The WHO is an Institution of Corruption

Wolfgang Wodarg | Full Interview | Planet Lockdown


  • Fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO) contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemicâ€
  • Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of health at the Council of Europe, explains that a pandemic used to be associated with widespread severe illness and death, but by changing the definition, removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO can now make a pandemic whenever it wants
  • COVID-19 was a “test†pandemic, not a virus pandemic, because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects fragments of coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years, a fragment of virus too small to make you ill or a fragment of COVID-19 that was there weeks ago
  • The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention
  • As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine

Dr. Wodarg believes that the World Health Organization has been corrupted by powerful interests, including Big Pharma and other corporate interests. He argues that these interests have used the WHO to manufacture a “test pandemic” in order to push their own agenda and profit from it. He claims that the WHO has been complicit in promoting false information about the virus, exaggerating its dangers, and pushing for extreme measures such as lockdowns and mask mandates without any scientific evidence to back them up. He also believes that the WHO has failed to properly investigate potential treatments for COVID-19, instead focusing on vaccines which are likely to be more profitable for Big Pharma.

Dr. Wodarg believes that this corruption has led to an unprecedented level of fearmongering and misinformation about the virus, which has caused unnecessary panic and suffering around the world. He calls for greater transparency and accountability at the WHO, as well as an independent investigation into its activities during the pandemic. He also calls for governments to take a more balanced approach when it comes to responding to COVID-19, one which takes into account both public health concerns and economic realities.

Since then, Wodarg has been a vocal critic of the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on public health policy. He has argued that the industry’s financial interests have led to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of diseases, as well as the promotion of unnecessary vaccines. He has also criticized the lack of transparency in drug trials and the use of marketing tactics to promote drugs. In addition, he has raised concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest when pharmaceutical companies fund research or provide funding for medical conferences.

He argued that the World Health Organization (WHO) had overreacted to the outbreak, and that the pharmaceutical industry was using it as an opportunity to make money. He also questioned why the WHO declared a pandemic when there were only 800 cases in Mexico, and why they didn’t wait for more evidence before making such a drastic decision. Wodarg believes that the swine flu pandemic was a false alarm, and that it was used by drug companies to increase their profits.

  • “He dug into the issue and discovered a hornet’s nest of lies and corruption inside the WHO. He floored a bill called Fake Pandemic and did much to deflate that fake scare at the time, to the consternation of the corrupt functionaries of these institutions.â€

With a Definition Change, WHO Could Create Pandemic Anytime

This agreement was made in order to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry had a guaranteed market for their product, and to ensure that the countries involved would have access to the vaccine if needed.

This allowed the organization to declare a pandemic even if the disease was not particularly severe or deadly.

In the weeks leading up to the declaration of a pandemic, WHO began to take more serious steps in response to the virus. On March 11th, WHO declared that COVID-19 was a global pandemic,7 and on March 12th, they issued travel restrictions for countries affected by the virus.8 They also released guidelines for countries on how to respond to the virus, including social distancing measures and other public health interventions.9 In addition, they provided guidance on how to prepare for and respond to potential outbreaks of COVID-19 in healthcare settings.10

“The WHO changed the definition of a pandemic in 2009, so that it no longer requires a certain number of deaths or even severe illnesses. Instead, it is now defined as ‘the worldwide spread of a new disease.’ This means that any new virus can be declared a pandemic without having to meet the old criteria.”

  • “There was an explanation of what a pandemic is and it always was going with many, many people dying from infections. Many severe diseases, hospitals being overcrowded. It was such a catastrophe … and everyone in the street would notice that there is a pandemic because the neighbors would get ill, the people at work would get ill. In the bus, you would see people coughing.
    In a pandemic … it’s something each of us would experience. This was a pandemic. And WHO changed it.â€

By removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO could declare a pandemic based on other criteria such as the number of cases, geographical spread, or economic impact. This would allow for more flexibility in determining when a pandemic is declared and would help to better prepare countries for potential outbreaks. Additionally, it could help to reduce fear-mongering by providing a more accurate picture of the situation.

