Response to interpellation 2023/24:764 on confidence in the WHO
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that international cooperation is required to prevent health threats and that a modernized regulatory framework is needed to strengthen preparedness 1. KD argues that vaccines are effective, strictly regulated, and that mRNA vaccines are not classified as GMO 1. KD emphasizes that WHO's role is to lead international health work 1. KD argues that Sweden does not have ambitions to surrender decision-making power to WHO regarding pandemic management or other health measures 2. KD emphasizes that Sweden negotiates to safeguard health interests and that the need for international cooperation to share data and protect lives is central 2. KD underlines that the focus lies on protecting citizens' health through better healthcare systems, access to water and sanitation, as well as joint preparedness for future outbreaks 3. KD denies that the purpose of the negotiations is to hand over power to WHO 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me which of all the measures that WHO proposes within the international health regulations, IHR, and the pandemic agreement I believe will lead to more successful pandemic management in Sweden and whether I intend to take any initiatives based on my opinion.
Elsa Widding has further asked me if my decision to vote for or against the IHR and the pandemic agreement is influenced by the public opinion surrounding the issue and surrounding the WHO in the USA.
Elsa Widding has also asked me if I have made any analysis of how public health can be affected in the future after injection with GMO.
The Covid-19 pandemic paralyzed entire societies around the world and exposed fundamental deficiencies in global preparedness and countries' ability to respond to extensive health crises. Covid-19 is a clear example that international cooperation is required both to prevent cross-border threats to human health and to strengthen preparedness for the next crisis.
As I have answered in previous interpellation debates, WHO's 194 member states have decided to work together to develop a global pandemic treaty and update the IHR. At an extra session of the World Health Assembly, or WHA, which is WHO's highest decision-making body, in 2021, WHO's member states decided to establish a negotiating group for the purpose of initiating negotiations on a global pandemic treaty. The negotiations are led by the bureau, which was nominated by the negotiating group.
A modernized regulatory framework is needed to prevent future health threats and thus avoid disease outbreaks developing into global pandemics. The Swedish position is that the regulatory framework in its existing form is primarily fit for purpose for effective pandemic management and that lack of compliance by countries is a greater problem. The pandemic has illustrated the importance of all countries following the same regulatory framework and not setting up unnecessary obstacles to promote health and save lives. The starting point for the Swedish part is therefore that the purpose and scope of the IHR shall not be changed compared to today, but that deficiencies must be addressed.
The government's overall objective is to achieve a purposeful international regulatory framework that can strengthen the multilateral community's ability to prevent and manage pandemics, as well as contribute to good national, regional, and global preparedness and capacity to manage pandemics. The negotiations on a pandemic treaty and the review of the IHR are ongoing and consist of multilateral negotiations in which Sweden participates, and the government keeps the Riksdag continuously informed. Sweden has been active throughout the entire process, and the results of the negotiations will be reported to the WHA. When there are finalized articles or a proposal for a pandemic treaty, the government will take a position on it in the usual manner. If the Riksdag's approval is required for Sweden to be able to enter into the treaty, such approval will be sought. The proposals for amendments to the IHR will be decided upon by the WHA, and before these enter into force, member countries may reserve themselves if necessary.
I have answered several of the questions raised in previous interpellations, and regarding the questions being asked to WHO about the actions during the covid-19 pandemic, several of these are based on incorrect information and are misleading. WHO's role as the UN's technical agency for health issues is to lead and coordinate international health work, and the global pandemic treaty aims to strengthen the international community's and also each individual state's ability to work preventatively against health crises. The measures taken in Sweden during the covid-19 pandemic were decided by the government.
There is a lot of incorrect information surrounding this issue, and it is important that we work together to ensure that the situation we were faced with in 2020 when the covid-19 pandemic broke out is not repeated.
Vaccination is still the most effective protection against serious illness and death from covid-19, and the government continues to work to increase vaccination coverage in the groups for whom vaccination is recommended. Vaccines, like other medicines, are developed, tested, and regulated just like other medicines in a rigorous process governed by a strict regulatory framework.
An mRNA vaccine is not counted as a GMO, as the vaccine does not contain an organism.
