Sun, Nov 26th 2023
Released in October of 2023, this thought-provoking documentary is set within the context of the 175th anniversary of the Swiss Federal Constitution.
Our host interviewer opens the overall topic of discussion by asking Prof. Dr. Andreas Kley an important question. ‘When was the most recent stress-test of the Constitution?’
‘The Corona crisis’, Dr. Kley replies, ‘when the politicians, both in parliament and in the Federal Council, began to interpret the Constitution very unconventionally, proceeding to bend the regulations and do things very differently from what is actually contained in the Constitution’.
SVP (Swiss People’s Party) national councilor Mr. Franz Grüter remembers that shortly after the ‘beginning of the Corona crisis … the national emergency law was put into affect, parliament was sent home and the (spring) session was canceled.’.
This, for Dr. Kley, was ‘democratically a horrific event’ which ‘should never have happened’. He explains that the consequence of this decision was ‘that the body of both chambers was not assembled and therefore had no voice, leaving the government in the lurch’.
For Mr. Lorenz Hess of the Centre party, there doesn’t seem to be a problem. He sees it as having been a decision taken ‘from an epidemiological consideration’ based on the question of whether or not ‘it was clever to have 246 noses in poorly-ventilated rooms over a longer period of time’.
‘The Swiss people had never before been confronted with such measures and restrictions.’ the film narrator states.
Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld claims that ‘There was never any scientific basis which lawfully justified the implementation of emergency law or compulsory measures’.
So why were these measures mandated on the entire population of Switzerland in the first place?
Head of the FOPH’s Communicable Diseases department throughout the first few months of the “Covid crisis” and medical physician, Mr. Daniel Koch, comments that ‘had it not began in China – China with a totalitarian regime, implementing totalitarian measures – many countries, and the world, would have reacted differently’.
‘We do what the other has done because, on the one hand, one can say “I’m not to blame – they were the ones to start doing things that way”, and secondly, one can say “it’s worked there so it should also work for us”’.
Swiss author and journalist, Mr. René Lüchinger, thinks that ‘many of the interventions in the private sphere were unnecessary’.
‘A lot of elderly people died precisely because they lacked social contact’ continues Mr. Lüchinger.
Prof. Dr. med. Pietro Vernazza, who specializes in the study of infectious disease, says that ‘the masks were certainly over-valued.’ and refers to a WHO paper from 2019 which ‘analyses all available evidence and concludes that masks are not a generally effective remedy’. (Possibly referring to this paper)
The case of Sweden is brought up, and physician Anders Tegnell, who, until March 2022, was Sweden’s state epidemiologist, is given the opportunity to explain the very different path that he took. ‘Responsibility was handed to the people.’ he says. And yet ‘cases remained reasonably low, the healthcare system remained running with a high level of quality of care, there were always available beds for any Cov19 case’ and they ‘were never pressured to close down society’.
Centrist politician, Mr Hess, seeks to relativize the differences between Sweden and Switzerland by stating that ‘even though both countries had chosen different strategies, both had arrived at a similar result’. However, while one could say that statistically similarities exist for things like cases and deaths associated with SarsCoV2, it is widely acknowledged that the NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) caused a lot of damage. Surely these damages would have affected nations which mandated NPIs, like Switzerland did, more than nations which didn’t, such as Sweden.
Mr. Daniel Jositsch is an attorney and serves on the Council of States for the SP (Social Democratic Party). He campaigned strongly in favor of the Covid-19 law, and as a guest in the SRF ARENA national broadcast he directed the following statement at those who opposed it: ‘If we had done what you wanted three years ago, half of the population would be dead by now, and we would still be in a pandemic.’
The interviewer asks for the basis for this statement.
His reply: ‘I am no medical professional. That was my assessment of the situation. “Half of the population” was rhetorical … I didn’t mean it in numbers or that 50% is statistically based. I was not in a medical seminar, but a political broadcast called ARENA. Politicians are allowed to exaggerated – that’s known.’
As we continue to watch we learn that ‘information was one-sided, ‘the population had a completely wrong picture of the virus’, and that the mis/disinformation ‘misled people and automatically gave power to the government and the media’.
And in the midst of this era of reigning chaos, the Covid “vaccines” were ‘approved in record time’.
‘The vaccine is effective – safe. It has been rigorously tested like any other vaccine’, Alain Berset – Switzerland’s then Minister of Health – proclaimed to the Swiss people.
The narrator points out, however, that according to ‘the 9th edition of German standard work on infectiology’, published in June 2020, it was already known that ‘numerous questions remain to be clarified about the safety and effectiveness of this new generation of (DNA/RNA) vaccines in humans.’
The Covid certificate would normally have ‘required 300 – 400 articles of law for every industry. Instead the authorization was just given for the Federal Council to implement it.’ says Dr. Kley.
The interviewer asks Mr. Jositsch how the certificate made sense in respect to the non-elderly population, to which he answers that ‘leadership means making decisions when not all information is available’ before abruptly ending the interview.
Mr. Hess is asked to provide the data-based evidence for the claim he made that ‘we are in a new wave because of the unvaccinated’.
He replies: ‘I can tell you that … or rather I cannot tell you. I won’t be able to name all the sources from these years which we consumed here daily, so to speak, as compulsory material.’.
In discussion with Mr. Grüter, the topic of GAVI is brought up in the context of it being registered in Switzerland as a foundation, and therefore both exempt from taxes but also ‘not allowed to engage in commercial business’. However, as the interviewer points out, the GAVI website introduces the visitor to their ‘business model’ which includes the offer for one to invest in the foundation.
SVP politician, Mr. Grüter, says that ‘this is also the problem with the WHO … it shows that such organizations put on a State, or quasi-State, cloak. The WHO has changed massively in the last few years. There are private investors there who have money in the WHO, pursuing personal interests. This at least leaves great doubt, whether commercial interests also play a role in such decisions when declaring a pandemic.’.
‘There is no reckoning’ bemoans Dr. Esfeld, ‘and that makes us vulnerable to another story being constructed to pave the way for something similar to happen once again.’.
The documentary narrator bring us back to the initial consideration: ‘Whether the Federal Constitution, and with it the sovereignty of Switzerland, can endure the next 175 years, depends significantly on how Switzerland protects it’s freedom.’
‘Certainly, only he is free who uses his freedom.’ – Swiss Federal Constitution
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic