Loading... Please wait...

Update on New Talks

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg - Transcript of Interview 1


                                    Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg

Planet Lockdown Interview 1  



My name is Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and I’m a physician, specialised in internal medicine and hygiene, and I worked a long time as director of the public health office, and I was working a lot with epidemiologists and being responsible for the whole northern region in Germany. After that I went into politics. I was in the health committee of Bundestag, German Bundestag, for fifteen years and afterwards I was, for ten years, in the council of Europe.

I was the president of the subcommittee on health in the council of Europe, and there I initiated the swine flu examination, the fake pandemic swine flu as a fake pandemic, and we examined what was happening in the WHO (World Health Organisation) there in the committee.

I was not astonished to find out that there is a great dependency of the WHO on sponsors and that those sponsors have influenced the work of WHO a lot. They even have led WHO into making all this ado about the swine flu and, because I already got acquainted with the work of WHO with the bird flu and with other (inaudible), they tried before, they had some exercise, they had some training for pandemics, smaller diseases, smaller outbreaks like SARS or afterwards like MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) this was afterwards, and I learned a lot about PSE ( Population/Policy Sciences and Epidemiology).

So, there were many such smaller periods that were very interesting for someone who’s interested in epidemiology, and I found out, each time I was in contact with WHO that it became worse and worse and that there were people who were very close to the pharmaceutical interests and there were lots of conflicts of interest in this organisation.

WHO changed from 1998 about that or 2002 there was the secretary general Mrs Brundtland, former Norwegian president, she was going to Davos, she was inviting the industry in Davos where the world economic forum, she was inviting the industry to engage in health problems and solving health problems globally, and the industry that was mainly pharmaceutical companies and they did not hesitate to follow this invitation? So, there is Bill Gates with his foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are other big foundations who do it from Great Britain and you have also the sponsorship of WHO by some nations who give extra money for their pharmaceutical industry, so it is washed by the government, but it’s following the economic interest primarily. This changes the work of the WHO a lot.

It is a health agency, but you can have a look at health from different perspectives. If you go there as some stateman who says I want to pay as little money and I want the people to stay healthy, so I want a prevention and I want the WHO to tell us how we can do this the best way. And you can have a look at health as a field of business so you go there and see which new diseases are there worldwide where I perhaps can produce a vaccine, or where I can produce some drugs, so that I can earn money. I will do something for health says the pharmaceutical industry but the pharmaceutical industry does something for health because their primary interest is the  interest of their investors, the interest  of their shareholders, and they have to earn money otherwise they will be fired, and so when they go to the WHO they are not primarily interested in public health, but they are interested in selling their products, and this makes the big difference if you let them set the topics, set the fields of the work, of the WHO, they look for fields of work where they can sell vaccinations, and this changes the whole perspective, and you can really easily observe the WHO started speaking about vaccinations all the time since 2000 more and more, and they were finding more and more diseases where perhaps you can sell vaccinations, or you can sell anti-viral drugs or something like that.

So, I think this has corrupted this institution a lot and it is a very sad thing because we need a good world health organisation which is caring for prevention, which is looking after the people and how they live healthy and that they know themselves how to live healthy without the pharmaceutical industry.

I was working in the last twenty years against corruption, as a parliamentarian it started, and afterwards I went to an organisation who was fighting corruption and I was responsible for fighting corruption in the health field. Corruption is defined as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain or private interests”. You can have people, you can bribe people when they are corrupt, but you can also change an institution. You can change an institution by sponsoring or giving earmarked money, saying please there is a lot of corruption there or there is a lot of things to do there, so do something there. By setting the topics, by setting the direction of an institution you can influence it and this can go as far as you can say this is institutional corruption. If you buy the whole institution you don’t need to bribe any employee or any director anymore because you pay it and you can say what they do.

Those institutions they don’t have so much money, they have a lot of employees, some a thousand employees all over the world. This is not so important. The member states, the 194 member states of the WHO they give their share, so they pay their contributions annually and this is a basic financial thing, but the earmarked money is for projects and there are only a few people setting those projects. Those projects are elaborated as a private-public health partnership. This is a what they call it – a private-public health partnership. It is the private who give the money who says what to do and they have an idea what would come out of the project.