Medicines are always reviewed by the Medical Products Agency, or one of its counterparts in another EU country via joint processes, before they can be used for the treatment of humans. High requirements are set both for the medicine to be able to demonstrate efficacy and for the safety to be high. Safety is assessed both in connection with the approval and is also followed up after an approval to capture side effects that are uncommon or that occur after a longer period.
The Public Health Agency makes assessments of which vaccines should be included in the vaccination programs and provides recommendations on this.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I do not quite know where to begin to answer this, but I think the Minister is playing a bit of theater.
The factual basis for everything I say here is on my personal Mynewsdesk. But let me address one important thing, namely the lie that the vaccines would be tested by the European Medicines Agency, EMA.
EMA was forced to accept the test results that came from the USA. The agency has not conducted its own tests; instead, it was Sweden and France that were appointed by EMA to review the material from the USA. The objections were many. I have seen the email exchanges myself. There were over 100 objections, if I remember correctly, some of which were very serious. Before they were even answered, over 800,000 vaccine doses were sent to Sweden.
Today we know that mRNA is incorporated into the human genome and results in the production of proteins unknown to humans. That is also why the body attacks itself, Jakob Forssmed, if anyone wonders why so many loved ones suddenly die from, for example, accelerating cancer. But this is, of course, only one of many explanations for the turbo-cancer, which I have spoken about previously.
The Minister does not want to engage in a discussion about the consequences of genetic modification for public health. I understand that. But please answer the question of why no proper follow-up was conducted for all persons who were injected, despite the fact that an emergency-approved and completely untested gene therapy product is used for the vaccination. Very high mortality rates were already confirmed in Pfizer's clinical data.
Everyone who has allowed themselves to be injected is treated roughly like lab rats. In the best-case scenario, they survive for a while. We shall see. My boys' beloved father did not survive, unfortunately. He passed away two weeks after our last debate in turbo-cancer after three injections with an untested gene therapy product.
Go to Mynewsdesk Elsa Widding and read about the court case in Australia. There is also a more detailed description of GMO and how it was determined that the injections are GMO. Briefly: Paragraph 10 in the genetic engineering law in Australia defines what a genetically modified organism, GMO, is. As far as I know, the same legislation also applies in Sweden, or at least in Europe, Africa, and the USA. It consists of three parts.
Let me start backwards with the letter o: Organism is a biological unit that can transfer genetic material; an organism that is modified with genetic engineering. The genetic engineering part requires showing a technique for modification of genes or other genetic material. It is simple in this case.
Then we have the physical method of transport of the genetic material: Genetically modified organisms that can transfer genetic material. Lipid nanoparticles are transported to all organs of the body, including the brain, Jakob Forssmed. In this way, the genetic material is physically transferred from the syringe to the body's cells. It is not about something that stays in the arm.
Neither Pfizer, Moderna nor AstraZeneca have denied this, nor has the head of Australia's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. This has been in a court case. The problem is that according to the Australian gene technology act, everyone who handles GMOs in Australia must be regulated by a GMO license. Unlike AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna failed to apply for GMO licenses. It is a serious offense, and that is what these cases are about. How things stand in Sweden, the Minister may reflect on until the next interpellation.
Humanity has never before been harmed to this extent. How did we end up there then? Well, through a two-step rocket. The definition of what a pandemic is was changed before the swine flu from previously requiring many deaths to suddenly it was enough with a large spread of infection in the world. Without the change of the definition, we would not even have had a pandemic. The statistics for excess mortality from 2020 also prove that it was not a pandemic according to the old definition, which did indeed concern mortality.
But how did one then achieve those desirable infection numbers? Well, they were created through a specially designed test which, for its part, was never manufactured to demonstrate infection but which works to quickly drive up the infection numbers.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Elsa Widding for the contribution, which makes it clear that we see reality very differently.
There was no pandemic, and there was no infection, says Elsa Widding. The vaccine that has been hailed by a united scientific community, which has received a Nobel Prize for contributing to saving lives and opening our societies, causes all conceivable disease, suffering, and death that we see in the world.
