Aletho News


WHO Proposals Could Strip Nations of Their Sovereignty, Create Worldwide Totalitarian State, Expert Warns

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 13, 2023

Secretive negotiations took place this week in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss proposed amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR), considered a binding instrument of international law.

Similar negotiations took place last month for drafting a new WHO pandemic treaty.

While the two are often conflated, the proposed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty represent two separate but related sets of proposals that would fundamentally alter the WHO’s ability to respond to “public health emergencies” throughout the world — and, critics warn, significantly strip nations of their sovereignty.

According to author and researcher James Roguski, these two proposals would transform the WHO from an advisory organization to a global governing body whose policies would be legally binding.

They also would greatly expand the scope and reach of the IHR, institute a system of global health certificates and “passports” and allow the WHO to mandate medical examinations, quarantine and treatment.

Roguski said the proposed documents would give the WHO power over the means of production during a declared pandemic, call for the development of IHR infrastructure at “points of entry” (such as national borders), redirect billions of dollars to the “Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex” and remove mention of “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said the proposed documents may also contravene international law.

Boyle, author of several international law textbooks and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, recently spoke with The Defender about the dangers — and potential illegality — of these two proposed documents

Other prominent analysts also sounded the alarm.

Proposals would create ‘worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state’

Meeting in Geneva between Jan. 9-13, the WHO’s IHR Review Committee worked to develop “technical recommendations to the [WHO’s] Director-General on amendments proposed by State Parties to the IHR,” according to a WHO document.

The IHR was first enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of SARS-CoV-1, and took effect in 2007. They constitute one of only two legally binding treaties the WHO has achieved since its inception in 1948 — the other being the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

As previously reported by The Defender, the IHR framework already allows the WHO director-general to declare a public health emergency in any country, without the consent of that country’s government, though the framework requires the two sides to first attempt to reach an agreement.

According to the same WHO document, the recommendations of the IHR Review Committee and the member states’ Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR) will be reported to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus by mid-January, in the leadup to the WHO’s 76th World Health Assembly in late May.

Boyle said he questioned the legality of the above documents, citing for instance the fact that “the proposed WHO treaty violates the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” which was ratified in 1969, and which Boyle described as “the international law of treaties for every state in the world.”

Boyle explained the difference between the latest pandemic treaty and IHR proposals. “The WHO treaty would set up a separate international organization, whereas the proposed regulations would work within the context of the WHO we have today.”

However, he said, “Having read through both of them, it’s a distinction without a difference.” He explained:

“Either one or both will set up a worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state under the control of Tedros and the WHO, which are basically a front organization for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Tony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and the Chinese Communist government that pays a good chunk of their bills.

“Either they’ll get the regulations or they’ll get the treaty, but both are existentially dangerous. These are truly dangerous, existentially dangerous and insidious documents.”

Boyle, who has written extensively on international law and argued cases on behalf of Palestine and Bosnia in the International Court of Justice, told The Defender he has “never read treaties and draft international organizations that are so completely totalitarian as the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty,” adding:

“Both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty, as far as I can tell from reading them, are specifically designed to circumvent national, state and local government authorities when it comes to pandemics, the treatment for pandemics and also including in there, vaccines.”

Talks for both the proposed pandemic treaty and the proposed IHR amendments appear to follow a similar timeline, in order to be submitted for consideration during the WHO’s World Health Assembly May 21-30.

“It’s clear to me they are preparing both the regulations and the treaty for adoption by the World Health Assembly in May of 2023,” Boyle said. “That’s where we stand right now as I see it.”

According to the WHO, the International Negotiating Body (INB) working on the Pandemic Treaty will present a “progress report” at the May meeting, with a view toward presenting its “final outcome” to the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.

Boyle: proposed legally-binding pandemic treaty violates international law

Commenting on the pandemic treaty, Tedros said, “The lessons of the pandemic must not go unlearned.” He described the current “conceptual zero draft” of the treaty as “a true reflection of the aspirations for a different paradigm for strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.”

Roguski, in his analysis of the “Pandemic Treaty,” warned that it will create a “legally binding framework convention that would hand over enormous additional, legally binding authority to the WHO.”

The WHO’s 194 member states would, in other words, “agree to hand over their national sovereignty to the WHO.” This would “dramatically expand the role of the WHO,” by including an “entirely new bureaucracy,” the “Conference of the Parties,” which would include not just member states but “relevant stakeholders.”

This new bureaucracy, according to Roguski, would “be empowered to analyze social media to identify misinformation and disinformation in order to counter it with their own propaganda.”

The WHO currently partners with numerous such organizations, such as “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard, for these purposes.

Roguski said the pandemic treaty also would speed up the approval process for drugs and injectables, provide support for gain-of-function research, develop a “Global Review Mechanism” to oversee national health systems, implement the concept of “One Health,” and increase funding for so-called “tabletop exercises” or “simulations.”

One Health,” a brainchild of the WHO, is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment” that “mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities” and “is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In turn, “tabletop exercises” and “simulations” such as “Event 201,” were remarkably prescient in “predicting” the COVID-19 and monkeypox outbreaks before they actually occurred.

Roguski said the pandemic treaty would provide a structure to redirect massive amounts of money “via crony capitalism to corporations that profit from the declarations of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern” (‘pandemics’) and “the fear-mongering that naturally follows such emergency declarations.”

Boyle warned that the treaty and proposed IHR regulations go even further. “The WHO, which is a rotten, corrupt, criminal, despicable organization, will be able to issue orders going down the pike to your primary care physician on how you should be treated in the event they proclaim a pandemic.”

Moreover, Boyle said, the pandemic treaty would be unlike many other international agreements in that it would come into immediate effect. He told The Defender :

“If you read the WHO Treaty, at the very end, it says quite clearly that it will come into effect immediately upon signature.

“That violates the normal processes for ratification of treaties internationally under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also under the United States Constitution, requiring the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the terms of the treaty by two-thirds vote.”

Indeed, Article 32 of the proposed treaty regarding its “Provisional application” states:

“The [treaty] may be applied provisionally by a Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depository in writing at the time of signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession.

“Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

“Whoever drafted that knew exactly what they were doing to bring it into force immediately upon signature,” said Boyle. “Assuming the World Health Assembly adopts the treaty in May, Biden can just order Fauci or whoever his representative is there to sign the treaty, and it will immediately come into effect on a provisional basis,” he added.

“I don’t know, in any of my extensive studies of international treaties, let alone treaties setting up international organizations, of any that has a provision like that in it,” said Boyle. “It’s completely insidious.”

Proposed amendments to IHR described as a WHO ‘power grab’

According to Roguski, who said the WHO is “attempting a power grab,” the proposed amendments to the IHR may be even more concerning than the pandemic treaty.

Roguski wrote that while he believes the pandemic treaty is “an important issue,” he also thinks it is “functioning as a decoy that is designed to distract people from the much larger and more immediate threat to our rights and freedoms, which are the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.”

The IHR Review Committee working on the proposed amendments “began its work on 6 October 2022,” according to a WHO document, and has convened five times since then, including this week’s meetings in Geneva. Access to the meetings was prohibited for the unvaccinated.

The final proposals of the IHR Review Committee and the WGIHR will be presented to Tedros in mid-January and to the World Health Assembly in May. According to Roguski, “If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.”

As a result, Roguski said, compared to the proposed pandemic treaty, “The amendments to the International Health Regulations are a much more immediate and direct threat to the sovereignty of every nation and the rights and freedoms of every person on earth.”

According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would seek to remove 3 very important aspects of the existing regulations,” including “removing respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” from the text of the IHR, changing the IHR from “non-binding” to “legally binding” and obligating nations to “assist” other nations.

“Essentially, the WHO’s Emergency Committee would be given the power to overrule actions taken by sovereign nations,” Roguski said.

According to Boyle, similarly to the pandemic treaty, “again, Biden can instruct his representative in May, assuming they adopt the regulations, to sign the regulations. And then, the Biden administration will treat that as a binding international agreement, just like they did with the 2005 regulations,” referring to the original IHR ratified that year.

