The ‘WHO whistleblower’ who is blowing the whistle on Bill Gates AND GAVI

By Dr. Joseph Mercola:
This is a really important article. It catalyzed my understanding of what is going on. The facts are obvious; the entire response to the global pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Its recommendations were strictly followed by virtually every government on Earth.

No one will dispute this fact. The next fact is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute this, but the evidence is quite clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the largest funder of the WHO when then-President Trump withdrew U.S. support last year.

What does Gates have to benefit from WHO control? How about the best investment he has made, to the tune of many tens of billions of dollars through his “non-profit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance ? The maniacal suppression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternatives to COVID-19 makes perfect sense now.

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

With that framework, enjoy the information our team has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the more pieces we fit together, the sooner you will see the bigger picture. More to come in the very near future.

Who Gives The Inside Information
In July 2020, four German lawyers founded the German Crown Extraparliamentary Investigation Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss 1 ). 2 , 3 In the video [From Hearing No. 42 of the Investigative Committee], the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, 4 interview Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., a WHO whistleblower, about what she found out about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program on aging since the 1990s and is the chair of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Aging.

According to her biography, 5 she “is an internationally recognized expert on topics related to the evaluation of scientific research for policy makers, in particular in health assessment and innovation, training in pandemic and emergency management, and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”

She is also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers, and government and international reports. Stuckelberger notes that much of the research conducted was and remains highly politicized, and was conducted primarily to support and justify political decisions.

For the past 20 years, since 2000, she has been involved with public health at WHO and served on its research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she became involved with WHO’s international health regulations.

Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO’s international health regulations is to prepare member states to be prepared for a pandemic, to be able to not only prevent outbreaks, but also to respond quickly when an outbreak occurs. However, WHO has been actively preventing and undermining this pandemic preparedness training.

The Corruption Center
According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the center of corruption, largely because it is the home of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international institution and granted full blanket immunity. 6

As Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the members of the German Crown’s Extra-Parliamentary Investigation Committee, explained, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity,” which is strange, considering that the organization has no political power to justify diplomatic immunity. Even stranger is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even those of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of involvement, including criminal business transactions.

“They can do whatever they want,” says Stuckelberger, without repercussions. Police, for example, are prohibited from conducting an investigation and gathering evidence if GAVI were involved in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking,” she says. GAVI is also completely tax-exempt, which Stuckelberger notes is “very strange.”

Essentially, GAVI is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, intentionally or otherwise. This is unprecedented and raises a host of questions. It is particularly disturbing in light of the evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found that shows GAVI is “running, as a corporate entity, WHO”.

Furthermore, the documents cited by Stuckelberger show that WHO has assumed what amounts to dictatorial power worldwide. The director general has the sole power to make decisions, including decisions on which anti-pandemic tests or drugs to use, which all member states must obey.

The Gates Nation-State
In addition, Stuckelberger found that, in 2017, Gates applied to be part of the WHO executive board, as a member state, apparently because he gives them a lot of money. In fact, their funding exceeds that of many individual member states.

As Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible: the idea of one man having the same power and influence over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It is a brazen power grab, to say the least. While there is no evidence that Gates has been officially granted member state status, one wonders if he doesn’t have it unofficially.

One thing that arouses Stuckelberger’s suspicions is the fact that Swissmedic, the Swiss Food and Drug Administration, has signed a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. “This is abnormal,” she says.

Essentially, in short, it appears that when it was not voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-way contracts with member states and WHO, essentially placing it on par with WHO. As mentioned above, whatever the WHO director general says goes. Effectively, they have turned global health security into a dictatorship.

The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the director general what to do? When you look back over the past year, it seems that Gates has often been the first to announce what the world should do to address the pandemic, and then WHO comes out with an identical message, which is then repeated by world leaders, more or less verbatim.

As Fuellmich pointed out, it is becoming clear that many public-private partnerships have been hijacked by the private side, and are immune from accountability. “This has to stop,” he says.

A complete overhaul and reform of the United Nations, which established the WHO, is also needed, as the UN has done nothing to prevent or control undemocratic and illegal activities. As Fuellmich pointed out, we should probably reconsider whether we need them.

Modified Definition Of Permissible Pandemic Health Dictatorship
In the interview, they also highlight WHO’s role in setting the stage for a global health dictatorship by changing the definition of “pandemic.” The original pre-2009 WHO definition of a pandemic was: 7 , 8

“…when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with a huge number of deaths and illnesses.”

The key part of that definition is “an enormous number of deaths and illnesses.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The change was simple but substantial: they simply removed the criteria of severity and high mortality, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.” 9 This change in definition is why COVID-19 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though, at no time, has it caused excess mortality. 10 , 11 , 12

We now have plenty of data showing that the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. However, we are told that the price we all must pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the surrender of our civil rights and liberties.

In short, by eliminating the criteria of severe disease causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and the world’s technocratic leaders were able to trick the world’s population into giving up our lives and livelihoods.


WHO Rewrites Science By Changing The Definition Of Collective Immunity.
WHO has also radically changed the definition of “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient number of people acquire immunity to an infectious disease that can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number of susceptibles is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been achieved.

Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved through exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease. Over time, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only naturally acquired immunity stemming from a previous disease, but also temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that may occur after vaccination.

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

Until June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity, published in one of its Q&A pages on COVID-19, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said: 18


“Herd immunity is the indirect protection against an infectious disease that occurs when a population is immune, either through vaccination or immunity developed through prior infection.”

The updated definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows:19

“‘Herd immunity,’ also known as ‘population immunity,’ is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a given virus if a vaccination threshold is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not exposing them to it.

Vaccines train our immune system to create disease-fighting proteins, known as “antibodies,” just as it would when we are exposed to a disease, but, more importantly, vaccines work without making us sick.

Vaccinated people are protected from contracting the disease in question and from transmitting it, breaking any chain of transmission. With herd immunity, the vast majority of the population is vaccinated, which reduces the total amount of virus that can be spread throughout the population.

After public, and no doubt embarrassing, reaction, the WHO revised its definition again on December 31, 2020, to include again the mention of natural infection, while emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now reads: 20

“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is the indirect protection against an infectious disease that occurs when a population is immune, either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.

WHO supports the achievement of “herd immunity” through vaccination, not allowing a disease to spread to any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease”.

WHO Recommendation On ‘Intentionally Criminal’ PCR Testing
Stuckelberger also surprises the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice, on December 7, 2020, 21 , 22 and January 13, 2021 23 , the WHO issued medical alerts for PCR testing, warning that the use of high cycle thresholds (CT) will produce high false positive rates, that the CT value should be reported to the health care provider, and that test results should be considered in combination with clinical observations, health history, and other epidemiological information.

However, since the beginning of the pandemic, she has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infections. This, she says, makes it intentionally criminal. Incidentally, the January 13, 2021 Medical Products Alert 24 , 25 was posted online on January 20, 2021, just hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration as president of the United States.

In this alert, WHO stressed that “the CT needed to detect the virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load” and that “when test results do not match the clinical presentation, a new sample should be taken and retested.”

It also reminds users that “disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results,” so that “as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positives increases.” The alert goes on to explain: 26

“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is actually infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, regardless of the stated specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as diagnostic aids, therefore, healthcare providers should consider any results in combination with the timing of sampling, sample type, assay details, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiologic information.

Taking into account a patient’s symptoms and using a scientifically defensible CT count should have been routine practice from the beginning. It just didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the beginning of the pandemic, WHO has recommended using a CT of 45, 27 , 28 , 29 which guarantees a huge number of false positives, and thus “cases”. This is the only way they kept the fear-inducing pandemic going.

The scientific consensus has long been that any value above 35 TC renders PCR testing useless, 30 , 31 , 32 as the accuracy will be a paltry 3% – 97% are false positives. 33 By ultimately recommending lower TCs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO designed an assured endpoint for the number of cases at the desired time. Coincidentally, the very next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced that he would restore U.S. financial support to the WHO . 34

Time To End The Global Health Mafia
The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the UN, established in 1948 to promote international cooperation to improve public health conditions. Its constitution gave it a broad mandate to promote the attainment of the “highest attainable standard of health” by all peoples.

It is now indisputable that WHO is beyond compromise. Because of its funding, a large part of which comes from the “one-man Gates nation-state,” it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves the corporate masters and, through its dictatorial powers, is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world.

In June 2010, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued a report 35 on WHO’s handling of the 2009 novel influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, which included a recommendation to use an accelerated vaccine that ended up causing disability deaths worldwide.

PACE concluded that “the handling of the pandemic by WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a waste of large sums of public money and unwarranted fears and apprehensions about the health risks facing the European public.” 36

Specifically, PACE found “overwhelming evidence that WHO grossly overestimated the severity of the pandemic” and that the pharmaceutical industry had influenced the organization’s decision making, a claim also echoed by other researchers. 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41

The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better public health governance, safeguards against undue influence by vested interests, public funding of independent research, and, last but not least, that the media “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.” 42

None of these recommendations were followed and, if anything, WHO’s mismanagement of public health, thanks to public-private partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only gotten worse. Other reports, two published in 2015 43 , 44 and one in 2017, 45 also highlighted WHO’s failures and lack of adequate leadership during the 2013 to 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

While recognizing that WHO is uniquely suited to carry out key functions needed in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Harvard Global Health Institute have noted, years ago, that WHO has eroded so much confidence that radical reforms would be needed before it could assume an authoritative role.

Yet here we are, still, and reforms never took place. Instead, corruption festered and spread, and WHO became a power center for the technocratic deep state that seeks to assume power and control over all nations.

As Fuellmich pointed out, we should probably take a hard look at WHO and the UN, and decide if they are worth saving. At the very least, the disproportionate influence of private vested interests masquerading as NGOs like GAVI should be thoroughly investigated and eliminated.

Sources and References

2 thoughts on “The ‘WHO whistleblower’ who is blowing the whistle on Bill Gates AND GAVI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s