Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

WHO’S DRIVING THE PANDEMIC EXPRESS?

By Dr David Bell and Emma McArthur | PANDA | September 4, 2022

Sceptics of the growing ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’ (PPR) agenda celebrated recently, heralding a perceived ‘defeat’ of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) controversial amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Although the proposed amendments would have undoubtedly expanded the WHO’s powers, this focus on the WHO reflects a narrow view of global health and the pandemic industry. The WHO is almost a bit-player in a much larger game of public-private partnerships and financial incentives that are driving the pandemic gravy train forward.

While the WHO works in the spotlight, the pandemic industry has been growing for over a decade and its expansion accelerates unabated. Other major players such as the World Bank, coalitions of wealthy nations at the G7 and G20 and their corporate partners work in a world less subject to transparency; a world where the rules are more relaxed, and a conflict of interest receives less scrutiny.

If the global health community is to preserve public health, it must urgently understand the wider process that is underway and take action to stop it. The pandemic express must be halted by the weight of evidence and basic principles of public health.

Funding a global pandemic bureaucracy

“The FIF could be a cornerstone in the construction of a truly global PPR system in the context of the International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, sponsored by the World Health Assembly.” (WHO, 19 April 2022)

The world is being told to fear pandemics. Ballooning socio-economic costs of the COVID-19 crisis are touted as justification for increased focus on PPR funding.

Calls for ‘urgent’ collective action to avert the ‘next’ pandemic are predicated on systemic ‘weaknesses’ supposedly exposed by COVID-19. As the WHO steamed ahead with its push for a new pandemic ‘treaty’ during 2021,  G20 members agreed to establish a Joint Finance & Health Task Force (JFHTF) to ‘enhance the collaboration and global cooperation on issues relating to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’.

A World Bank-WHO report prepared for the G20 joint task force estimates that US$ 31.1 billion will be required annually for future PPR, including US $ 10.5 billion per year in new international financing to support perceived funding gaps in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Surveillance-related activities comprise almost half of this, with US $4.1 billion in new funding required to address perceived gaps in the system.

In public health terms, the funding proposed to expand the global PPR infrastructure is enormous. By contrast, the WHO’s approved biennium programme budget for 2022-2023 averages US $3.4 billion per year. The Global Fund, the main international funder of malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS – which have a combined annual mortality of over 2.5 million – currently dispenses just US $ 4 billion annually for the three diseases combined. Unlike COVID-19, these diseases cause significant mortality in lower income countries and in younger age groups, year in, year out.

In April 2022, the G20 agreed to establish a new ‘financial intermediary fund’ (FIF) housed at the World Bank, to address the US $10.5 billion PPR financing gap. The FIF is intended to build upon existing pandemic funding to ‘strengthen health systems and PPR capacities in low-income and middle-income countries and regions’. The WHO is predicted to be the technical lead, landing them with an assured role irrespective of the outcome of current ‘treaty’ discussions.

The establishment of the fund has proceeded with breathtaking speed, and it was approved on June 30 by the World Bank Board of Executive Directors. A short period of consultation precedes an expected launch in September 2022. To date, donations totalling US $1.3 billion dollars have been pledged by governments, the European Commission and various private and non-government interests, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. The initial areas for the fund are somewhat all-encompassing, including country-level ‘disease surveillance; laboratory systems; emergency communication, coordination and management; critical health workforce capacities; and community engagement’.

In scope, the fund has the appearance of a new ‘World Health Organization’ for pandemics – to add to the existing (and ever-expanding) network of global health organisations such as the WHO; Gavi; the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); and the Global Fund. But is this increased expenditure on PPR justified? Are the escalating socio-economic costs of COVID-19 due to a failure to act by the global health community, as is widely claimed; or are they due to negligent acts of failure by the WHO and global governments, when they discarded previous evidenced-based pandemic guidelines?

COVID-19: failure to act or acts of failure?

In the debate surrounding the growing pandemic industry, much attention is being directed towards the central role of the WHO. This attention is understandable given the WHO’s position as the agency responsible for global public health and its push for a new international pandemic agreement.

However, the WHO’s handling of the response to COVID-19 creates serious doubts about the competency of its leadership and raises questions about whose needs the organisation is serving.

