Does Her Majesty the Queen in Denmark bless a shift in power from national to global government?
- jearungby
- 1 day ago
- 9 min read
by Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, MD.
How do the WHO and the UN influence politicians and those in power?
The WHO's agenda for the next five years leading up to 2030 was presented in code language at the International One Health Conference in UN City, Copenhagen, held on November 5–6, 2025 (1). Here, "climate evangelists" presented a plan for global control through surveillance, censorship, and digital ID, the so-called One Health agenda.
Well-trained preachers of the WHO and UN messages, such as Dr. Carlos das Neves from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), talk about "The Burning Platform" with convincing illustrations of the catastrophic state of the earth (2). One of these illustrations is shown below.
The conference began with everyone standing up for Her Majesty Queen Mary, who arrived among the standing guests and was shown to a seat in the front row by Denmark's Minister for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Jacob Jensen.
I wonder if Her Majesty the Queen is aware that, in my view, her participation endorses a shift of power from national sovereignty to a global unity government with the WHO at its center, where unelected and unnamed backers in the WHO, the UN, and others enjoy immunity from liability, diplomatic immunity, and tax exemption.
Only selected influential guests and selected journalists were allowed access. So this was not a meeting with democratic representation. Presumably, they did not want any criticism.
Thus, the WHO appears to be influencing politicians and authorities to circumvent democratic processes and follow the WHO's agenda.
The angry man with the tall hat and EU stars hardly represents the European populations, nor does the message represent the democratically expressed wishes of the populations.
At such conferences, policy papers are presented, most of which are prepared in WHO collaboration centers, carried out at universities and similar institutions, paid for by taxpayers but authorized by the WHO.
The WHO has approximately 800 active collaboration centers around the world, in addition to GOARN centers (WHO's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network) and so-called independent institutes, such as the Institute for Future Studies, which in this case has prepared "The Futures Paper," reviewed below (3).
In brief, the WHO's collaboration centers deal with the following topics, among others:
· Training of healthcare personnel: doctors, nurses, and midwives
· Gender identity and sex education in schools
· Preparing health authorities for pandemics
· Instruction of ministries on how to respond in declared emergencies
· Deciding which diagnostic codes may/can be used (ICD system)
Public universities seem to be used for
· Market research
· Preparation of technical manuals
· Establishing toxic limits for chemical substances
· Developing diagnostic tests (PCR/antibody) and preparing vaccines
· "Gain of Function" research (development of dangerous viruses in laboratories - e.g. bird flu)
Read more about WHO collaboration centers (3) in Denmark here.
The Futures Paper. "Health Forward – A Future We Build Together"
Let us delve into one of the WHO's numerous reports (4) on Digital ID and One Health, written specifically for policymakers. It has been prepared with the strategic aim of influencing elected officials to embrace the WHO's political agenda and make it their own.
The report claims to be based on strict scientific principles and evidence
"Grounded in rigorous science, data, and evidence."
However, no research results based on raw data are presented, rather calculation models "anticipating large-scale trends" adapted to the expected scenarios "identifies the main forces affecting health" (5).
The report also purports to be based on a popular desire to "turn the One Health agenda from words into action." However, it is based on selected personal accounts and carefully tailored narratives that have nothing to do with democratic consultation or public debate. This is where Hans Christian Andersen's story of The Emperor's New Clothes comes into its own.
In short, the report combines digital ID, surveillance, and One Health.
The language is generally coded and unclear. When politicians are presented with such a report, it may well result in a feeling of exhaustion and alienation, which reduces the chance that the evidence will be required to be verified.
In cases of uncertainty about evidence, it is the responsibility of the authorities to assist ministers in clarifying the matter. But if these ministries and agencies are in the pocket of the WHO, UN, or similar undemocratic NGOs, then the advice they give will confirm the WHO report. If the press brings the same narrative to the table, politicians may feel that they are following the will of the people, even though this is by no means the case.
The authors of the report do not wish to be named, but the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS), a supposedly independent non-profit think tank, has assisted the WHO in preparing the report. The institute is reportedly not affiliated with any university, governing authority, or cooperative enterprise. However, the connection to the WHO in this case is obvious.
Code language
The report contains selected phrases that are interpreted to the best of my ability as follows:
· "Siloed healthcare systems": National healthcare systems.
· "A decisive shift from reactive, fragmented care to integrated service": Can probably be translated as: A decisive shift from national healthcare systems, which must be dismantled and transformed into a global One Health care system based on cross-registered data obtained via AI algorithms from patients'/people's health records, controlled by the WHO.
· "Skilled infodemic management function": This involves implementing AI algorithms that identify misinformants for the purpose of censorship and punishment.
· "Develop systems and strategies to address information overload": Read: Use AI systems and create a ministry of truth that has exclusive rights to the stories that the population must know and believe.
· "Use existing resources and tools to manage false information, including social listening": Eavesdrop on and monitor citizens' conversations via already established surveillance systems.
· "Detect emerging infodemic signals": Early identification of citizens who do not agree with the official narrative.
· "Implement the appropriate response": Silence the citizen. Exactly how citizens are to be silenced is anyone's guess, but there is a clear connection with Digital ID as access to everything, including personal records, online government data exchange systems (property registration, tenant registration, and public services including healthcare, transportation, etc.). One might suspect that free speech in such a system is punished with blocked access to one's own savings, food, medical treatment, jobs, and more.
· "Build resilience to infodemic risk": Strengthen resistance to/prevent dissenting citizens, scientists, and doctors from communicating with their colleagues, e.g., by preventing visible email addresses for politicians and professionals on websites and blocking selected groups on social media.