This was the case with Ebola, which was, for instance, in Africa some time ago, some years ago. I have made an observation that could have been done many things before the WHO started to work there. There was an alarm already in Guinea when the first cases came up it would have been very easy to do something, but those people there, the local people, said no, we have to wait until the WHO comes, and the UN comes. This took some weeks or a month even until this big machine was working there, and many people were infected, and they used it for producing drugs, for testing drugs. They used it for developing a new method of vaccination with mRNA, so this is the first time they tried out genetically modifying the patient and then let the patient produce its own antigen, so making people like a bioreactor for producing the vaccine themselves. This was a completely new method, this is what we see now with COVID-19, what they are doing now with us, and with Ebola they tried it out the first time. They got their market allowance the first time for such a drug. So, this was a field for experiments, and I have the suspicion that they were just misusing the bad situation in Western Africa for their experiments and for preparing the market for a bigger thing we now experience.

I have a friend who’s working in Western Africa and he gave me a phone call in March; and he told me there were cases of Ebola in Guinea and he wanted to help because he had contacts with a laboratory, he could easily make the diagnosis. And if you have the diagnosis, you could isolate and you can stop the spread of such a disease easily when you are able to have the diagnosis to find the contaminated people, and to teach them how to move and how to prevent the spread of the disease. 

This could have started in April, but then Ebola peaked up when there were more and more cases, nothing was done like this and it was very bad in late summer; and it spread over several countries, and at this time they started with Remdesivir and they started with developing vaccinations. 

I think it was not well done and it could have been done much easier and much earlier. And there are people who profit from this bigger outbreak, because with this bigger outbreak they could test the drugs, they could try to find out how to prepare the vaccinations, so they had an economic, they had a profit, from this. Then when the outbreak was stopped there was another short outbreak in Congo where already they had the drugs, where they had the vaccination and they tested it there. For me, I have a very big suspicion that the Ebola case was just managed in a way that the pharmaceutical companies could do their things there, could develop their products there.

This was a misuse of WHO for drug development, and there is another misuse of WHO for making panic to sell the drugs, and this is what we see now. If you can use such an agency to raise fear in the people, then you can use it for any purpose because you paralyse people and when you want to do something, you don’t want the people to demonstrate or fight against, then you can just paralyse them with fear, say there is a big pandemic, and they will do everything you tell them. They won’t oppose.

What we have seen last year, I think this was a very well-planned thing. The WHO had the role to say, to define, what the pandemic looks like. WHO just took the test developed by Mr Drosden and colleagues and this test was there very quickly, and with this test they defined the virus because there was no, the virus was never cultivated, was never isolated. The virus was from the very beginning defined by the test of Mr Drosden and WHO said this is the virus; when the test is positive, this is the virus. Afterwards we saw the spreading of the virus, which was the same figures on the maps and what we saw was the spreading of the test. Everywhere the test was used there were positive cases, and WHO, and everyone who is in the matter, knows that each winter there are positive cases with coronaviruses.

Coronaviruses are there every year, they make five to fifteen percent of the flu viruses, and so you can be sure you will find some coronaviruses, and the coronaviruses that are on the wane all those last years, they are very similar to SARS viruses. 

There are still the old ones and we have other tests to find them, but most of the viruses now, the coronaviruses now, are SARS-like viruses, and you find them all over the world. They change, they have mutations; they change almost every day, you find some coronavirus having changed if you look for them intensively, and this is what they started. Showing us this thing as a very, very dangerous thing, because they connected us with pictures from hospitals, from intensive care units and from coffins, they showed us very, very frightening pictures and at the same time they told us there the test for corona was positive. They did not look for any other virus. There are more than a hundred viruses who could have done, who could have made people die in the same way they would die from coronaviruses, but they were only using this test and saying “oh, the test is positive,” so this is a very, very bad thing spreading.

I tell you something about the WHO and its role as a norm setter. The WHO has the power, since from 2007 when the international health regulations were published and were in power, the WHO has the power to define, in health. They can define what is a pandemic, they can define viruses, so the reason why a pandemic spreads, they can define the diseases even, and say what is an infection and how you can recognise an infection. So, they have the power of defining anything about infectious diseases that are possibly spreading around the world, and this is what they do. 