COVID-19 Is a ‘Test’ Pandemic

The PCR test is a highly sensitive test that can detect even small amounts of the virus. This means that it can detect cases of people who have been infected with the virus, even if they are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms. As a result, the number of cases reported is much higher than it would be if only symptomatic cases were counted.

Wodarg argued that the WHO’s approach to counting cases was flawed, as it did not take into account the fact that many people who tested positive for COVID-19 may have had mild or no symptoms. He argued that this could lead to an overestimation of the number of cases and deaths due to the virus. He also noted that there were other factors, such as population density and access to healthcare, which could influence the number of cases and deaths in a given area.

RT-PCR tests are used to detect the presence of viral genetic material in a sample, which can indicate that the virus is present. However, it cannot determine whether the virus is active or inactive.

In order to diagnose an infection, other tests such as antigen testing or antibody testing may be needed. Antigen testing looks for proteins on the surface of the virus, while antibody testing looks for antibodies produced by the body in response to an infection. These tests can help determine if a person has been infected with a virus and if they are currently infectious.

Inactive viruses are not infectious and cannot cause disease. Reproductive viruses, on the other hand, are infectious and can cause disease. They can be spread from person to person through contact with bodily fluids or contaminated surfaces.

A higher CT value means that the PCR test is less sensitive, meaning it will take more cycles to detect the presence of RNA particles. This can lead to false positives because the test may not be able to detect low levels of virus present in a sample. Additionally, a higher CT value can also lead to false negatives because the test may not be able to detect high levels of virus present in a sample.


The Corman-Drosten paper and WHO tests are designed to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample. However, when these tests are set to high cycle thresholds (45 cycles or higher), they can produce false positives due to the presence of non-specific amplicons.18,19 This can lead to an overestimation of the number of positive cases and create a “casedemic”20,21 — an epidemic of false positives. To avoid this problem, labs should use lower cycle thresholds (35 cycles or lower) for more accurate results.

“The PCR test is not a virus test. It is a gene test. It looks for pieces of genetic material that could be from any coronavirus, including ones that have been around for 20 years.†He believes that the PCR tests are being used to inflate the number of COVID-19 cases and create fear in the public.

  • “The SARS viruses, they are very long RNA viruses. There are 30,000 letters in this genetic information. The PCR test only takes a very small part of them, or two parts of them. So two words out of a whole book … before you start testing, you can already estimate how often this test will be positive. If you take a sequence which is in many varieties of viruses, you will have many positive tests.â€

COVID-19 Shot Conflicts of Interest Putting Lives at Risk

This creates a perverse incentive to create new diseases and market them as pandemics, even if they are not.

The conflicts of interest in the mass COVID-19 shot campaign have been further exacerbated by the fact that many of the companies involved in producing the vaccine have close ties to government officials and politicians. This has led to accusations of cronyism and corruption, with some suggesting that these companies are receiving preferential treatment when it comes to contracts for vaccine production.

Furthermore, there is evidence that some of these companies have used their influence to push for policies that favor their own interests over public health. For example, some pharmaceutical companies have lobbied for laws that limit liability for any potential side effects from their vaccines, which could put people at risk if something goes wrong.

Ultimately, these conflicts of interest are putting people’s lives at risk by prioritizing profits over safety. It is essential that governments take steps to ensure transparency and accountability in the mass COVID-19 shot campaign so that people can trust that their health is being put first.

“We need to investigate the crime and find out who is responsible. We must also determine what actions need to be taken in order to prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future.â€

  • “When they want to sell their vaccines, they need people who are ill so they can make clinical studies. So when there is an outbreak, and they want to make clinical studies with their vaccine to protect people against this disease just breaking out … there is a conflict of interest.
    If you have normal ways to stop the infection, with hygiene, with distancing, with isolating, with consulting with people, giving advice how to behave … if you stop the disease quickly, you’re not able to have enough cases for your study.â€

The pandemic has been a huge source of confusion and fear for many people. The tests used to diagnose the virus are not reliable, and the vaccines that have been developed are not effective in preventing infection or reducing symptoms. This has led to a lot of frustration and anger from those who feel they have been misled by the government and medical professionals. It is important to remember that while the pandemic has caused a great deal of disruption, it is still possible to take steps to protect yourself and your family from the virus. This includes washing your hands regularly, wearing a face mask when out in public, avoiding large gatherings, and maintaining social distancing.