It is difficult to discuss when one is not even on the same planet regarding these types of issues. For my part, it is clear; I work unremittingly every day so that Sweden will be better prepared for the next pandemic. We can be certain that at some point another new pathogen will emerge that spreads across the world and that can lead to severe illness and death and great consequences for our societies, similar to what we saw during the covid-19 pandemic.
Feel free to ask the healthcare personnel who treated people affected by covid-19, not least at the beginning of the pandemic, if there was any infection, if there was any pandemic, if there was any death, if there was any suffering in the Swedish hospitals in connection with this.
The vaccines have been extremely important in this context. They have, of course, been tested thoroughly. Safety in combination with efficacy has naturally been tested, and it is naturally followed up continuously just like other medicines and vaccines. Vaccines never come without side effects, and they are reported openly to the Medical Products Agency.
Regarding GMO, I already noted that this is not counted as a GMO. It is not an organism. It is also something that the Medical Products Agency has concluded. Then questions should be asked to them regarding how they view this otherwise.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I want to remind that it is important to behave respectfully towards one another when the other is speaking.
Elsa Widding (-)
There was indeed a pandemic. The Government heard incorrectly. There was a pandemic according to the new definition, but there was no excess mortality in 2020. Therefore, it would not have been a pandemic according to the old definition. That is what I said.
Back to the Public Health Agency, which completely agrees. They write that the PCR tests were not suitable for detecting the spread of infection. That was my point. They write that the PCR technology used in tests to detect the virus cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system, and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is infectious or not. It is the Public Health Agency that says this, not me.
What happened then? Nothing. The politicians simply didn't care; they just continued to play along. Now it is very important that those responsible are held accountable and that we find out who has committed what in this country.
I only heard as late as yesterday that a report has been submitted to the Prosecution Authority. What I understand is that it is the government minister here who has been reported, and also the former Minister for Social Affairs, if I have understood the matter correctly. I have not read the report yet, but I will do so and, of course, post it on my Mynewsdesk.
This is very important, not least now when new abuses against the world's population are being planned. Albert Einstein once said that the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who look on without doing anything. I think it is something worth reflecting on this summer.
Ideally, we would like to ignore the World Health Assembly's deliberations in Geneva, which conclude tomorrow, and simply state that the world simply does not comply with all the inventions. It is gratifying if Sweden is not participating in and pushing through the grotesque writings that we have previously seen and which we have tried to fight against with teeth and claws.
The pandemic agreement is being pushed back a bit, but they are trying to push through and vote on the IHR without the member countries having had a single day to read what is to be voted on. They are breaking their own rules.
In the latest working material I have seen, from April 2024, the language has been watered down considerably, and it is not always so easy to understand what is meant. Words have been replaced and moved to appendices, but the meaning is the same. The word shall, that is ska, is repeated again and again. Articles 24, 27 and 31 are about how one shall impose vaccine passes on travelers when they travel abroad. If one crosses a national border, the country one arrives in can force one to undergo medical examination and prophylaxis, that is some form of treatment, vaccination with mRNA injections and isolation or quarantine. We will see how this ends.
The speech given by Tedros Ghebreyesus clearly shows how dangerous and inappropriate WHO has become. He is seeking to justify a greater coordination of power to WHO.
The health policy that WHO promoted and still promotes closed supply chains, closed workplaces for tens of millions of day laborers, stopped travel and tourism income that millions of low-income earners were completely dependent on, closed markets and drove hundreds of millions of people straight into poverty.
WHO's recommendations, which many countries sadly followed and which the Minister here wants even more to follow in the future, increased the indebtedness for nations globally with direct effects on child mortality and the ability to increase economic growth.
WHO's mistakes have resulted in an increased number of deaths in both malaria and tuberculosis. Even higher numbers of deaths are expected in the wake of the increased poverty.
The funding of important sanitation and nutrition programs has also decreased because WHO has pushed to increase funding for mass vaccination at the expense of these life-saving programs. This is being done in countries with a young population for a disease that affects the elderly but against which these elderly are already immune, and furthermore against a virus that has already mutated further.
WHO does not work for public health in the world. WHO works for the vaccine industry and possibly for the devil himself, if I may say so, if we are to believe that he exists.
