Lawyer Holzeisen on WHO pandemic treaty: beginnings of a health dictatorship
People must be informed about the planned WHO pandemic treaty and also about the even more dangerous changes to the already existing International Health Regulations (IHR), as long as this is still possible at all through the media—warns lawyer Dr Renate Holzeisen. According to her, the impending health dictatorship can only be prevented by pressure exerted by the populace.
Lawyer DDr. Renate Holzeisen
© Renate Holzeisen
By Felicitas Rabe
Since the beginning of the so-called Corona pandemic, the Italian business lawyer Dr. Renate Holzeisen has been committed to preserving individual rights of self-determination and the sovereignty of states. Her greatest concern is to educate the population and political decision-makers about the planned anti-democratic health dictatorship. The South Tyrolean also sees this as the main task of informed lawyers who are internationally connected.
Renate Holzeisen is on the board of the European branch of the US organisation “Children’s Health Defense”, which was founded by the current presidential candidate and lawyer Robert Francis Kennedy junior of the US Democratic Party. It also cooperates with the newly founded international lawyers’ association “International League of Attorneys for Freedom” to stop the WHO dictatorship. Its closest cooperation partner is in particular the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse.
Holzeisen appeals to journalists—if only in their own professional interest—to get involved in informing the public about the consequences of the planned WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Otherwise, due to the WHO-controlled censorship of any dissenting opinion—for example on health and climate policy issues—there would soon be no more independent journalism.
In an interview with the author on 20 July, Dr Renate Holzeisen gave an overview of the hitherto little-known details of the planned transfer of power from the member states to the World Health Organisation. At the same time, she made clear the imminent danger of an ensuing eradication of democracies.
Significant differences between the newly planned WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations
First, the lawyer explained what, according to her, the greatest dangers are in the planned WHO pandemic treaty and in the amendments to the International Health Regulations. It needs to be known that the new WHO pandemic treaty must be explicitly ratified by each of the 196 member states before it can enter into force on their respective territories.
However, this would not apply to the planned changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The amended IHR would automatically come into force for each member country as “soft law” after being adopted by a simple majority at the WHO International Health Assembly in May 2024. Unless a member country explicitly rejects the planned changes for itself within ten months of the next WHO Assembly in May 2024.
The lawyer showed concern, it is precisely this difference that would not be understood even by the few politicians who are still critical: “Politicians do not know that the amendment of the IHR automatically comes into force if one remains passive. The intended amendments to the IHR pose a much greater danger to democracy than the new WHO pandemic treaty to be adopted, especially because of this mode of their automatic entry into force. The resolution of the planned WHO treaty requires a two-thirds majority in the World Health Assembly and, in addition, subsequent explicit ratification by the individual member states.”
According to Renate Holzeisen, however, it was probably the intention to implement the IHR changes, which automatically come into force, “below the radar” of the public, while making the new WHO pandemic treaty public.
“The IHR in itself lead to the introduction of a health dictatorship,” Holzeisen said.
According to the plan, it would then be up to the WHO Director-General and a small WHO expert commission “absolutely obscure in its mode of appointment” to decide whether and when an international or even regional health emergency existed. When deciding on the actual existence of the state of a pandemic, the individual member countries would no longer have a say—and just as little would they then have a say in the countermeasures. On this, the lawyer stated:
“In the new Article 12 of the IHR, the extension of the international emergency mechanism (PHEIC – Public Health Emergency of International Concern) is also provided for alleged emergencies of solely regional scope, which can be determined by the WHO Secretary-General on his own accord, without the authorities and the government of that country still being able to make a decision on this at their own discretion. This is the definitive installation of the WHO’s self-empowerment mechanism. There will then be no independent control authority. In future, the WHO will be able to declare a pandemic status even more easily and force member states into an emergency regime for even longer than before (or permanently).”
Looking back: How the WHO created the Corona pandemic and paved the way for mass genetic experimentation
Over the period of three years and three months during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we had already been able to experience what it meant to be in the hands of so-called “experts,” Holzeisen reminded us of the time of the state of emergency and the associated fundamental rights restrictions and measures. According to the protocol of Corman, Drosten and others, the existence of a Corona pandemic had been determined by means of PCR tests, although PCR tests could not diagnose whether a person was infectious.
Apart from this fundamental error, the Corman-Drosten protocol from January 2020 contains further unbelievable scientific mistakes. A group of internationally recognised scientists had therefore demanded the withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten work—a blueprint for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test—in a retraction paper. But even then it had become clear that the WHO was not concerned with scientific evidence.