The WHO’s failure to follow its own pre-existing pandemic guidelines by supporting lockdowns, mass-testing, border closures and the multi-billion-dollar COVAX mass-vaccination program, has generated vast revenue for vaccine manufacturers and the biotech industry, whose corporations and investors are major contributors to the WHO. This approach has crippled economies, damaged existing health programs and further entrenched poverty in low-income countries. Decades of progress in children’s health are likely to be undone, together with the destruction of the long-term prospects of tens of millions of children, through loss of education, forced child marriage and malnutrition. In abandoning its principles of equality and community-driven healthcare, the WHO appears to have become a mere pawn in the PPR game, beholden to those with the real power; the entities who are providing its income and who control the resources now being directed to this area.

Corporatizing global public health

Recently established health agencies devoted to vaccination and pandemics, such as Gavi and CEPI, appear to have been highly influential from the beginning. CEPI, is the brainchild of Bill Gates, Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), and others at the pro-lockdown World Economic Forum. Launched at Davos in 2017, CEPI  was created to help drive the market for epidemic vaccines. It is no secret that Bill Gates has major private financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to those of his foundation. This clearly places a question mark over the philanthropic nature of his investments.

CEPI appears to be a forerunner of what the WHO is increasingly becoming – an instrument where individuals and corporations can exert influence and improve returns by hijacking key areas of public health. CEPI’s business model, which involves taxpayers taking most of the financial risk for vaccine research and development whilst big pharma gets all the profits, is notably replicated in the World Bank-WHO report.

Gavi, itself a significant WHO donor that exists solely to increase access to vaccination, is also under direct influence of Bill Gates, via the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation. Gavi’s involvement (alongside CEPI) with the WHO’s COVAX program, which diverted vast resources into COVID-19 mass-vaccination in countries where COVID-19 is a relatively small disease burden, suggests the organisation is tied more strongly to vaccine sales than genuine public health outcomes.

Pandemic funding – ignoring the big picture?

At first glance, increased PPR funding to LMICs may seem a public good. The World Bank-WHO report claims that ‘the frequency and impact of pandemic-prone pathogens are increasing.’ However, this is belied by reality, as the WHO lists only 5 ‘pandemics’ in the past 120 years, with the highest mortality occurring in the 1918-19 H1N1 (‘Spanish’) influenza pandemic, before antibiotics and modern medicine. Apart from COVID-19, the ‘Swine Flu’ outbreak in 2009-10, which killed less people than a normal flu year, is the only ‘pandemic’ in the past 50 years.

Such a myopic focus on pandemic risk will do little to address the most serious causes of illness and death, and it can be expected to make matters worse for people experiencing the most extreme forms of socio-economic disadvantage.

Governments of low-income countries will be ‘incentivised’ to divert resources to PPR related programs, further increasing the growing debt crisis. A more centralised, top-down public health system will lack the flexibility to meet local and regional needs.  Transferring support from higher burden diseases, and drivers of economic growth, has a direct impact on mortality in these countries, particularly for children.

The WHO-World Bank report states that the pillars of the global PPR architecture must be built on the ‘foundational principles of equity, inclusion and solidarity’. As severe pandemics occur less than once per generation, increased spending on PPR in LMICs clearly violates these basic principles as it diverts scarce resources away from areas of regional need, to address the perceived health priorities of wealthier populations. As demonstrated by the damage caused by the COVID-19 response, in both high and low-income countries, the overall harm of resource diversion from areas of greater need is likely to be universal. In failing to address such ‘opportunity costs’, recommendations by the WHO, the World Bank, and other PPR partners cannot be validly based in public health; nor are they a basis for overall societal benefit. .

One thing is certain. Those who will gain from this expanding pandemic gravy train will be those who gained from the response to COVID-19.

The pandemic gravy train – following the money

The new World Bank fund risks compounding existing problems in the global public health system and further compromising the WHO’s autonomy; although it is stated that the WHO will have a central ‘strategic role’, funds will be channelled through the World Bank. In essence, it financially side-steps the accountability measures at the WHO, where questions of relative worth can be raised more easily.

The proposed structure of the FIF will pave the way for organisations with strong ties to pharmaceutical and other biotech industries, such as CEPI and Gavi, to gain even greater influence over global PPR, particularly if they are appointed ‘implementing entities’ – the operational arms that will carry out the FIF’s work program at country, regional and global level.

Although the initial implementing entities for the FIF will be UN agencies, multilateral development banks and the IMF, plans are already underway to accredit these other international health entities. Investments are likely to be heavily skewed towards biotechnological solutions, such as disease surveillance and vaccine development, at the cost of other, more pressing, public health interventions.