School closures have resulted in cemented poverty. As a consequence, according to calculations, up to 10 million more girls have been forced into abhorrent child marriages. When Tedros Ghebreyesus says in his opening speech that the whole world was taken hostage, my thoughts turn to precisely these child marriages.
Madam Speaker! The world was taken hostage by the dreadful people who took over public health, used WHO as a tool with its leadership's consent and simultaneously earned hundreds of billions of dollars in profit through damages imposed on others.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! As I have stated several times in this chamber, Sweden has no ambition to hand over Swedish decision-making power to WHO regarding Swedish pandemic management or, for that matter, other health measures.
We negotiate this in the customary manner. We have been active in the negotiations to safeguard our, Europe's, and above all health's interests in these contexts. We have continuously informed the Riksdag about this.
Now, WHA will not reach a goal with any pandemic treaty, but it will become an ongoing process. Tomorrow, I believe, a decision will be made on how to handle this further. It is obvious that we need better cooperation in the world to gain knowledge about the spread of infection and be able to share data in a better way, but also have a more common approach in these issues so that we can protect life and health in the best way.
These are naturally important issues, and here discussions, conversations, and negotiations are taking place just as when it concerns other international commitments that Sweden makes or conventions. It is therefore nothing strange that is taking place here in some way. And I want to emphasize that this is not WHO's will. It is the will of the 194 member countries that we should negotiate on this.
It is also not possible to take different proposals that have been recorded as revenue as if they were going to be the final result. That is not the case in this negotiation, and it is also not the case in other negotiations.
I would like to say that there is quite little drama in this negotiation. On the other hand, there is great drama if the world is hit by different types of pandemics. In that case, one needs to try to protect life and health in the best possible way.
Naturally, the world has drawn lessons from the latest pandemic that are truly worth taking to heart. It is clear that there were different regimes that exploited the pandemic to carry out authoritarian measures in different ways. Therefore, it is important that health is in focus and that the protection of life and health is extremely central for the world. That is it for me, and that is what guides my work every day.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! It is said that the world was unprepared for covid-19. It was rather we who were unprepared for how the WHO would hijack public health policy for a virus that, in most countries, has an infection fatality rate similar to that of a common influenza virus.
If the world wants to address the risk that a repetition of covid would entail, it is better to address its cause, which has likely been a laboratory leak. Nothing in the texts of the proposed pandemic agreement or the IHR amendments even refers to this.
If WHO is allowed to proceed with its proposals, the risk of new pathogens will increase dramatically, not decrease. Until the fundamental causes of WHO's mistakes have been addressed, including the constantly increasing influence on the organization from private individuals and companies and the obvious conflicts of interest, the world will face increased risks and perhaps a swift repetition of the catastrophe we were recently subjected to.
Sweden as a democratic country must never accept that public health suddenly becomes about profit and centralization rather than the health of the population.
The Minister here takes the genetic modification of humans lightly. The Minister plays with creation itself and does not think about what the punishment might be.
The one who is a believer might venture to the following quote: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Was it not Jesus who said that when he hung on the cross? I believe it is Luke 23:34. I have attended Sunday school for six years.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! The text can always be cited, also in this chamber, with merit.
These are very important issues, and I am concerned by the stance on these issues.
We need to take it seriously that the world can be hit by new pandemics. We need to take it seriously that there are great risks of increased antibiotic resistance which will cause us significant problems with our healthcare system and our opportunities to treat cancer, to perform surgeries, and to treat infections in various ways.
The world needs to cooperate more on those issues, because they are global and cross-border issues. One can think what one wants about that. But viruses and bacteria do not recognize the borders we have, and then we need international cooperation to safeguard people's lives and health.
That is what is in focus for the government with these negotiations, not to hand over power to WHO or anything of the sort. Why would we be interested in that?
We are interested in safeguarding the lives and health of Swedish citizens and all the world's citizens. In that case, many things are required: more healthcare and more opportunities to combat infections, to have access to water and sanitation, and to ensure that there is basic knowledge about infections and other matters. But there must also be healthcare systems that can manage this. We also need to prepare collectively for large outbreaks of very dangerous and contagious diseases that the world could very well be hit by even in the future.
This is what the negotiations currently underway aim for. They will most likely continue for some time ahead.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.