After all, the so-called “positive cases” only skyrocketed worldwide after the Corman-Drosten PCR test protocol was published (in the WHO Bulletin in mid-January 2020), Holzeisen recalls. As a result, the WHO declared a PHEIC, or pandemic emergency, on 30 January 2020. When an ever-growing international group of scientists demanded that the publication of the Corman-Drosten protocol be withdrawn due to the fundamental errors—such as the high number of evaluation cycles, which in many cases led to “positive” results—the WHO still did not react. Until the end of 2020, i.e. until the introduction of the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines,” it had allowed up to at least 97 per cent false alleged case numbers to be determined over a period of one year.
And it was only after “vaccination campaigns” with these experimental injections based on genetic engineering had been rolled out in many parts of the world that the WHO had issued a recommendation to the users of the PCR test in December 2020: One should, after all, also pay attention to the presence of disease symptoms and the parameters important for the application of these tests.
The Italian lawyer assessed this as a purely alibi-like action on the part of those responsible at the WHO. In December 2020, they had already achieved the intended result, namely “to impressively demonstrate an alleged international health emergency via the artificially created case numbers.” At the same time, one had prevented the use of already existing drugs for the treatment of alleged COVID-19 symptoms (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.). In this way, the basic legal prerequisite for the so-called conditional approval (in the EU) and so-called emergency approval (in the USA etc.) of the COVID-19 “vaccines” had been created.
The aim had been to use experimental genetic substances in a mass experiment on humanity, which had not previously been tested in preclinical and clinical studies for their efficacy and safety. This procedure was the greatest crime, the lawyer explained:
“This is the greatest crime against humanity that has probably ever been committed, because it affects billions of people worldwide, 451 million citizens in the EU alone.”
The substances incorporated into the “vaccines” had never been tested for their genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity—in other words, the possible alteration of the DNA, the human genome. But it has been known since the 1970s that RNA can also be retrotranscribed into DNA. With the vaccinations, the WHO—and for EU citizens also the EU—is committing an obvious “Beyond-design-basis of risk to health and life.” Holzeisen made clear:
“And it is therefore also a total meltdown if the WHO Secretary-General, with a group of experts of whatever kind, which is not accountable to anyone, is soon allowed, under Article 12 of the IHR, to arbitrarily impose international and regional health emergencies worldwide or even individually on member countries.”
The introduction of the amended International Health Regulations means the end of a democratic legal system
So if, after the introduction of the IHR, the WHO were to decree a public health emergency worldwide or even in just one country, then all member countries—for example, also the Italian Republic, provided it did not fundamentally object to the IHR within the deadline of 10 months from May 2024—would have to immediately implement the WHO’s now “binding recommendations” in this regard. In each EU country, the establishment of competent surveillance authorities would already be prepared for this purpose.
They are supposed to monitor the implementation of the measures prescribed by the WHO and check whether the set targets have been achieved. So, for example, they would have to check whether 70 per cent of the population has been “spiked.” (This was a predefined goal during the corona pandemic).
According to Article 44 of the planned amendments to the IHR, member states would also be obliged to support each other in combating “false or unreliable” information regarding epidemics. In addition, they would have to transpose the mandatory fight against (even alleged) false information into national law. The lawyer made clear:
“This means that in future there will only be the ‘official WHO truth’. Critical voices will be silenced or even persecuted with ‘contractual’ full-scale censorship.”
In the past three and a half years, the judiciary and parliaments have already fallen for the WHO doctrine, which is not based on evidence and certainly not democratic. Holzeisen stated:
“In the process, parliaments have already proven that they have no sense of fundamental rights and also do not know what is written in their constitutions.”
In future, the judiciary and parliament would be even less able to contradict this WHO dogma. This would mean a massive expansion of competences and, de facto, a general revision of our constitution and our forms of government. From a formal legal point of view, this would not be permissible at all. But in the last three years, one could have witnessed how fundamental constitutional principles could suddenly be ignored in the name of a so-called international health emergency.
Moreover, the lawyer said, one should never forget that not only the member countries are partners in the World Health Organisation. Major partners of the WHO are interest groups, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the GAVI NGO. As “backroom organisations,” they would determine the policies of the WHO and would thus be the actual bearers of power, so to speak.
What the WHO does not want to decide until May 2024 is already being implemented in the EU.
What neither the citizens nor the parliamentarians knew, Holzeisen explained next, was that in the EU the amended International Health Regulations were already being initiated with regulations. In this regard, for example, the EU Parliament and Council decided on 23 November 2022 in EU Regulation No. 2022/2371 that the EU would cooperate with the WHO and its Member States. The intensified cooperation serves to implement the “ONE HEALTH” concept, which includes the prevention of communicable diseases through vaccination and the prevention of climate-related health risks.
