of talking about it.

It's back to natural law, that this land is for everyone, that we are born free and conscious, etc.

And the spiritual law, which often are together, the indigenous people had made that in general.

But the natural law, I've been collaborating very closely for the rally in Geneva,

an agreement of a pandemic, perpetual pandemic,

and on AHA amendments, which has not passed.

We have been collaborating to make a declaration

because I called her, she was working a lot

with Rainer Flemish, Maître Virginie de Roger Echa.

And she's fantastic, she's working a lot

against the war-kism and children's freedom of values.

But we did a declaration because I came to her, I said,

listen.

There's a problem. Where do we go if we cannot go higher than the International Court of Justice?

We have to prove that they are violating their own law.

So that's how I can come to tell you today that in this declaration it's in English.

So you can also show it is that they are violating their own law.

They are violating at the highest level.

at the medium level, the Constitution and all the agencies are making a signature

without our consent. They're signing on our behalf. I'll give you an example.

Three weeks of September they have always the General Assembly in New York every year this year

They have an agenda long like you know 150 points of the agenda

But they had one on the pact of the future on the global digital compact and on the pact of the next generation the future generation

so the pact of the future they like suddenly roll out this plan of exactly their future not our future their future and

For the first time I saw Argentina went again Russia went again against sorry against them

So they try to roll out like normal

their plan of dictating to the world what they want of the future, and they don't tell you everything, but in the name of equality

let's all be together. You know, I believe it's at one point, but now I see it's only one world government, one health, one religion, one that they can muster.

So we did this declaration and that helped me because I said

you have no right to decide for us, right?

Because you're violating your own constitution,

everything, but you're violating the constitution national,

but you are actually we as people.

And that's really the sentence I remember the strongest

from all the discussion legally,

is what we have never given our consent of signature

to a power like...

our state to on our behalf go and sign for the any agency of the UN all that their their signature

and agreement even to the UN and to the security council you go from the bottom as us people up

to that we say we never gave you the consent right we did not it's it's called in legal terms

competency power and and and competency we have not given you the competitive competence

people, or the power in our name. And with this falls everything. On top of number two...

There is total conflict of interest, so anything you sign has an influence is not in our interest,

so it is null. So everything the UN has signed and any of these agencies and our government

is not in our interest, it's not a power. So it is declared null and inconsistent,

and we disagree with all those agreements. So if we declare as the people that the whole

for the case of France, but it is an example for everybody, then everything they've done is no,

it doesn't exist anymore, it does not exist anymore. So this is a way that we found, maybe you have

And surely, according to law, everything they did is unjustified null.

Yes.

I agree with you on 100%.

And I would try to explain it from my point of view as a lawyer, is that we, the people,

we have a government that is supposed to serve us under the Constitution.

The reason we have a constitution in Iceland and we have a constitution in Switzerland and wherever is because we need to have breaks on government power.

So the government is bound by the constitution.

So that's the whole idea.

So then when when we see.

a debacle, like we saw in New York on this General Assembly, where our representatives

go and sign away our rights, basically, to an institution that is trying to be some sort

Institution, this organization, be it the United States, is not bound by any constitution to us.

So when you say that they are breaching their own...

rules, then we have no sort of discourse, we have no paths to go to get them on to control,

because there is no constitution that binds them.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yeah, the constitution is, you're cutting them yourself from the government, you mean

that they don't represent so.

Paul, we have this, like the chairman of the independence party in Iceland, and it's basically

called the independent party. It's supposed to guard the independence of Iceland. He goes,

he went to New York, signed this agreement, whatever it's called, you call it what, the

the agenda for the future? The pact is a legal term for the future. So he declared that he is in

like acceptance of what is being said there and yet he is you know he is he

he celebrates what's happening he says he yeah he does that personally and on

behalf of the Icelandic people so that not understanding it seems that we are

creating a monster a monster that resides on the other side of the ocean

truly, but nevertheless, is sort of accumulating powers.

And it's becoming a threat basically to the peoples of the world because there is no constraint on it.

So that's the problem.

We were not informed. It has not been circulating. I knew it from the NGO that something was going on.

The whole process has been against sovereignty.

It happened in the same week that this huge news story came out about Pete Diddy.

so that everyone was sort of looking that way and right when it was happening then they issued this

the pact for the future and no one basically looked that way so it was sort of they were they had

a lot of peace and quiet doing that at the same time I don't know if it was probably a

can somehow bring people's attention to what is going on, on the world stage and then hope that we get some sort of a movement going.