Protecting public health rather than private wealth

If the world truly wants to address the systemic weakness exposed by COVID-19, it must first understand that this pandemic gravy train is not new; the foundations for the destruction of community- and country-based global public health began long before COVID-19.

It is unarguable that COVID-19 has proved to be a lucrative cash cow for vaccine manufacturers and the biotech industry. The public-private partnership model that now dominates global health enabled vast resources to be channelled into the pockets of corporate giants, through programs they directly influence, or even run. CEPI’s ‘100 days Mission’ to make ‘safe and effective’ vaccines against ‘viral threats’ within 100 days – to ‘give the world a fighting chance of containing a future outbreak before it spreads to become a global pandemic’ –  is a permit for pharmaceutical companies to appropriate public money on an unprecedented scale, based on their own assessments of risk.

The self-fulfilment of the ‘increasing frequency of pandemic’ prophecy will be ensured by the push for increased disease surveillance – a priority area for the FIF. To quote the World Bank-WHO report:

“COVID-19 highlighted the need to connect surveillance and alert systems into a regional and global network to detect zoonotic transmission events, raise the alarm early to enable a swift public health response, and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures.”

Like many claims being made about COVID-19, this claim has no evidence base – the origins of COVID-19 remain highly controversial and the WHO’s data demonstrate that pandemics are uncommon, whatever their origin. None of the ‘countermeasures’ have been shown to significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19, which is now globally endemic.

Increased surveillance will naturally identify more ‘potentially dangerous pathogens’, as variants of viruses arise constantly in nature. Consequently, the world faces a never-ending game of seek and ye shall find, with never-ending profits for industry. Formerly once per generation, this industry will make ‘pandemics’ a routine part of life, where rapid fire vaccines are mandated for every new disease or variant that arrives.

Ultimately, this new pandemic fund will help to hook low- and middle-income countries into the growing global pandemic bureaucracy. Greater centralisation of public health will do little to address the genuine health needs of people in these countries. If the pandemic gravy train is allowed to keep growing, the poor will get poorer, and people will die in increasing numbers from more prevalent, preventable diseases. The rich will continue to profit, while fuelling the main driver of ill-health in lower income countries – poverty.

Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.

September 6, 2022 - Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment »

  1. ANYONE!
    Anyone taking the JAB or a booster JAB, deserves EVERYTHING they get!
    The world is better off without these CLOWNS.
    It’s not as if they can’t find out that the JAB is the modern ZYKLON B means of getting rid of useless eaters!
    The PFIZER CEO is JEWISH/EDOMITE and his chief scientist is also JEWISH/EDOMITE.
    REMEMBER:
    Haaretz –
    ‘An Eye for an Eye’: The Jews{EDOMITES} Who Sought to Poison Six Million Germans to Avenge the Holocaust
    Historian Dina Porat explores the story of ‘The Avengers,’ some 50 young men and women who planned to poison bread loaves and water supplies distributed to German prisoners after WWII
    Are Jews/Edomites now trying to poison 6,000,000 goyim?
    They slaughter Palestinians every day of the week & steal their homes and lands.
    Check out the other EDOMITES who own pharmaceutical companies!

