Does the Danish Health Authority obey orders from WHO?
- jearungby
- Jan 24
- 14 min read
by Jeanne A. Rungby, specialist, drawing by Lars Bo Appel.
On December 4, 2024, the United States government released a 500-page document reporting that many of the actions taken during the pandemic were wrong.
In particular, it was expressed that COVID-19 is considered laboratory-created.
The report states:
The virus has a biological property that is not found in nature.
Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans, in contrast to previous pandemics where there were multiple spread events.
Wuhan is home to China's leading SARS research laboratory, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels.
Researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell ill with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, several months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
If there were any evidence of a natural origin, by almost all scientific measures it would have already appeared.
It also states that
ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH): EcoHealth - led by Dr. Peter Daszak - used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.
NIH FAILURES: NIH's procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are flawed, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. NIH has also created an environment that encourages circumvention of federal archiving laws.
Conclusion: COVID-19 was overwhelmingly likely a biological weapon directed and financed from the United States.
What does the Danish National Board of Health say about this revelation?
The National Board of Health apparently regrets nothing.
In a response to Michael Lind on January 17, 2025 (the underlining is mine), Thor Svendsen from the Danish Health Authority writes:
· That the origin of the virus does not change the recommendations we have made regarding, among other things, containment, infection prevention and vaccination. Because regardless of how the disease originated, we as a society have a task in minimizing the harmful effects of disease outbreaks (pandemics).
· And in the vast majority of aspects of managing a pandemic, the origin of the disease is not the main issue . Instead, we are primarily concerned with how a disease is transmitted and how to prevent transmission, as well as how to treat the disease, etc.
Is Thor Svendsen right that the origin of the virus does not change the recommendations the Danish Health Authority has made regarding, among other things, vaccination?
The answer depends on where the research into this virus started and where the funding for this Gain-of-Function (GOF) research came from. We can read in the American report that the research into this virus was paid for by American taxpayers.
A minimum of active investigation, such as a search on Pub Med regarding coronavirus, would have shown that the head of the Wuhan laboratory Zhengli-Li Shi , already in 2015, had a close collaboration with Ralph S Baric from North Carolina University regarding “ coronaviruses show potential for human emergence”
The article openly states that this is Gain of Function (GOF) research. The virus was clearly man-made. This GOF research was financially supported by the EcoHealth Alliance, the National Natural Science Foundation of China awards, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), led by Fauci.
In my opinion, this is significant evidence.
A slightly deeper investigation should have also revealed that the NIH has royalties in and recommended the mRNA vaccines. (via Patents).
If the virus and vaccine can be traced back to the same funding institution, wouldn't it have been appropriate to express doubts about the purpose of these now-given modified mRNA vaccines?
There was a clear conflict of interest.
Furthermore, Thor Svendsen from the Danish Health Authority writes the following:
· When we have to consider whether COVID-19 was man-made, we rely on the assessments of others, including especially the WHO, because we do not have the opportunity to conduct thorough investigations ourselves in other countries.
Here I would think it is relevant for the Danish Health Authority to consider what interests the WHO serves? It is well known that up to 84% of the WHO's budget is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, including foundations that are (or were) major investors in the vaccine industry, such as Pfizer.
Again, a conflict of interest of great importance.
The question is what commercial agreements exist between WHO/Pfizer and the Danish authorities?
If we delve into WHO's guide to their global collaborating centers(1) we will find that WHO has binding agreements with entities in almost every country in the world.
The entities collaborating with WHO are obliged to follow a WHO-determined
"authorized work plan"
The product, including intellectual property, belongs to WHO!
There is a non-compete clause that must be signed and no option to withdraw, even though it is time-limited (years).
All legal responsibility rests with the institution, including any injuries to human test subjects.
WHO has thus exempted itself from responsibility in these agreements!
WHO collaborating centers could be universities, training centers for doctors, nurses and midwives, the military and governments !!!
So who does the Danish Health Authority entrust its information and guidance to?
Who is WHO?
Is the WHO an altruistic NGO that cares about population health or a pharmaceutical marketing and global governance body?
See the important letter to the Trump administration from the World Council for Health
This letter provides an in-depth analysis of WHO's global strategy.
I believe that the public has the right to know the following:
Are there direct or indirect authorization agreements between the Danish Health Authority and WHO?
Are there direct or indirect authorization agreements between the vaccine industry and/or WHO and the Serum Institute (SSI), which advises the government on vaccines?