He added:

“Those [the 2005 IHR] were signed and the U.S. State Department at that time considered them to be a legally binding international executive agreement that they list in the official State Department publication, ‘Treaties in Force.’

“In other words, they treat the 2005 regulations as if they were a treaty that never received the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and therefore the supreme law of the land under Article 6 of the United States Constitution that would be binding upon all state and local governments here in the United States, even if they are resisting, the IHR regulations or the WHO treaty.”

According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would implement a great number of changes that everyone should absolutely disagree with.”

These changes include “dramatically expand[ing] the scope of the International Health Regulations from dealing with actual risks to dealing with anything that had the potential to be a risk to public health,” which Roguski said “would open up the doors wide to massive abuse beyond anything we have seen over the past three years.”

The proposed amendments also would shift the WHO’s focus “away from the health of real people” to “place primary preference upon the resilience of health care systems,” and would establish a “National Competent Authority” that “would be given great power to implement the obligations under these regulations,” Roguski said.

If the amendments come to pass, Roguski said, “The WHO will no longer need to consult any sovereign nation in which an event may or may not be occurring within that nation before declaring that there is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern within the borders of that nation.”

“Intermediate Public Health Alert[s],” “Public Health Emergenc[ies] of Regional Concern” and “World Alert and Response Notice[s]” could also be declared by the WHO’s director general, while the WHO would be recognized “as the guidance and coordinating authority during international emergencies.”

During such real or “potential” emergencies, the amendments would empower the WHO to mandate a variety of policies globally, which would be legally binding on member nations.

These policies could include requiring medical examinations or proof of such exams, requiring proof of vaccination, refusing travel, implementing quarantine and contact tracing or requiring travelers to furnish health declarations, to fill out passenger locator forms and to carry digital global health certificates.

“Competent health authorities” would also be empowered to commandeer aircraft and ships, while surveillance networks to “quickly detect public health events” within member nations would also be set up, as per the proposed amendments.

The WHO would also be empowered to be involved in the drafting of national health legislation.

The proposed amendments would give the WHO the power to develop an “Allocation Plan,” allowing it to commandeer the means of production of pharmaceuticals and other items during an “emergency,” and would oblige developed nations to provide “assistance” to developing nations.

“The proposed amendments … would facilitate digital access to everyone’s private health records,” Roguski said, and similar to the proposals in the pandemic treaty, would “also facilitate the censorship of any differing opinions under the guise of mis-information or dis-information.”

Roguski said the proposals are being made despite a “lack of input from the general public” by “unknown and unaccountable delegates” using vague and “undefined terminology” and vague criteria “by which to measure preparedness.”

He said the proposals would “trample our rights and restrict our freedoms,” including the right to privacy, to choose or refuse treatment, to express one’s opinions, to protect one’s children, to be with family and friends and to be free from discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of one’s vaccination status.

“The finality of decisions made by the Emergency Committee” foreseen by the amendments “would be a direct attack on national sovereignty,” Roguski said.

How did we get here?

According to the WHO, the members of the INB — during a meeting in Geneva July 18-21, 2022 — reached a “consensus,” agreeing that any new “convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” would be “legally binding” on member states.

For Boyle, this is the WHO’s response to the “enormous opposition” to the COVID-19-related restrictions of the past three years. He told The Defender :

“As far as I can figure out what happened here was this: As you know, there has been enormous opposition here in the United States [against] these totalitarian edicts coming out, and this was under both Trump and Biden.

“These totalitarian edicts coming out of the federal government, the White House, the CDC, everyone else on this pandemic and also the vaccine mandates, there’s enormous grassroots opposition. And so, as far as I can tell what happened, this culminated in Trump pulling us out of the WHO, which I think was a correct decision.

“So you know, I’m a political independent. I’m just looking at this subjectively. Now, what happened was then, when Biden came to power, his top scientific advisor was Tony Fauci. So Biden put us back into the WHO and then appointed Fauci as the U.S. representative on the Executive Committee of the WHO.