· "Health literacy programs for the health workforce": Uniform and controlled information and training for health professionals managed by the WHO, as we already saw during the alleged COVID-19 pandemic. The latest agreement with general practitioners in Denmark appears to be a covert attempt to implement One Health through the back door. Read the consultation response here (6).
· "Alliance with journalists, fact checkers, social media platforms, and educators": Controlling the narratives that reach the public and healthcare professionals so that they do not become skeptical of imposed treatment regimens, such as vaccines.
In short, One Health and the introduction of Digital ID are about monitoring citizens, preventing free speech, controlling who has access to what, restricting personal freedom, and seizing savings and property. It resembles slavery.
Fear scenarios
Below are examples of the doomsday or fear scenarios envisaged in the report, all of which form the basis for a centrally controlled One Health agenda.
Examples of fear scenarios are as follows:
· Climate change: climate shock, including extreme weather events such as floods and extreme heat, causing
· Disease, especially infectious diseases, leading to overuse of antibiotics, resulting in epidemics that cannot be treated with effective antibiotics.
· Antimicrobial resistance and
· Wars.
It must be understood that it is people, perhaps "too many" people, who are causing these extreme climate shocks through their reckless overconsumption. Again, there is no real evidence in the references for these claims, on which future policies are to be based.
One Health and national health systems
According to the report, national health systems are fragmented, reactive, and economically unsustainable. It is claimed that public confidence in national health systems is being tested as public expectations rise.
The WHO offers a one-size-fits-all One Health solution that can be rolled out across national borders. To address the problems mentioned, a decisive shift is needed from reactive, fragmented "siloed" (read: national) care to integrated (read: global) services. Again, the language is unclear, but it is understood that the previous national health systems are inadequate and should be reorganized into a system that connects these "decentralized" health systems based on the alleged global threats.
Central to this transformation is, among other things, the establishment of a central WHO-controlled health corps of general practitioners and other health professionals in the primary sector.
According to the WHO, none of the problems mentioned can be tackled without strong central health systems.
Protecting children and young people from inappropriate influences online
The report recommends monitoring social media using AI algorithms to protect children from harmful influences. "Protecting children and young people from harmful influences"
Here is a passage from the report where the good intentions have been crossed out to better illustrate the skeleton of the agenda: "The faster spread of digital tools, artificial intelligence, and new technologies is guided by human values and based on behavioral and cultural insights. Future-proof systems will invest in inclusive digital competence, ethical data management, and human-centered infrastructure.
In other words, a surveillance society where no one is left unseen. This is hardly about children's safety.
Summary
Strong top-down control is advocated as the solution to these alleged global scenarios mentioned above.
The purpose of the One Health agenda is ostensibly to protect future generations.
The way to achieve this: Digital transformation, a shift from national (siloed care) to common international "integral" health (care) across sectors, which involves digital data sharing and cross-registration at the supranational level.
Digital equity, i.e., uniformity for all rather than equal rights for all, seems to be the goal. Individual considerations seem irrelevant. Adapted systems must be built that can detect early health threats and develop tools for early intervention to prevent threats and anticipate disruptions.
The strategic guidance given to politicians is as follows: Governments and organizations must be bold and secure the workforce needed to build these WHO-managed surveillance systems, as well as implement the necessary (no regret) reforms for data sharing, ostensibly for the common good.
Politicians must therefore find the courage to make decisions that cannot be reversed and that the population is unlikely to support, once they realize the real intentions.
Conclusion
What can be gleaned from the One Health conference in Copenhagen and the WHO's One Health report?
Health policy is being systematically transferred from democratically accountable national governments to a network of supranational organizations, corporate stakeholders, and unelected technocratic bodies operating outside constitutional control.
These unelected technocratic bodies want surveillance, wiretapping, the introduction of comprehensive AI systems and algorithms, as well as digital ID registration of all access to public services, but also banking, shopping, and presumably public transport, property market rental agreements, and more. Total control.
It looks like a global coup.
What most citizens perceive as democratic health governance appears in reality to be a sophisticated system of corporate takeover operating under the guise of international cooperation.
A group calling itself Interest of Justice (IoJ) concludes very clearly on the takeover in the following(7):
"The mechanisms of international health governance have undergone a profound transformation that has systematically separated policy-making from democratic accountability structures, while obscuring this transformation through layers of bureaucratic complexity and technical language.
What we are witnessing is not merely regulatory capture, but rather the establishment of a transnational governance architecture that operates outside national constitutional frameworks.
The World Health Organization, working with the World Economic Forum, pharmaceutical interests, and military-industrial actors, has created a system of "recommendations" that function as binding mandates while avoiding democratic scrutiny.
National governments systematically implement WHO recommendations as if they were binding international legal obligations. When citizens protest against restrictive health measures, government officials routinely deflect responsibility by claiming that they are "merely following WHO guidelines" or "complying with international standards." Conversely, when asked about member states' implementation, WHO officials claim that their recommendations are not binding and that decisions on implementation rest with sovereign nations.
This creates a "perfect accountability vacuum"—a structural arrangement in which no party bears ultimate responsibility for policy outcomes.
The coordinated global response to COVID-19 did not arise through independent national assessment of epidemiological data, but rather through a governance mechanism that operates outside democratic accountability while maintaining the facade of national sovereignty.
The COVID Action Platform, created by Klaus Schwab after a conference call with over 200 business leaders on March 10, 2020 (8), the day before the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, represents the top of this pyramid-shaped power structure! CAP at the pyramid, if you will!
References:
Comments