So did you write and say no to the people, because that's the key, is that we can say it in the universe.

We can write it together and sign, we do not consent that you represent us.

it's over and you're a small country but somebody has to show a model because yes but we will try

certainly i promise you we will do our our utmost really is there is here a deadline

It happened so fast with this pact for the future, I didn't have time to check into it,

but I did look at the international health regulations that they were trying to push

through earlier this year, and I wrote a letter to the parliament and I got absolutely no

intelligent response.

They choose to look the other way and say, well, this is no threat to our sovereignty,

what they are planning is becoming a world government and that it is a threat to national

sovereignty. Because when the next epidemic will be declared, they might seek to grab the

reins of power, right? Yes. And I go very far, actually, I say to people, like, you know,

many of you can get together and say, okay, so we're going to say no. And we

declare them as null, and we don't want you to represent us anymore, but you're right.

to all the levels. You have to, because you saw the chain reaction for the Norway court.

So you have to, if you just write to the parliamentarian, he's just obeying, oh,

I'm just obeying. So you write there, you write to the president, you write to the WHO,

the director general, to the secretary general of the UN, to the president of the security council,

and you send all this to the international court of justice with copy to the people,

I say it tribunal and what happens will happen you see because if you you it's

against censorship not in the universe but technically you cannot just stay at

parliamentarian they all have to like fair accompli that's it we have said it

I've said it on behalf of our group we we can be many we can say it

There are many ways of saying if you're a lawyer, but I'm sure that many lawyers will agree and maybe that will be their salvation

Because if they have a way out because they cannot stop this chain

Oh, you know, we have to put ourself in their shoes

What would you like? You're like, yes, go, go, go, do that. Go, go, throw the ball, you know.

So, but it's really at all the levels. We did that with Virginie and we,

Reiner Filmisch has signed it for us from the prison. It's illegally detained. But we have done

that and there were eight lawyers who signed it right away. So take that declaration.

You know, that's one instrument that we try to throw out there. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pushing

because we cannot do it without lawyers for me, you know, no, but yes, but how do you see what

will be like what will be the the the chain of events that we will be seeing in the next in

The level of harm that has been done already cannot be hidden much longer.

Yeah, they wanted to arrive at 500 million people on the earth.

I don't think they will manage, because it's written in their texts.

Bill Gates, the many shrubs, all the...

those people who write the Fabian society have their plans since a long time.

So we know that, but I don't think they will arrive to that because

thanks to, you know, there are some good souls on this earth who cannot be corrupted and and this and

we think that, you know, since JFK who said, I will get you the deep state. He knew very well what was going on.

You know, one hypothesis is that he knew.

that we're going to assassinate, and he got our system to organize this war that we are facing,

a war that is unique, it's apocalyptic. Take off the veil, apocalyptic. So since that time,

if you look at the chronology, yes, it's truity.

It is the only way.

If we were in the same shoes, we would do the same.

So there has been a long current of events

that we don't know about.

But what we see, and I was surprised myself

to understand how Trump got into the election

because the army went to get him.

And he was an ideal candidate.

He knew the Kennedy.

He knew many things already.

So if that is the scenario.

that I see, because I have checked, of course, that, you know, and everything is, I can take

the checklist, yes, more and more, that there is an organization, not only him, he's the

person in front, that stopped the corruption of the election of Hillary Clinton, she was

surprised herself because they knew the votes were going to be turned, they could turn the

So, it's been talked about by Linwood, the lawyer of Trump, when I was following very

closely when he was not elected, and I said, why was he not elected?

And then I understood that it was a war.

that there had to be a continuity of government to show to the people how corrupt it is

and to keep on the operation of a silent war, the art of war,

they were quoting the Shinjutsu from Japan,

where you tell your enemy you're there but you act there,

and it is a war of subtlety because it's so rampant.

So with this, you know there's a tribunal,

there's probably already been arrested.

I have now intel from army or former army who know what is going on and I asked them,

but please tell me something's going on.

I said at the beginning of this year because I saw helicopters from the army.

I know there is operations going on that are things not declared.

But I thought this is taking a long time.

And he said, no, don't worry, it is really going, it's happening.

There are three, I can tell you, there are three prisons in the world that are filled execution.

There is, it's all filmed, there's a military tribunal, and there are two big prisons in the Pacific,

so they cannot escape, it's so bad.

He said, but it's taking long because as soon as you have a rat, you...

put up the carpet and there are 10,000 behind.