Are there direct or indirect authorization agreements between WHO and the Danish Medicines Agency (LMST) that approve vaccines and other medicines?
Are there direct or indirect authorization agreements between WHO and the Ministry of Health (SUM), which should be managed by elected politicians?
Are there direct or indirect authorization agreements between WHO and the Ministry of Defense (), which should be managed by elected politicians?
A detailed analysis of how WHO has organized its worldwide network of collaborating centers based on commercial contracts can be read here.
· Furthermore, Thor Svendsen writes: WHO's immediate assessment remains that COVID-19 was not man-made. But as I also wrote earlier , we cannot be completely sure.
· And of course we also take into account the reports published by the US government on the subject.
There are completely new tones here from the Danish Health Authority, which admits that they have read the 500-page report from the US government from December 2024, which clearly admits that many of the measures recommended in the pandemic management were failed.
The report states:
The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was a major failure because it caved in to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and put China’s political interests above its international obligations. Moreover, the WHO’s latest attempt to address the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic – via a “pandemic treaty” – could harm the United States.
SOCIAL DISTANCING : The “6-foot distancing” recommendation — which closed schools and small businesses nationwide — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed-door testimony, Dr. Fauci said the guidance “just kind of popped up.”
MASK MANDATES : There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials turned a blind eye to the effectiveness of masks without providing Americans with scientific data—causing a massive increase in public distrust.
LOCKDOWNS : Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable damage not only to the U.S. economy but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative impact on younger citizens. Instead of prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo essential elements of a healthy and economically sound life.
So what information will the Danish National Board of Health/Minister of Health provide to the Danish population who were exposed to these failed measures during the pandemic?
Finally, Thor Svendsen writes on behalf of the Danish Health Authority:
· That is why we also consider pandemic scenarios in our emergency planning, both with naturally occurring diseases and with biological weapons. When it comes to security policy issues (such as biological weapons), we cannot be completely transparent about our plans.
Aha. So if it was a biological weapon and the vaccine was therefore to be forced into the population's bodies (as a corresponding superweapon/countermeasure), despite uncertainty about effectiveness, and a clear lack of regulatory control, it was okay not to have full transparency .
In other words, informed consent and the people's right to decide over their own bodies were disregarded.
I interpret the Danish Health Authority's response as follows:
· The Danish Health Authority knew that Covid-19 was a biological weapon, but they were muzzled. In other words, a military order.
· That despite this knowledge, which has now been officially confirmed in the aforementioned US government report , they continue to choose to maintain the WHO's claim that COVID-19 was not a biological weapon towards the population.
· They did not feel the need/responsibility to independently take a critical view of the handling, including the alleged effect of the COVID-19 vaccines by causing the body's own cells to produce the spike protein, which attaches to the cells, after which the immune system attacks these cells, with the consequences this has for the health of these healthy people.
· They did not find it relevant to investigate how large a proportion of the population had already developed immunity to this laboratory-created virus via cross-immunity before pressuring the population to take an experimental gene therapy-based product, which was conveniently renamed a “vaccine” so that proper regulatory control could be bypassed.
· By being uncritical towards both the virus and the subsequent mRNA “vaccine”,
The Danish Health Authority and the Danish Medicines Agency made themselves useful idiots by putting pressure on the population to accept more of this biological weapon, including the final product of the vaccine, namely the spike protein, by claiming that they were protecting their loved ones from infection.
In other words: To prevent the damage from the spike protein, the Danish Health Authority chooses to give more of the same, this time produced by the body's own cells. An extremely risky approach, especially since they knew:
· that long-term side effects were not known
· that the vaccine did not protect against transmission
· that the vaccine was based on Pfizer's gene therapy products
· that the control of these "countermeasures" was exempt from normal control and
· that they were therefore not safe and effective
· that one could therefore not give properly informed consent
The Danish Medicines Agency chose to turn a blind eye to the increased risk that a process change entailed:
After the approval of the mRNA products, the Manufacturer switched the manufacturing process from process 1 (PCR-based), on which all information to vaccinators is based, to the commercial process 2, which was based on a significantly different process, namely the use of recombinant plasmid DNA from coli bacteria, as explained in the NORTH Group's letter of concern and the associated scientific Lay summary.
Pfizer itself explained that plasmid DNA from their “gene therapy program” was used in the production of the COVID-19 “vaccines.” The National Board of Health knew this when they recommended these products under the false name of “vaccines.”
Calling these mRNA products gene therapy based is therefore correct according to Pfizer itself.