We see, or we have seen, that they defined a pandemic. First, in 2000, a pandemic was something very serious, very dangerous, with many people getting very ill and dying. You would see them in the streets, you would see them everywhere and you would see the whole population being endangered. This used to be a pandemic, spreading rapidly over many countries making many people ill and letting them die. And this changed in 2009 with the swine flu because the swine flu or the mild flu, it was one of the mildest flus ever, and they had prepared all those vaccination stuff, and they made all those contracts worldwide, the pharmaceutical industries, so they pressed WHO to change the pandemic, the definition of pandemic, and they just wiped out that there should be many severe cases and many deaths. They just took disease rapidly spreading over many countries and with a new virus, because a new virus is always new otherwise it cannot spread so you can have a pandemic each year, and this is what they did not change. 

They changed the definition of pandemic again just some months ago when they said we have something like a permanent pandemic; we have an inter-pandemic period and then we have a post-pandemic period, and then we have the pandemic period. And they made us think and understand “pandemic” as a permanent thing with waves coming again and again, and this is the picture now WHO uses, and this is also what Bill Gates uses, what the pharmaceutical industry uses. They frighten us with the next wave to come and with new mutations, so it’s a very good business model where they, for sure, promise that they can earn a lot of money for many years.

It came out when there was a press conference that Mr [Kenji] Fukuda did. He was the secretary responsible for the swine flu pandemic and he was speaking in front of the public, and he was asked because some countries had opposed, they had found out that there was something happening, that the new definition was used by WHO. Those countries, they had warned WHO to change the pandemic because this would be chaos and there would be lots of doubt, lots of very expensive and not very useful methods, and they were afraid that there would be a very big (inaudible). I think it was, Japan was among them, I think it was about seven countries. I cannot say it now by heart which countries were involved but Japan was among them, and it was a journalist just citing those questioning countries and WHO said “yes you are right,” to the journalist; “you are right, but we will think about this matter and we will discuss it again”. But they didn’t change it, they left it like that and they just declared the pandemic. This is when, the trick was in all those contracts with all those states, there was, in those secret contracts was a fix that if WHO says this is a pandemic then the contracts for the pharmaceutical industry, between the industry and the states, would be in power so the WHO was at the trigger for this business.

Since the Bird Flu in 2005 there was a pandemic preparedness, they were all heading for and part of the pandemic preparedness were the contracts between pharmaceutical industry who said they would produce vaccines and the member states of the WHO. There were more than a hundred contracts written and they were all secret, and in those contracts, it was fixed that if WHO should say this is a pandemic those contracts would be in power, and because with the swine flu it was a mild flu there was no real pandemic, so they had to change the definition of pandemic. When they had changed the definition, they could say “now we have a pandemic,” although it was a mild flu and then the contracts were in power and the pharmaceutical industry earned about $80 billion dollars with useless vaccines.

The WHO changed the definition of a pandemic because they wiped out the condition that there have to be many severe diseases, many cases of severe diseases, many deadly cases, many people  dying so they only left that this is a disease that can spread over several countries with a new virus, and this happens every year. So, they had a new definition they could use every year. We have a pandemic, according to this, each year.

If you would watch a real pandemic as a bus driver, as a teacher, as someone moving in public, you would see that people get ill. You would see people and you would find out that your colleagues at work that they are ill, and you miss them, so you really see something happen. You see people getting ill in your neighbourhood, in your enterprise, so a pandemic is something where you can count the people easily that they get ill. And now you need a test to find out, you test healthy people, and you find lots of positive tests and now you say “This is a pandemic,” which is ridiculous! The people are not even sick, they just have a positive test, so this is how they changed the definition of a pandemic.

I think the WHO was influenced by its sponsors to change this definition because the sponsors, they built fabrics, they introduced vaccines, they found out how to produce them cheaply and they were prepared for a pandemic. But there was no pandemic, and they knew there would not be a pandemic, so they just made one by changing the definition, which is very easy for them.

