Pandemic exercises in Spiez:

Why transparency is now mandatory

WHO exercise in Spiez lab: Commentary calls for transparency, democratic scrutiny and debate on Switzerland’s role in global health policy.

13. august 2025

Dear WIR, thank you very much for this informative report. Where else can I read it? I have some important questions:

Such exercises can fuel fears or be instrumental in legitimizing political agendas  (e.g., greater powers for the WHO).

What should we demand now?

1. Transparency: It must be clear who is leading the exercise, what scenarios will be played out, and how the results will be used. Secrecy breeds distrust.
2. Public orientation in a democracy: such activities must be transparent and the public must be informed about the goals, methods and possible consequences – not only after the fact!

A discussion must be held

How much influence should international organizations (like the WHO) have over Swiss national decisions? Switzerland could take a leading role here by publishing models and recommendations.

Swiss neutrality: As a neutral country, Switzerland must ensure that its infrastructure (such as the Spiez laboratory)  is not used for politically controversial purposes. This includes, for example:

1. Why the Spiez/Swiss laboratory?  Its collaboration with WHO has never been widely and publicly discussed?
   – The WHO uses the laboratory as a reference center for biological risks, especially thanks to its high-security laboratories (BSL-3/4) and expertise in PCR diagnostics and pathogen surveillance.
   – Critical point: WHO funds the Spiez projects, which requires strategic integration. Switzerland provides the infrastructure – but who controls the agenda?
2. Why Switzerland?
   Switzerland’s neutrality and stability make it an ideal location for international research – but also as a political lever thanks to its geopolitical neutrality: the WHO can conduct exercises here without direct influence from major powers (USA, China, Russia). Infrastructure: Spiez is home to one of Europe’s most modern high-security laboratories. Problem: Switzerland is thus becoming a “testing ground” for global pandemic strategies without public consultation.
3. Why doesn’t the public know?
   Secrecy under the guise of “security”: Cooperation with the WHO is sold as “technical cooperation” – without democratic oversight.
   No debate in parliament: Neither the risks nor the contractual obligations (e.g. sharing data with the WHO) are made transparent.
   Media failure: Mainstream media reports uncritically, while alternative sources are denigrated as “conspiracy theorists”.

What should be done now?

1. Demand transparency

Disclosure of all agreements between WHO and Spiez! Clear answers to the question of whether Switzerland is surrendering its sovereignty to WHO  (keyword: 2024 pandemic agreement).

2. Strengthening democratic control

Parliament must hold hearings –  not until after the next crisis. Popular initiatives could demand that pandemic drills be put to a referendum.

3. Allow scientific criticism

Past mistakes in PCR testing need to be addressed – instead of being covered up. Alternative pandemic strategies (e.g. focusing on immunity instead of lockdowns) need to be heard. And remember: the Spiez lab is not an “innocent research institute”, but a strategic actor in the WHO network. Switzerland and its people need to clarify whether they want to be a partner or a vassal in global health policy. And: our country is operating in a democratic vacuum here.

Democratic “minimum standards” are mandatory:

• WHO contracts must be made public  (are there any confidentiality clauses?)
• Who finances what? Are there any compensations?
• Was Spiez chosen because of its neutrality – or because the WHO expects less opposition here than in other countries?
• Does Switzerland’s high-security infrastructure play a role in research that would be politically controversial elsewhere? (e.g. functional capacity research?)
• The PCR test fiasco: an independent assessment of why Spiez’s PCR tests were used as the basis for measurements, despite known sources of error?
• Why has there been no broad parliamentary debate so far – and how can this be ensured:
  a) The Foreign Affairs Committee (APK) and the scientific committees should systematically question WHO cooperation.
  b) Through parliamentary initiatives: A group of National Council members could demand that all WHO projects in Spiez be subject to reporting requirements!
  c) Media relations: Investigative journalists must exert pressure, for example here the WIR association.

Population orientation in democracy

In a democracy, such activities must be transparent and participatory:

Information: The public should be informed about the objectives, methods and possible consequences in advance, not afterwards.
Discussion: The question of how much influence international organisations (such as the WHO) should have on national decisions needs to be discussed democratically. Switzerland could take a leading role here by making models and recommendations public.