“That’s where both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty come from: to circumvent the enormous grassroots opposition to the handling of the edicts coming out of the federal government with respect to the pandemic and the vaccine mandates.”

Boyle explained what “legally binding” would mean in this context, if either set of proposals comes to pass:

“What will happen is the WHO will come up with an order, this new organization will come up with an order that they will then send to Washington, D.C., whereupon the Biden administration will enforce it as a binding international obligation of the United States of America under Article 6 of the United States Constitution, and it will usurp the state and local health authorities, who generally have constitutional authority to deal with public health under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“The Biden administration will then argue that either the regulations or the treaty will usurp the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and state and local health authorities, governors, attorney generals, public health authorities will have to obey [any] order coming out of the WHO.”

Referring to his remarks about the illegality of the two proposals under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Boyle clarified that under Article 18 of the convention, “a treaty does not come into force when signed. When the state has signed the treaty, it is only obligated to act in a manner that does not defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”

Article 18 states:

“A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when: (a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.”

According to Boyle a state’s signature “does not provisionally bring the treaty into force.”

Boyle also described the proposals as “a massive power grab by Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and Tedros.”

He added:

“I’ve never seen anything like this in any of my research, writing, teaching, litigating international organizations going back to the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, up until today.”

Roguski and Boyle argued that the U.S. — and other countries — should exit the WHO. Boyle told The Defender :

“I’m not a supporter of President Trump, but I think we have to go back to pulling out of the WHO right away. In the last session of Congress, there was legislation introduced pulling us out of the WHO. We need that legislation reintroduced immediately, in this new session of Congress.

“I think the House of Representatives has to make it clear that they object, that there’s no way they are going to go along with any orders coming out of the WHO, the World Health Assembly [WHA] or this new international pandemic organization, and that they have the power of the purse and that they will defund anything related to the WHO.”

However, for Boyle, this is not just a matter for federal lawmakers. “We need, certainly, the state governments here in the United States to take the position that they will not comply with any decisions coming out of the WHO, the WHA or this new international pandemic organization,” adding that he recently made such recommendations to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

“We need that replicated all over the United States, on a state-by-state basis,” said Boyle, “and I think we need it right away because they’re trying to rush through these WHO regulations and the [pandemic] treaty for the WHO assembly in May.”

Close cooperation with Gates Foundation, others

According to the WHO, the INB discussions are taking place not just among all member states, but also with “relevant stakeholders” listed in document A/INB/2/4.

Who are these stakeholders? One example is GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, listed as an “Observer” alongside the Holy See (Vatican), Palestine and the Red Cross.

As previously reported by The DefenderGAVI proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI describes its core partnership with various international organizations, including names that are by now familiar: the WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, and with the ID2020 Alliance, which supports the implementation of “vaccine passports.”

ID2020’s founding members include the Gates Foundation, Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation.

In turn, the Gates Foundation, alongside Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Air Transport Association (IATA — think “vaccine passports”) and the Population Council — founded by John D. Rockefeller and known for its “population control” initiatives — are listed in the same WHO document under Annex C as “non-state actors in official relations with WHO.”

“Other stakeholders, as decided by the INB, invited to attend [and] speak at open sessions of meetings of the INB [and] provide inputs to the INB” include IATA, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Bank Group.

Open Philanthropy” and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and “nonprofit consumer advocacy organization” Public Citizen, are among the groups listed in the WHO document as “other stakeholders” that can “provide inputs to the INB,” alongside two Russian state-affiliated health organizations.

Lead U.S. negotiator for the pandemic treaty, Pamela Hamamoto — previously an investment banker with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch — “helped coordinate early responses to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2015 … and a strengthened WHO response.”

Hamamoto also was “instrumental in the 2014 launch of the Global Health Security Agenda” (GHSA), a “global effort … focused on strengthening the world’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats,” spearheaded by the CDC and founded with the purpose of accelerating the IHR passed in 2005.

The World Bank, the Global Health Security Consortium, the Private Sector Roundtable and the WHO are part of the GHSA’s steering groupAstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, are members of the Private Sector Roundtable.