I’m a doctor because I like to be useful for people and I like people being healthy and loving this, and when I found out that many doctors, they are there in the ward and they are waiting for sick people and they earn more money when they have many people, when they are coming and being sick, so they earn money with sicknesses and with ill people, and this I did not like. So, I went to public health. I wanted to be paid for health, I wanted to be paid for prevention, I wanted to be paid to watch for the health of people and so I became the director of a public health institution and I like the work very much. And I made a sentinel to find out whether there comes a flu which is very dangerous. So, I had a secretary with a telephone and she was ringing each Monday morning, she was ringing Kindergarten and schools, factories and hospitals and doctors, so within four hours she could tell me whether there was something coming or whether there was nothing.

We had a standardised schedule with the questions, and I could easily observe, with the sentinel, whether something extraordinary was approaching, or not. I was responsible for 150,000 people and when there was a flu there were more than 10,000 or 15,000 people ill at the same time. They were not going to school, they were not at work, and you could easily recognise it. So, I knew what the flu wave does, and I really know when something serious comes and this is every three or four years. The flu wave is a little bit more serious and in-between you don’t feel so much, so when they said that in Mexico there was big, big catastrophe, a big pandemic approaching I saw the numbers and they were 600 cases they had found, not even a thousand cases and they spoke of a pandemic, I was just thinking of what I find normally in my region, with the 150,000 people, I find 10,000 cases and they had tens of millions of people living there, they only found a thousand and spoke of a pandemic, which was ridiculous. So I was doing some research on WHO from that time on and I was suspicious why such things happen.

I think there is a lot of corruption because there are people earning money with people being in need, and need is a driver for business, and they are looking for people in need. This is why they want our data now. The whole pandemic is used for collecting data about health, health data. The goal of the future, if you know where people are in need and you know where they could be in need, if you know their genes and if you know their weaknesses you can prepare drugs and you can blackmail them. I have a patented drug, it’s very expensive, but you need it because we know you are at risk, and such things. There is a big, they find out, they try to trace the viruses and they found out viruses where they can fear monger, where they can just tell us we are in danger because they know, they have the data - no one else, and we have to believe them, we can’t know better, we don’t have data and the data are in private hands. They are in Google and other big enterprises.

The PCR test just takes out some samples of your nose or your throat, some cells and tries to find some RNA, some traces of RNA, and there is a suspicion, yes there is a suspicion that if you have cells you can sequence the cells and you can find out the genome, the whole genome of the person you tested, and this is a very precious thing if you have all this information about the genome. So, you could have a databank and you could find out your future customers with this, and which products to prepare. So knowing about, having the million data, of genome data, it’s a very valuable thing.

I was speaking out [about] this question, I was asking this question and the answer was no, it is not allowed, we do not. But the problem is if those big enterprises now, the laboratories who do the testing for the mass testing, if they have the PCR machine here and in the next room they have a sequencer, and there is no data protector running around in Germany and watching them. It’s very difficult to find out what they do with the material they get from us. The fact is they get material from the whole population now. They collect biological material, they have giant biological databanks now, which are very, very valuable and if they have the gold in their fridges it’s a very, very big temptation to use this gold and I have the question: how do we control that they don’t misuse our data? I don’t get an answer, and I mistrust.

You know the WHO is just a room where they meet. WHO has many committees and has many sub organisations together with the World Bank and with others, and they make plans on how to change, not only the health but the living conditions of people too. Because WHO is a part of the World Economic, it has become a part of the World Economic Forum where there are very different plans that have nothing to do with health, but have to do with shaping new societies. WHO is engaged in this and is misused by those people because those people, they pay WHO for its services, so WHO has a good name, still has a good name, and is authorised to define health, to define illnesses, and they misuse WHO to define our health, to define the viruses, to define what is a good test, to define which diagnosis you give when the test is positive and then the doctor gets money for the diagnosis, and all these things together. This is a big machine where you can pay people for following, most people who follow the WHO, who follow those plans and proposals, they are rewarded, they are paid, because if you say, “This is COVID-19,” you get extra money. If you say it for someone who just died, “This is COVID-19,” you get more money. If you put them on a ventilator, you get much more money, if you put them on an intensive care, it is really a good thing if WHO gives the possibility to say this is COVID-19 with a person who had only contact with someone whose test was positive. They made a number for this and then you can make every patient a COVID-19 case. And this is the reason why in some hospitals or many hospitals, 60 percent or 70 percent of the people now are COVID-19 cases, which is impossible and just a big, big fraud. Nobody cares about this because they need the cases to frighten us.