    DON’T SAY ANTI-SEMITE; SAY ANTI-EDOMITE
    EDOM IS MODERN JEWRY
    EDOX, IDUMEA ( , ‘Ιδονμάια):
    By: Richard Gottheil, M. Seligsohn
    ©2002-2021, JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved
    Table of Contents
    • Biblical Data.
    • Rulers of Edom.
    • Post-Biblical Times.
    • Use of Name.
    Biblical Data.
    Edom is the name which was given to Esau, the first-born son of Isaac, on the day he sold his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage, the reddish color of which gives it its name—”Adom” (Gen. xxv. 30). The country which was subsequently inhabited by Esau and his descendants was called “the field of Edom” (Gen. xxxii. 3, R. V.) or “the land of Edom” (Gen. xxxvi. 16; Num. xxxiii. 37). “Edom” in the Bible is also used as an equivalent for “Edomites,” though the expression “the children of Edom” occurs but once (Ps. cxxxvii. 7). The country had before that been called “Mount Seir” (Gen. xxxii. 4 [Hebr.], xxxvi. 8), from “Seir” the progenitor of the Horites, who lived there previously (Gen. xiv. 6; xxxvi. 20, 21). According to Josephus (“Ant.” i. 18, § 1), the name “Seir” is due to the fact that Esau was hairy (Gen. xxv. 25), but according to Gen. xiv. 6, the mountain was called “Seir” long before Esau’s birth. The boundaries of Edom are very concisely defined: The country stretched along the route followed by the Israelites from the Sinaitic peninsula to Kadesh-barnea, that is, along the east side of the valley of Arabah. Southward it reached as far as Elath, which was the seaport of Edom (Deut. i. 2; ii. 1, 8). On the north of Edom was the territory of Moab (Judges xi. 17, 18; II Kings iii. 8, 9). The boundary between Moab and Edom was the brook Zered (Deut. ii. 13, 14, 18). The ancient capital of Edom was Bozrah (Gen. xxxvi. 33; Isa. xxxiv. 6, lxiii. 1, et at). In the time of Amaziah (838 B.C.), Selah (IIέτρα) was its principal stronghold (II Kings xiv. 7); Elath and Ezion-gaber its seaports (I Kings ix. 26).
    Contrary to the promise of Isaac that Esau’s dwelling would be of the fatness of the earth and of the dew of heaven (Gen. xxvii. 39), Edom was a rocky and calcareous country. Esau is described as a man who subsisted by hunting (Gen. xxv. 27 et passim), as his descendants, the Edomites, did, living amid rocky fastnesses and mountain heights (Jer. xlix. 16; Obad. 3, 4). The name “Mount Seir” or “Mount of Esau” shows that Edom was a mountainous country, and therefore it was called by later writers “Gebalene” (the mountainous).

    RULERS OF EDOM.
    According to the Bible, immediately after Isaac’s death Esau settled in Mount Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 6, 8), where he had lived before (Gen. xxxii. 3). The Edomites soon became powerful enough to extirpate the Horites, the former inhabitants of the country (Dent. ii. 12), whose ways of life they adopted. As among the Horites, each tribe was ruled by a prince or chief ( ), whose position resembled probably that of an Arab sheik (Gen. xxxvi. 15-19, 29-30). Later the Edomites organized themselvesinto a kingdom, and had had eight kings when the first king in Israel began his reign (ib. xxxvi. 31-39). However, a list of chiefs given after that of the kings (ib. xxxvi. 40-43) shows that subordinate chiefs ruled under the sovereignty of the king. In the time of Moses both chiefs and king are mentioned (Ex. xv. 15; Num. xx. 14). When the King of Edom refused to allow the children of Israel to pass through his land on their way to the land of Canaan the Israelites were expressly ordered not to wage war upon the Edomites, but to go round their country (Num. xx. 14-21; Deut. ii. 4-6). Neither did the King of Edom attempt hostilities against the Israelites, though he prepared to resist aggression.
    Nothing further is heard of the Edomites until their defeat by Saul four hundred years later (I Sam. xiv. 47); forty years later David overthrew the Edomites in the “valley of salt,” and his general Joab slew all their males (II Sam. viii. 13, 14; I Kings xi. 15, 16). Hadad, one of the royal family, fled to Egypt, and after David’s death returned and endeavored to excite his countrymen to rebellion; failing in which he went to Syria (ib. xi. 14-22; Josephus, “Ant.” viii. 7, § 6). From that time Edom remained subject to Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects ( : II Sam. viii. 14), and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of Judah. In the time of Jehoshaphat (914 B.C.) a king of Edom is mentioned (II Kings iii. 9, 10, 13, 26), who was probably a Judean appointed by the King of Judah. It is stated further (II Chron. xx. 10-23) that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram, elected a king of its own, and afterward retained its independence (II Kings viii. 20-22; II Chron. xxi. 8). Amaziah attacked the Edomites, and slew 10,000 in battle; 10,000 more being dashed to pieces from the cliffs. Their stronghold, Selah, was taken, but the Israelites were never able to subdue Edom completely (II Kings xiv. 7; II Chron. xxv. 11, 12).

    In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the Edomites took an active part in the plunder of Jerusalem and in the slaughter of the Jews (Ps. cxxxvii. 7; Obad. 11, 13, 14). It is on account of these cruelties that Edom was so violently denounced by the Prophets (Isa. xxxiv. 5-8; Jer. xlix. 7-22; Obad. passim).