Due to the alleged success of the so-called COVID-19 certificates, the EU, in cooperation with the WHO, wants to introduce a digital vaccination certificate worldwide, which would then also serve as a passport. According to the lawyer, one must know: When these COVID-19 certificates were introduced in EU Regulation 2021/953 of 14 June 2021, it had been explicitly stated that there was still no evidence as to whether or to what extent the so-called COVID-19 “vaccinations” would prevent infection and infectivity in the persons treated with them.
In addition, in the approval report for the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine officially prepared by the EMA, it had already been published in February 2021—on page 97 under point 2.5.4 “Conclusions on Clinical Efficacy”—that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines had neither been tested for this purpose nor approved for this purpose. Nevertheless, in EU Recommendation 2023/1339 of 27 June 2023, the EU Commission recommends that member states continue to issue this “COVID-19 certificate, which is an absolute nonsense.” In cooperation with the WHO, it is to be used authoritatively and discriminatorily worldwide in the context of global international “health certification.”
Social and economic participation only with digital “health certificates”
If citizens did not stop this fatal development immediately—and especially at the EU level—they would only be able to move freely in the future by means of digital vaccination certificates, the lawyer explained the new state of affairs. Social and economic participation, i.e. participation in social life, would then only be legally possible for those who could prove with “digital health certificates” that they were allegedly not “infectious.”
What would not be implemented here at the WHO level until 2024, a new Directorate-General at the European Commission called HERA—a Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority—had already been set up in the EU in September 2021. In this way, the monopolisation of health policy has already been institutionalised in the EU, although the EU treaties do not even allow for this. According to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the de facto work of HERA and thus of the EU Commission is not legally covered, the lawyer explained.
The EU Commission had already acquired billions in experimental genetic “vaccines” for the future through undisclosed transactions. The advance purchases were made “on behalf of its member states” by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “mired in a total meltdown of conflicts of interest.” In the meantime, this EU Commission is preparing, via HERA, to make compliance with its recommendations and those of the WHO mandatory in the future. The EU institutions are already taking action against the alleged dissemination of “false information.” As an example, Holzeisen mentioned the threats of the EU bureaucrats against Twitter. This completely undemocratic procedure is illegal, the lawyer explained:
“We as EU citizens are therefore dealing with a course of action by the EU institutions that is particularly outside of any fundamental legal order, including under criminal law.”
The legal order in the EU is based on the EU treaties and not on the decisions of the EU Commission or individual regulations of a completely misguided EU Parliament and EU Council.
The tasks of international lawyers and responsible journalists for public enlightenment
In this situation, informed lawyers would have to provide comprehensive public educational measures. They would have to provide as many politicians as possible with the official documents on the planned WHO pandemic treaty and the documents on the planned amendments to the IHR and explain their far-reaching significance to them.
Solicitors working in the EU would also need to make decision-makers aware of the scale of implementation already underway in the EU. They also need to make it clear to politicians that these WHO and EU regulations are de facto abolishing national constitutions. In Italy, she had to take an oath on the Constitution of the Italian Republic before being admitted to the bar. In the meantime, she wondered whether the majority of lawyers would even remember the oaths they had taken. Moreover, responsible journalists are also needed as multipliers:
“All journalists who still want to call themselves journalists must report as soon as possible on the planned, contractually agreed and thus definitive abolition of democracies! Otherwise, that’s it for being a journalist!” the lawyer warned.
At this point, she referred once again to the planned worldwide censorship obligation. Otherwise, in the end, we won’t even need such “scribblers.” These would be replaced by artificial writing programmes.
Why this process can only be stopped by the populace
During the corona pandemic, one could also observe a far-reaching total failure of the courts. According to the evaluation of the South Tyrolean lawyer, this process can therefore be stopped less by lawyers than by pressure from the people. The task of the lawyers, she said, is to provide broad-scale public education through their help in pilot trials. Holzeisen explained her concern to the lawyers that the people must first understand what is planned here. That is the most urgent task:
“Our first task must therefore be to inform people while that is still possible at all through the media.”
After all, she said, the implementation of censorship measures under the IHR had already been decided in the EU with Regulation No. 2022/2372, also on 23 November 2022. The people must stand up against this, the lawyer appealed at the end of the interview:
“Only when the puppet-politicians feel the people’s breath on their necks will the situation change.”