An infection is something you feel, an infection is a reaction of your body. There are always viruses and the viruses, they are kept at a distance by our immune system. They cannot harm us normally, they are there but they don’t harm us, and when you have too little levels of  Vitamin D in  the  winter, for instance, or if the doses you just accept from other people that comes to you when somebody coughs or sneezes, and you get a big dose of certain viruses, perhaps then you get an infection and then you feel it, you have a sore throat and you have a runny nose or you cough or something like that, so that is an infection that you can spread. If you have an asymptomatic infection you cannot spread a virus because the virus doesn’t reproduce itself. There is no real activity of your cells multiplying the virus and so you cannot produce enough viruses to infect someone else. If the virus is creeping somewhere on the mucosa and the test is positive, this is not an infection and you cannot spread the virus because there you need a big dose. So the difference, a positive test is one thing, a healthy person can have a positive test, a healthy person who cannot spread any virus can have a positive test. A positive test doesn’t say anything about an infection and doesn’t say anything about the possibility to spread this infection, so this is what was misused all the time last year and was making the big damage.

For sure you have cases where the virus gets deeper when your immune system is not strong enough, if you are an old person or if you take certain drugs to slow down your immune system then you may get really seriously ill, but this may happen also with other viruses, with influenza and with human metapneumovirus and others, and the funny thing is we are shown now severe cases of  illness and the test is positive so it is COVID-19, and many clinics do not even look for all the other viruses that could be really responsible, they just look for the positive test and they say then it is COVID-19. What we miss is a differential diagnosis. Said we don’t do it anymore, not even if the people have died, they make the test and say COVID-19 and perhaps they die of many other diseases.

It’s easy to understand when you say, if it’s itching somewhere you scratch yourself it may be fleas you have, it may be also lice you have, but you may have both and this is the same with viruses. So, I think the virological reality is very different from the picture which is shown us by the test. The test is spreading, we have a test pandemic, and we don’t have a serious pandemic from a virus.

When I heard about asymptomatic cases I was very curious what they meant, so I started researching and trying to find out how they came to this idea, and I found out that at work there was one publication, also by Mr Drosden and his team, and they said there was a case which was asymptomatic where they found, where the test was positive  and afterwards journalists found out that this first case in Germany, it was a woman from China. She had symptoms, she even took pharmaceutical products because she had symptoms before, so this was a misunderstanding and then I’m very happy that there was a Chinese study from Peking where the Chinese population was examined, they examined lots of people - oh no, it was in Wuhan. They examined about nine million people there and they made tests with all those people in China, it’s possible, and they only find a few cases, less than 100 cases, about 300 cases. I don’t have the numbers here, but they found out that those cases had contacts and they examined the contacts of those cases, they examined about 1,300 contacts and they didn’t find any person of those 1,300 that was infected or that had symptoms or that had a positive test, so there was no spread from those asymptomatic cases they found in China. This is a very big study, and it is very clear, and the results are very clear, and I think we should not talk anymore about people being asymptomatic and being some threat for others. It’s not possible. We know from a big study in China now, we are very sure that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19. We don’t have it and you don’t have to be afraid.

You can change the definition and you can change the word, and we had this change of definition and with this change of a definition it was the tool how the fear was driven worldwide. The topic with the new gene vaccine is very interesting because it’s no vaccine, it’s a gene therapy. People are changed, there is some nucleic acid injected and the cells of the person who gets this starts producing proteins, and those proteins are spreading in the body, and the body produces antibodies against this, and so we become a bioreactor because we are genetically modified. We are genetically modified organisms when we get this injection, and this is very cheap for them. Before they had to have big factories, they had to have bioreactors where they produce the anti-gene, now we do it ourselves. It’s very easy to produce the mRNA, it’s very fast and much cheaper than breeding the anti-gene on eggs or in bioreactors and cleaning all this, so they have less costs, they are faster in production, and we have the risk. This is the new method, and we are genetically modified organisms, which has lots of consequences, illegal consequences, I think.