RRR is a measure of how much the risk of getting COVID-19 is reduced in people who have been vaccinated compared to those who have not. In this case, the vaccine was found to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 by more than 90%. This means that if 100 people were given the vaccine and 100 people were given a placebo, fewer than 10 of those who received the vaccine would get COVID-19, while more than 10 of those who received the placebo would get it.

The ARR for the jab is calculated by subtracting the attack rate with the jab from the attack rate without the jab. For example, if the attack rate without a jab is 10% and the attack rate with a jab is 9%, then the ARR would be 1%. This means that, on average, one fewer person out of every 100 people will experience an attack when they receive a jab.

The emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines has not paved the way for vaccine mandates. Vaccine mandates are determined by individual states and local governments, and vary widely from place to place. The emergency use authorization simply allows the vaccines to be used in certain circumstances, such as when a person is at risk of contracting the virus or when a person is in an area where there is a high rate of transmission. It does not give any government authority to mandate that people receive the vaccine.

Will Vaxxed People End Up Sicker?

He believes that the current vaccines are being used to create a false sense of security and to generate profits for pharmaceutical companies.27 He also believes that the current vaccine rollout is not based on scientific evidence, but rather on political and economic interests.28

This is why it is important to get regular viral exposures, such as through vaccinations, to help keep your immune system up-to-date and ready to fight off any new viruses that may come your way. Vaccinations are especially important for those who are at higher risk of serious complications from certain illnesses, such as the elderly or those with weakened immune systems.

  • “Those new ones that come, this is some work for your immune system to get an update, but it doesn’t make most people very sick, only in a few, rare cases.
    When we are not trained, or we didn’t have contact with viruses for a very long time, because we were isolated somewhere alone, not having our grandchildren on our knees, not experiencing any training — it’s the same when you are out of training and you suddenly have to climb a high mountain. Maybe your heart goes into failure and you die — maybe you die when you have contact with something your immune system has forgotten.â€

The spike protein is not toxic. It is a harmless protein that helps the virus attach to and enter cells. The vaccine stimulates your body to produce antibodies against the spike protein, which helps protect you from infection with the virus.

  • “Vaccines are made to stimulate our cells, we don’t know which cells, or where the injection goes, but those cells that get contact with the vaccine, they produce spike proteins, which are very toxic. Normally, those spike proteins don’t come into the blood, this is why we don’t get seriously ill from coronaviruses. When you inject them, you bypass the natural immunity.â€

This means that the spike protein itself is a potential danger to the body, and when it is injected into the body in large quantities, it can cause a wide range of side effects.

This is a potential concern, as the spike protein may cause the body to produce an excessive amount of cytokines in response to a typical coronavirus. This could lead to a dangerous cytokine storm, which is an overreaction of the immune system that can cause severe inflammation and tissue damage. It is important to note, however, that this is only a potential risk and more research needs to be done before any definitive conclusions can be made.

This is important because it will help to determine the effectiveness of the vaccine and whether or not it is providing adequate protection against the virus. It will also help to identify those who are at higher risk of developing severe symptoms, so that they can be monitored more closely and receive appropriate medical care. Additionally, this information could be used to inform public health strategies for controlling the spread of the virus, such as targeted vaccination campaigns.

This is a serious concern and one that should be addressed. Vaccines are an important part of public health, but it is essential that they are tested and monitored properly to ensure safety. It is also important that people understand the risks involved in taking any vaccine, and that they have the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether or not to take it. Transparency is key in this process, and it is essential that all relevant information about the vaccine, its testing, and its potential risks are made available to the public.

“The vaccine is not a passport to freedom. It’s an experiment with unknown consequences.â€

  • “You won’t be free to travel. You will be controlled nevertheless, because the next virus already comes, the next jab is waiting. They want to perpetuate this game with us, with vaccines and with vaccine passports. It’s just the perfect control by this market and it has nothing to do with health. So we have to stop it.â€