Swiss lawyer reveals what awaits us: mandatory 24/7 testing & wastewater monitoring – genome sequencing as a new form of continuous control
WHO regulations changes and revised Swiss Epidemics Act: A comprehensive threat to sovereignty, democracy and fundamental rights
In a detailed and critical edition of the EDU podcast, moderator Anjan Liebrand and Zurich lawyer Philipp Kruse examined current developments in global and national Swiss health policy.
Kruse, who became known for his tireless and selfless educational work during the corona pandemic, analysed the recently enacted changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR) of the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as the planned revision of the Swiss Epidemics Act.
Both developments raise fundamental questions: Are power structures being cemented here that undermine Swiss democracy, violate cantonal sovereignty, and massively restrict personal fundamental rights? Kruse’s answers are sobering – it is a case of a creeping disempowerment of the people and an expansion of authoritarian mechanisms.
Changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR): More power for the WHO
The amendments to the IHR were adopted by the World Health Assembly on June 1, 2024 – under conditions that Kruse describes as anything but democratic.
Legally, they are based on Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, which allows the organization to adopt sanitary and quarantine measures to prevent the spread of disease. The Federal Council downplays these adjustments as minor administrative changes of little consequence.
Kruse vehemently disagrees: The WHO is globally regarded as a setter of gold standards – be it in testing methods such as the PCR test or in the recommendation of measures such as covid-19 vaccinations.
During the pandemic, the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020, and maintained it for over three years. Based on this, almost all countries, including Switzerland (first an “extraordinary situation,” then a “special situation”), declared their own states of emergency.
This enabled sweeping measures over two years: restrictions, mandatory certification, access limitations and massive pressure to get vaccinated.
New instruments of power for the WHO
The changes significantly expand these opportunities for influence:
The Director General’s powers have been expanded:
According to the updated regulations, in addition to the international health emergency, there is now a “pandemic situation.” Even a new subtype of influenza is sufficient to declare an emergency. The WHO chief’s discretionary powers are being massively broadened.
Suggestions for health products:
The WHO is now allowed to suggest relevant products in the pandemic context – including cell- and gene-based therapies such as mRNA vaccines. These suggestions are treated as the gold standard, without any direct obligation.
The still-pending pandemic treaty (Article 8) even stipulates that states should adapt their regulatory standards to approve such products more quickly – often without sufficient testing.
Kruse emphasizes the experimental nature of these substances: To date, double-blind, placebo-controlled long-term studies on the efficacy and safety of covid-19 vaccines are lacking. Nevertheless, the WHO has promoted them extensively, supported by information campaigns and monitoring.
Financing mechanism:
A new article (44 ff.) is intended to help poorer countries procure vaccines. Wealthy states like Switzerland could be forced to make substantial contributions under enormous peer pressure.
Permanent testing readiness:
States should be able to test around the clock (24/7) – using methods such as PCR and genomic sequencing, which have been proven unsuitable for determining infectivity or disease.
Information control and lack of legal oversight
One particularly sensitive issue is information control. Under the heading of “risk communication,” states are supposed to take action against “misinformation and disinformation” – a euphemism for censorship.
This violates freedom of expression, information, and science, as well as the prohibition of censorship (Article 17 of the Swiss Federal Constitution). Personal decisions (e.g., regarding vaccinations) and democratic processes (referendums) suffer when information is suppressed.
Switzerland has raised a reservation, but Kruse sees no real correction: The federal government continues to provide one-sided information and does not openly address the pandemic measures.
The International Health Regulations (IHR) lack legal oversight, accountability, or compensation – the WHO enjoys immunity. Swiss cantons are being disenfranchised, and the principle of subsidiarity is being violated. Despite parliamentary demands for co-determination, the Federal Council has not objected.
The revised Epidemics Act: Cementing the status quo in Switzerland
The draft amendment to the Epidemics Act was presented on November 29, 2023, and the consultation period ended in March 2024. In August 2025, the Federal Council submitted the proposal to Parliament. Debates are planned for 2026, with the amendment coming into force no earlier than 2028.
Kruse criticizes: The law cements past mistakes and expands executive powers.
Key criticisms of the revised Epidemics Act:
Extended emergency powers: The Federal Council can declare a “special situation” as soon as the “risk of infection is increased” – a vague formulation.
Inadequate testing methods: PCR tests and genomic sequencing (e.g. in wastewater) are mandated, even though the Swiss Federal Court (decision 2C_28/2021) clarified that PCR tests cannot detect disease. Wastewater monitoring is to be made mandatory for institutions – Kruse calls this “pure madness” and pure arbitrariness.
Focus on vaccinations: Monitoring vaccination rates, requiring healthcare professionals to administer vaccinations, mandatory vaccinations for at-risk groups. Informed consent is undermined – a violation of the Nuremberg Code and Article 7 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits medical experimentation without full information and free choice, even in emergencies.
Lowering standards: If necessary, vaccinations can be exempted from the approval requirement.
Costs and disempowerment of the cantons: Cantons bear the financial burden (tests, vaccine purchases) but lose powers.
Lack of transparency: Contracts for vaccine purchases remain redacted to this day. There is no improvement in liability or compensation for vaccine victims – almost no victims have received compensation so far.
Ignored criticism and cantonal resistance
Despite thousands of critical responses – including outright rejection from Bern, Ticino, and Obwalden due to violations of cantonal autonomy – the Federal Council has not changed any key points. The consultation process appears to be a mere formality.
The law synchronizes Swiss policy with WHO logic: faster emergency declarations, massive testing, focus on vaccination – without alternatives such as vitamins, exercise or natural therapies.
The planned health agreement with the EU: a loss of sovereignty par excellence
Linked to the Epidemics Act are negotiations on a health agreement within the framework of the EU framework agreements. This would effectively outsource sovereignty: pandemic decisions and approvals (e.g., by the European Medicines Agency) would lie with the EU.
The EU Commission would have more extensive powers than the WHO. Kruse warns that this would undermine democratic processes, similar to the opaque vaccine purchases under Ursula von der Leyen (via SMS with Pfizer). Swiss citizens and authorities would lose all oversight.
Lack of accountability and authoritarian structures
Kruse consistently emphasizes: There is no separation of powers in the area of coronavirus, no legally effective review of measures, tests or vaccinations. Instead, an authoritarian situation is being cemented.
The pandemic response is lacking globally and nationally – despite demands from EDU and others.
Outlook and call to resistance
The parliamentary debates in 2026 and a potential referendum offer opportunities to pull the emergency brake. Kruse and Liebrand call for information and participation: citizens need to be vigilant to protect sovereignty, cantonal rights, fundamental rights, and direct democracy.
Without critical debate, there is a risk of a gradual erosion of power in favour of international organizations and an overpowering executive branch. These developments are a wake-up call: Switzerland is at a crossroads.
yogaesoteric
January 14, 2026