So it's a huge war of proportions.

We have no idea.

That's the best scenario.

And so what is happening now is that there

is the election coming out.

This year has been the emergence.

And we knew that of a lot, a lot of corruption.

The DD and this, the Epstein was just

the beginning of this corruption of the people all trapped in.

Now in France, there was 160,000.

a list of 160,000. I think it's not enough. Freemasons who are incriminated and so this

is all going to unfold in the next months. So one, the scenario A, best scenario is that

Yeah, Trump will maybe not be elected, the election, something will happen or he will

be elected but he will not want the position, it's going to be a sovereignty back to patriots

and to self-determination of counties in the States.

There are already counties who have said they are suing Pfizer, the same counties have said

that they don't want the same government, et cetera, the sovereignty is coming back.

We will see a softening of things, and like a card of game, the big guys have been arrested already, and things are going to melt down.

I don't know. That is technically.

Now, legally, I don't know how it's going to happen.

Who is going to be arrested? Is it already done? Do they have already lists? Yes

I think so if I was at the head you I mean my father was a military

But he always wanted me to be in the military

But he gave me at least the logic it be in the place of a military and and yeah, of course you take lists and you're going to take the

key points of every structure that the

People are the most evil

be stopped. And if there is an AI system, you know exactly where to stop it already. Take

off the killer laser beams that have destroyed the twin towers, three towers actually. So,

all the scandals are coming out, but people are going to get shocked, so you cannot go too fast.

You don't want to have a...

post-traumatic syndrome. We already had one ourselves. And don't you feel that? For me,

I've already had darkness of the soul is a traumatic syndrome, like thinking, oh,

they're going to do this, they're going to do that. So we have to have compassion,

know that people have to take it slow, that it's better, and it's going to get better and better.

But spiritually, I think that there has been

Incredible breakthrough in consciousness and the spiritual law that we are governed by the divine shows that we as human have much more power than was told to us.

And I go especially in genetics because in genetics they say that they can direct everything. No, not at all.

10 to 20% of what the genome is. Why? Because it's frequency. And they thought they had the

God genome, they had the God electron particle in the CERN. You know, they tried to put God

everywhere, but in fact, we are divine. So we can decide with our frequency and what we think and

how we manifest and how we think every morning and to assemble and get back to yourself. That's

Even I'm very mystical and, you know, I believe really in this universal God.

I don't want to be partisan of one, but, you know, I'm a Christian Catholic, but I like

to be everybody.

I don't want to put everybody out if somebody is good, is good in his soul.

We get back to ourself.

And the more you go back to your center every morning, every night before you sleep,

thank you for the day, thank you for the beauty, go back and look at a flower

because they put you all those woke-up stuff.

So we have to rebuild this, they call renaissance, but I'm a bit careful with this word

because it's had very bad publicity in some times.

But we'll be ready for everything good that can happen.

And being in Iceland is already a gift, so I'm very happy to be here.

And I thank you so much because it's a beautiful country.

I think you can manage this revolution.

evolution I would say. Yes, I agree. And I think we should be hopeful if we, like you say, we

manage to come back to ourselves. And I appreciate the point that you mentioned also about the

frequencies, because there are frequencies certainly everywhere. And there are cases that we

well explained with our knowledge today. I mean this example of the crows in England that's

discovered that they could pierce through the aluminium on the milk bottles, right?

And they found out scientifically they could not have known because

all of the crows basically knew at the same time.

And the hundred monkeys is there is in death another example where the monkeys figured out how to wash the

Coconuts and all of a sudden monkeys on another island knew how to do the same. So we we have to believe

There can be a shift

Yeah of consciousness and that we at hopefully in the near future

sort of

You know

Choose another path than the authorities have chosen for us. Yeah, I think like you said it it can happen like this

It can shift very quickly. Yeah, so each and every one of us has a has a role to play and we

Yes, and we can do that quietly also in in our own lives and but you see island your island

And it's like the Swiss mountains which have been attacked by those people

Occupied with tunnels, but Iceland has this natural beauty

And that's one way to have frequency.

The horses, the animals, but the beauty of the island

and the nature, that puts you back to right away.

So that's why I think your place has a big role to play.

Great, I'm happy to hear that.

And you too, you have a big role to play

and I wish you all of the best in everything you do

and continuing to do what you have been doing

for the past.

a few years. I wish you all the best. Thank you. And I hope we have leaders like you,

co-leaders, the people. And thank you for your hard work. Thank you.