    Post-Biblical Times.
    Edom is mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions in the form “Udumi” (u); three of its kings are known from the same source: Ḳaus-malaka at the time of Tiglath-pileser (c. 745), Malik-rammu at the time of Sennacherib (c. 705), and Ḳaus-gabri at the time of Esarhaddon (c. 680). According to the Egyptian inscriptions, the “aduma” at times extended their possessions down as far as the borders of Egypt (Müller, “Asien und Europa,” p. 135). After the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, the Edomites were allowed to settle in southern Palestine. At the same time they were driven by the Nabatæans from Idumea. In southern Palestine they prospered for more than four centuries. Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time (B.C. 163; “Ant.” xii. 8, §§ 1, 6). They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 B.C.), by whom they were forced to observe Jewish rites and laws (ib. xiii. 9, § 1; xiv. 4, § 4). They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans “Idumea” (Mark iii. 8; Ptolemy, “Geography,” v. 16). With Antipater began the Idumean dynasty that ruled over Judea till its conquest by the Romans. Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem 20,000 Idumeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the Zealots who were besieged in the Temple (Josephus, “B. J.” iv. 4, § 5).
    From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people.
    *************************
    Knowing the end from the beginning, the All-Wise Creator was aware that reliable character could only be produced by testing and adversity, even as gold is tried in the fire. So admittedly created opposition – “The Lord hath made all [things] for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4) and again “I make peace and create evil” (Isa. 45:7) (evil is not sin; sin comes in when Law is broken). We do not question His áuthority or wisdom.

    Before Jacob and Esau were born, Lord told Rachel that she would bear progenitors of TWO nations and the “Elder shall serve the Younger;” so enters divinely directed opposition!

    Esau was bold, self-willed and stubborn; Jacob was plastic enough to shaped into the path God laid out him. Of course this aroused envy in Esau when he realised that he had lost Birthright “The days of mourning for father are at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob” (and regain the birthright)! (Gen. 27:41) This threat has never been rescinded; from then onwards Esau and his descendants have continually striven to kill Jacob and his descendants.

    The following extracts will help make this clearer:- Gen. 27:41 – “and Esau hated Jacob”

    Genesis. 36:43 – “he is Esau, the father of the Edomites”

    Numbers. 20:18 – “And Edom said unto him, (Moses) Thou shalt not pass by me, I come out against thee with the sword”

    Genesis. 36:12— “Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bore… Amalek”

    Deuteronomy.25:17— “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye came out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way and smote the hindmost of those behind thee, all (that were) feeble behind thee, when thou (wast) faint and weary; and he feared not God.”

    Exodus. 17:8 – “Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim.”

    Exodus. 17:14,16 — “And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this (for) a memorial in a book and rehearse (it) in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;… the Lord (will have) war with Amalek from generation to generation.”

    Note the continuance, and the importance of this declaration!

    I Samual. 15:1,3— “Samuel also said unto Saul, … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not.”

    I Samual. 15:9 – “But Saul and the people spared Agag…”

    (who was an Edomite)

    I Samual. 15:23 – “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee (Saul) from (being) king.

    II Sam. 8:13-14 – “And David gave (him) a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians its in the valley of salt, (even) 18,000 (men) … and all they of Edom became servants to David.”

    II Kings 8:20, 22 – “In his days (Jehoram) Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah … unto this day”

    Passing on to the captivity of Judah and Benjamin in Babylon, the story of Esther tells us how Haman, the Agagite of Edom, sought to destroy all the Judeans that were throughout the kingdom and only the inspired intervention of Esther forestalled his intention.

    Psalm. 137:7— “… the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem who said, Rase (it), rase (it, even) to the foundations thereof.”

    Following the offer of Cyrus for who-ever was willing and god-fearing to return to the land, 42,370 with 7,200 servants came back. This small company were the descendants of Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi. King Nebuchadnezzar had given name to the united territories of Judah and Benjamin, calling it Judea and occupants Judeans. From this name word JEW is a recent corruption.

    But the returnees (Nehemiah 13: 3) found the land partly occupied by a mixed multitude from Ammon, Moab (not Babylon) including a number of Edomites.

    The Edomites with their numerical superiority became the dominant in the land. The Scriptures refer to a class of persons who were not of Israel nor Judah: they are called “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” and in a number of cases contrasted with Judah and Israel; the following; Isaiah 5:3, 8:141 22:21; Jeremiah 17:25, 35:13; Ezekiel 11:15, 15:67; Zechariah 12:7-10.

    EDOMITES ARE NOT ISRAELITES & HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE LAND OF PALESTINE!

    Like

    Comment by Pip | September 7, 2022 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.