We are modified by gene technology and how long this lasts and how long the effects in our body are detectable, this is not very clear. It may be for only some weeks, it may be for only some months, and it may be, in some cases, that something is lasting lifelong or is even passed in your family, but we don’t know it. It’s a new method, we don’t have any hard data on this, so it’s a very big experiment and it’s a human experiment and I think the risk is too big to allow such things.

About changing the definition, WHO is adjusting definitions, adjusting the definitions according to the needs of its sponsors. WHO has changed the definition of a pandemic during the swine flu and they took away the many sick people and the deaths, the victims as the criteria, and then they changed it again and now they have some definition which is defined as something like waves. They have periods of pandemics, then they have inter-pandemic periods, they have the pandemic going away and coming again, so they have all those phases of a wave they use to describe what a pandemic is and we can expect that those waves come every year and the pandemic is something, according to the definition of WHO, we shall experience each year, which is a very good business model for vaccine producers.

There is another thing which is very interesting at Christmas, it was just at Christmas, WHO published a news and they spoke about the herd immunity. You know most of the people are immune to viruses because they come each year and we know them, and they don’t hurt us and only some people have to refresh their immunity getting a little bit ill. This is the normal thing, so we have herd immunity against all of the respiratory viruses, and WHO suddenly defined [that] you cannot have a natural herd immunity, herd immunity is only existing when the herd is vaccinated, so herd immunity is something you can only reach with vaccination, you have to  vaccinate a certain part of the population to have this herd immunity, so they just deny the natural herd immunity and they just make it a thing of marketing. Herd immunity, immunity is just something that is shown in your vaccination passport, and not in your immune system anymore, which is ridiculous, and which is criminal at the same time.

I think we lost the politics in public health; you cannot trust them anymore now. They are just misusing all those tools we normally use in public health, and paying scientists to do the wrong thing and to betray us, and I think there is a lot of corruption and it’s not that single people are corrupted, it’s that the system is corrupt, the system is following the money and not the truth, and this is why we cannot trust it anymore, and this is very sad because we are without orientation, but the good thing is that if there is really a pandemic coming we would see it, we would feel it, we would hear it from our neighbours, so we don’t need the test.

If you have such an interest if you want to control people you can find scientists who can give you the information you need and who can spread the information you need for it, so if you are a sponsor, if you have lots of money you can even found a laboratory and you can buy a whole university now and make a private science and only pay the results you need, so there is no science anymore; they produce money they produce power, but they don’t produce knowledge and this is a very bad development.

When you think how it could go on, you have to just remember that we live in a democracy and we are governing, it’s us, it’s all those billions of people who are the ones who elect the politicians and the politicians do what we want them to do. This is how, in a democracy, normally it functions, but I think we have forgotten that we are living in a democracy and it’s our fault that things developed like they did; and it’s our fault that we didn’t watch what is happening with the laws and what is happening with the independence of science, with the independence of justice, with the independence of many, many institutions and organisations we have to rely on, we entrust them because they are a specialist organisations we entrust them certain functions and we pay them for that, and if we don’t watch them and someone else pays more they do what the other one wants. They follow the money, and this is what we observe now, and I think we have to do something that we can rely [upon them] again and that our trust is reasonable, and for that there is a lot of things to do. We have to engage in politics.


People are being made afraid of viruses and they are being made afraid of being controlled by an authoritarian system. And what we see is people do not need to be afraid that they are endangered by a virus, but they need to be afraid that they might be controlled by an authoritarian system in the future, and I think they are few and we are many. So let’s organise, let’s say no and let’s open again, let’s just neglect the lies. If we plan our lives on the basis of lies, we cannot be successful, we cannot live happily together. We have to find the truth, and if there is not even any discussion allowed, if those people are cut down who have a different opinion, there is no discussion. So those people who cut down the channels on YouTube and those people who burn the books, the digital books, they are the ones who want to hide something; and we are governing, we are the people and we have to ask them: why do you do this? Show us the evidence! And if they don’t answer we have to go to court, we have to defend ourselves.