In my 2nd letter of concern of February 6 to the Minister of Health, I explained the dangers of the spike protein, as demonstrated in multiple peer-reviewed scientific articles.
The fact that the spike protein could be harmful to health was rejected by the Danish Health Authority as speculative. At present, a year later, there are many more scientific articles confirming that the spike protein has toxic properties.
This is not surprising, given that the spike protein contains parts from rabies virus, hepatitis virus, enterovirus and HIV virus, as well as toxins very similar to the venom of the Indian cobra, monocled cobra and Chinese multi-colored krait. The high level of cloning strongly suggests that the spike protein was developed in a laboratory.
So how wise is it to let the body's own cells produce this spike protein indefinitely?
A detailed description of the spike protein can be read here .
Professor of Human Biology Ulrike Kämmerer has expressed the following about the spike protein, which, as is known, is common to both the Gene Therapy vaccine and COVID-19:
“And this type of spike protein: there is so much cloning inside (see a very comprehensive analysis here ) and all the aspects I summarized in the Comirnaty document, this is far beyond natural origin. In addition, the virus has further typical cloning signatures in other genes, so it's like a clear passport of: I am born in a lab ….. Fortunately, the coronaviridae are not so dangerous and share a large pattern of cross-reactive proteins, so that before 2020 nearly 50% of the population already was immune against this virus via cross-reactive t cells (published in several manuscripts like Braun J 2020 Nature ; Matheus J 2020 Science 10.1126/science.abd3871; Grifoni 2020 cell l)
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Spike protein from both the virus and the vaccine comes from a laboratory.
Sources for WHO coalition center contracts:
1. The link below was active on the WHO website on 19 January 2025, but has now been deleted. http://www.who.int/collaboratingcentres/information/en/
Fortunately, all content from the link, which extensively describes a WHO coalition center contract, is verbatim preserved in this following document:
Below is the full email correspondence between Michael Lind, unedited.
On 1/17/25 10:30, Thor Svendsen wrote:
Dear Michael Lind
Thank you for your emails and thank you for your understanding so that we can manage to respond.
As promised, I will respond to the emails you have been kind enough to forward.
The emails you sent in the fall of 2024 deal with some of the same topics and therefore I will disregard these.
Basically, I read that there are two things you want us to address.
Theories about whether Coronavirus was man-made in a laboratory in Wuhan.
I will answer this in this email together.
Questions about vaccine safety figures.
I will answer this in a separate email.
The role of the Danish Health Authority in relation to infectious diseases is partly to make recommendations to both the Health Service and the general public on the handling of infectious diseases, including COVID-19. In addition, the Danish Health Authority is responsible for the national preparedness, including for infectious diseases.
Therefore, it is relevant for us to both understand what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess what threats there may be in the future in the form of disease outbreaks.
Your sharing of information about how COVID-19 originated in Wuhan, China is therefore not completely irrelevant to us.
That said, the origin of the virus does not change the recommendations we have made regarding, among other things, containment, infection prevention and vaccination.
Because regardless of how the disease originated, we as a society have a task to minimize the harmful effects of disease outbreaks (pandemics).
And in the vast majority of aspects of managing a pandemic, the origin of the disease is not the main issue. Instead, we focus primarily on how a disease is transmitted and how to prevent transmission, as well as how to treat the disease, etc.
When we have to consider whether COVID-19 was man-made, we rely on the assessments of others, including especially the WHO, because we do not have the opportunity to conduct thorough investigations ourselves in other countries.
WHO's immediate assessment remains that COVID-19 was not man-made. But as I also wrote earlier, we cannot be completely sure.
And of course we also take into account the reports published by the US government on the subject.
Therefore, in our emergency planning, we also consider pandemic scenarios, both with naturally occurring diseases and with biological weapons.
Emergency planning is carried out in collaboration with a number of other authorities. And especially when it comes to security policy issues (such as biological weapons), we cannot be completely transparent about our plans. Therefore, I cannot elaborate further.
Although I can't be completely specific, I hope the above answer is useful.
____________________
Kind regards
Thor Svendsen
Team leader
93 59 64 23
The Danish Medicines Agency
Center for Cross-functional Staff Functions
Central Journal and Information Center
44 88 95 95
The Information Center answers inquiries from both the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Health Authority.
From: Michael Lind < michael@hjulskov.dk > Sent: January 10, 2025 1:56 PM To: Thor Svendsen < THSV@dkma.dk > Subject: Re: Follow-up question to SST: Is the virus naturally occurring or man-made?
