CORY Bernardi, a presenter on Sky News Australia, has a problem. In a recent broadcast he confessed he has difficulty with organisations that start with the term ‘world’.
You know – the World Food Programme, the World Meteorological Organisation, the World Tourism Organisation, even the World Vegetable Centre, whose websites reassure us how much they care about poverty, disease, starvation, climate catastrophe, child neglect. About everyone and everything. They were created to be the very essence of philanthropy.
Bernardi’s problem now is that they definitely are not philanthropic. The politics of global domination have overtaken the basic caring objectives, and sovereign nations have enabled the transfer of political power into the hands of a small number of corrupt and unelected oligarchs. He homes in on ‘the grand-daddy of them all’, the World Economic Forum.
All this makes me feel a bit uneasy, because these supra-national institutions are based in and around Geneva, in my own country of residence, Switzerland, where they enjoy a plethora of legal and financial advantages.
My unease is shared by the New Swiss Journal (NSJ), a Right-wing publication which has decried what it considers to be the questionable nature of links between the federal health authorities and the World Health Organisation.
It goes further and uncovers a disturbing link with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, via the Geneva-based organisation Gavi Alliance, previously called the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, a public-private global health partnership which aims to increase access to immunisation in poor countries. It brings together governments, the WHO, the United Nations children’s fund UNICEF, commercial and civil institutions, and the Gates Foundation.
Gavi has been criticised for giving private donors more unilateral power to decide on global health goals, prioritising new, expensive vaccines, spending too much on subsidies to large, profitable pharmaceutical companies, and having vaccine manufacturers on its governance board. It has been described as business-oriented and technology-focused, and even termed the ‘Gates approach’.
The Gavi website hosts a congratulatory article about the Gates Foundation. It says: ‘The Gates Foundation pledged US$750million to set up Gavi in 1999. The foundation is a key Gavi partner in vaccine market shaping . . . Since then, additional pledges have brought the foundation’s total commitment to Gavi to date to over US$4billion. The foundation plays both a technical and financial role in the Vaccine Alliance’s efforts to shape vaccine markets.’
The article ends with a quote from Gates about the Gavi link: ‘The best investment we’ve ever made.’
Gavi became an independent international institution in 2009, and enjoys privileges and immunities similar to those enjoyed by other intergovernmental organisations in Switzerland.
According to the NSJ: ‘Swiss authorities are not allowed to enter Gavi’s premises and employees enjoy immunity from arrest. All documents and media are inviolable. Assets are immune from requisition, seizure or expropriation or any other governmental restraint. Balances, income, assets are exempt from all taxes.
‘Gavi Alliance has the right to send and receive correspondence by courier and enjoys privileges and immunities as with diplomatic couriers and diplomatic courier baggage.’
This is confirmed in the official documentation published by the Swiss Confederation.
For the NSJ, recent financial contracts between Gavi and the federal authorities are at less than arm’s length: ‘On behalf of Switzerland, President Simonetta Sommaruga has pledged 30million Swiss francs to the Bill Gates vaccination alliance Gavi.
‘For its part, the Gavi vaccination alliance has made a donation of 900,000 Swiss francs to the federal agency Swissmedic, the Swiss regulatory and supervisory authority, and which is also responsible for the approval of dubious PCR tests in Switzerland.’
The NSJ’s basic criticism is that Gates’s tentacles are reaching into the heart of the Swiss administration and influencing public health decision-making on the strength of financial muscle and political connections with the World Economic Forum.
The publication is not alone in its concerns. In response to the worldwide imposition of economic and social lockdown policies, some groups are intent on revealing what they consider to be fraudulent scandals.
These include widespread commercial catastrophe in the wake of trading restrictions, and even the selection of vaccines and test systems rapidly developed by major pharmaceutical companies, which have not been subjected to the normal accreditation procedures imposed on innovative medical treatments. Notable amongst these are the various new Covid-19 vaccines and the PCR testing regimes.
He is a leading lawyer in Germany and California, specialising in the prosecution of fraudulent corporations, including what may become the world’s largest global tort case against all the protagonists in the so-called ‘Covid scandal’.
The 41st session of the committee has been filmed and posted on the internet. In the footage, Dr Astrid Stückelberger, a Swiss health scientist and researcher, can be viewed in effect blowing the whistle on the inner workings of the WHO, where she worked for 20 years.
She reveals that Bill Gates lobbied member states of the WHO to accept him on its executive board with the equivalent status of a member state.
Even though this was not officially voted through, Gates has been able to operate unofficially in this capacity, a situation unprecedented in the history of nation-states. He has even been able to sign contracts, enabling him to be viewed in effect as a one-man state, even coining the term ‘BillGates-istan’.
In this way, the WHO operates as a corporate agency enabling a private company – a merchant – to have influence over the choice of medications and treatment. Gates plays a decisive role in this, indicating a massive conflict of interest, a fact which is withheld from the official website.
The same applies in the immunity issue, which again is totally unprecedented. It operates exactly as the NSJ described, with the Gavi able to operate as a quasi-sovereign state.
The implications are extremely disturbing. As Dr Justus Hoffmann, another member of the Ausschuss points out on the film, the organisation could be doing anything at all and there is nothing the authorities could do.
Hoffmann asks how can any one person or conglomerate be accorded such power without any kind of democratic responsibility or legitimacy. He believes that sooner or later such absolute power will be abused, simply because it can.
The Ausschuss thinks it is time to look clearly at these supra-national organisations and massively limit their powers through democratically-imposed regulation, for example through the United Nations.
But is this relationship actually detrimental to the governance of Switzerland’s health care policies, as the NSJ implies? On March 1, the Swiss government began to ease some of the lockdown restrictions imposed since January.
The national epidemiological situation has been described by senior health official Virginie Masserey Spicher as ‘encouraging but fragile’, with the Covid-19 death rate at 0.1 per cent, infections now slowing and the vaccination programme under way.
Health regulator Swissmedic has given the go-ahead for the messenger RNA vaccines types from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and the Covid-19 RNA PCR test has been adopted. Further relaxation of the lockdown is scheduled for the end of March.
But the underlying danger remains, as spelt out by Dr Hoffmann, and emphasised further by Cory Bernardi.
These world-orientated organisations have in their sights total control over world governance, and this includes the WHO –steadily shifting away from its original philanthropic goals towards corporatism and ditching any pretence at democratic legitimacy.
The Gates-style immunities should be flagging up serious warning signs, since these privileges are in peril of being abused.