Please reply to the following, thank you.
Kind regards
Michael Lind
On Saturday, December 7th, 2024 at 19:26, Michael Lind < michael@hjulskov.dk > wrote:
Dear SST
Regarding points 1 to 6 in the response below that I received from SST on July 24, 2024.
I would like to know if SST would answer exactly the same today?
Do you have anything to add or have you become wiser since July 24?
Have any parliamentary politicians ever asked about your professional assessment regarding whether the virus is naturally occurring or man-made?
I assume that SST is familiar with the studies and expert opinions of scientists who have made strong arguments that the virus is very likely man-made. And with a very small probability, this virus could have arisen naturally. Are you familiar with these expert opinions and have you reviewed them?
I assume that SST has been informed that the USA, through DARPA, funded Gain Of Function research for several years (with Coronavirus in particular), including in the Wuhan laboratory. But I sense from your answer that you feel very, very certain that there could not have been a leak from such a laboratory, but what evidence do you actually have to make a statement about that kind of thing? Do you have any understanding of that?
What exactly should the SST do if (when) you become convinced that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the virus is man-made? Who exactly should be informed of such a suspicion? For example, should the defense, the parliament, or the parliament's security council be informed? Should the press be informed? Should any ministers be informed? Can you withhold that information from the public?
If (when) you acknowledge that the virus was possibly man-made, isn't it very important to have it thoroughly investigated, that is, to have it confirmed or disproven scientifically, because it can effectively be classified as a biological attack on our sovereign state, carried out by another state or entity?
If (when) the virus turns out to be man-made, isn't it extremely important that our politicians and our defense are thoroughly informed about this, as soon as possible, so that they can begin to take action? This immediately suggests that if the virus is man-made, then it is likely that the USA and/or China are involved in the release. There are certainly some countries and allies who are facing an explanation problem and we may have an opportunity to demand financial compensation for the damage they have caused to our country, citizens and industry.
If (when) it turns out to be a laboratory leak, as some experts have long claimed, then it must be extremely important to start investigating the matter as soon as possible whether it was an accident. Or whether it was a planned leak, which must be considered a biological attack on our country. These are two very different political situations. It seems to me that the SST does not really understand the seriousness of this. Do you really understand the seriousness?
Please acknowledge and please answer my questions as soon as possible, thank you.
Kind regards
Michael Lind
On Wednesday, July 24th, 2024 at 12:51, Danish Health Authority Institutional Mailbox < sst@sst.dk > wrote:
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email about the origin of Coronavirus etc.
In this question, we rely on WHO, as we as a Danish authority do not have the opportunity to conduct such extensive studies/investigations ourselves.
Here is our answer:
We do not believe the COVID-19 vaccines are a biological weapon
You can never say anything with 100% certainty, but we consider it to be very, very unlikely.
Yes, we didn't suspect that.
WHO has conducted several studies and the most likely explanation remains the food market in Wuhan.
The most likely explanation is that the virus originated through zoonosis, i.e. not man-made in a laboratory. You can see the WHO's report from their investigation into the origin of the virus here:
No, it cannot be completely ruled out, but we do not consider it likely.
____________________
Kind regards
Thor Svendsen
Team leader
National Board of Health
Information center
9359 6423
The Information Center answers inquiries from both the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Health Authority.
T +45 72 22 74 00
From: Michael Lind Sent: July 22, 2024 3:29 PM To: Thor Svendsen < thsv@dkma.dk >; Danish Health Authority Institutional Mailbox < SST@SST.DK > Subject: Vaccines biological weapons? Virus naturally occurring or man-made?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] This email was sent from an external sender. Please note that it may contain links and attachments that are not safe unless you trust the sender.
Dear SST
1. What is the Danish Health Authority's official response to the claim that
"The Covid vaccines are not a vaccine, but a biological weapon"?
2. Can you with 100% certainty rule out and guarantee the population that these "vaccines" are not a biological weapon?
3. Can you guarantee that no government entity suspects, or has suspected, or has investigated whether these "vaccines" could be biological weapons?
4. Can you say for sure whether Coronavirus originated from a market in Wuhan?
5. Are the variants of Coronavirus that can infect humans naturally occurring OR man-made? Please provide documentation with the relevant source references, please.
6. Can it be ruled out that the Coronavirus that infects humans is the result of "Gain of function" laboratory work?
Best regards, Michael Lind
Kommentarer