Advising the GHSA is the “GHSA Consortium,” which includes within its steering committee the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (which hosted Event 201) and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).

As previously reported by The Defender, the NTI organized a “tabletop exercise” that predicted a “fictional” May 2022 monkeypox outbreak with remarkable accuracy. “Open Philanthropy” funded the final report for this exercise.

General members of the GHSA Consortium include the Gates Foundation, Amazon Web Services (which maintained COVID-19 immunization databases for the CDC), Boston University and the institution’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL), and Emergent BioSolutions.

As previously reported by The Defender, NEIDL is where “a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus” was recently developed.

Emergent BioSolutions, which produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, is connected to the 2001 Dark Winter anthrax simulation.

In June 2022, with the support of the U.S., Italy (current chair of the GHSA) and then-G20 president Indonesia, the World Bank announced the launch of a $1 billion “pandemic fund.”

In November 2022, Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, at the G20 meeting held in Bali, pushed for an international “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” to enable the public to “move around.” Indonesia is also a permanent member of the GHSA’s steering group.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 13, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Atrocities Aren’t Accidents

Three years on, we have enough information on the pandemic architects to send them to prison. So why are they still getting away with murder?

Helen of desTroy | January 5, 2023

The information barrier separating establishment media consumers from pandemic heretics who do their own research is unmistakably crumbling. Every day, more doctors and more scientific papers are admitting that the mRNA gene therapy injections they once championed so fervently not only don’t protect the user from catching Covid-19 but may actually destroy their immune system, stop their hearts, or cause sudden death. Statisticians have incontrovertible proof of excess deaths in previously-healthy young people far outstripping any rise in mortality during the supposed height of the pandemic – or any other time in recent history, for that matter. The utterly avoidable carnage is such that even if we didn’t have an extensive psychological profile of the culprits, there would be no doubt it was premeditated and deliberate. And since those scumbags couldn’t resist leaving behind the usual array of PowerPoint slideshows, tabletop pandemic simulations, woefully fictionalized clinical trial data, and other criminal detritus, prosecution should be a breeze. After three years, we know more than ever about this criminal enterprise and the people responsible – certainly enough to make sure they never breathe free air again.

Except Anthony Fauci, architect of the steepest decline in life expectancy in American history, was allowed to gracefully bow out after 40 years bilking the taxpayer out of the highest salary in Washington as director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, his entire bloodstained career a case study in how to get away with murder. Bill Gates, not two years after threatening that the next pandemic would “get our attention,” has just conducted another tabletop pandemic simulation, this time whipping up an enterovirus that kills 15 million children, only to whine that no one trusts his miracle shots anymore. The WHO has designated “anti-vaxxers” public enemy number one, even accusing them of murder, while the New Yorker calls for permanent mask mandates and a coterie of washed-up celebrities insist the unvaccinated belong in jail. This is not the behavior of a criminal gang caught red-handed. What happened to “knowledge is power”? Why has humanity gone limp when it should be dealing the killing blow to these psychopaths and those giving them their marching orders?

As moribund as human civilization seemed in 2020, the world at the start of 2023 is practically unrecognizable. No longer mocking the TV-gullible in their fear-forts built of toilet paper and canned beans, we can’t even afford to stockpile such luxury objects – but religiously defend our penury as a necessary sacrifice, enduring cold showers so that a Nazi fetishist can climb into bed with BlackRock. A “democracy” whose citizens knew the system was rigged has become an indoctrination center where questioning that rigging is seen as a terrorism threat. A language once merely fraught with cliches and self-marginalizing semantic boobytraps has become one whose most loaded terms change definitions from day to day, where raising questions about why the linguistic ground is constantly shifting beneath one’s feet is dismissed as irrational.

“how do I work this darn memory-hole again?”

But it has always been like this, we’re reassured by the faceless “fact-checkers” who have formed an impenetrable biofilm over social media, nudging us into a homogenous future while rewriting the recent past to remove any stray genocide. If words are truly violence as so many of them insist, their body count surely rivals that of Fauci and his white-coated army. The word “gaslight,” overused to the point of meaninglessness, is no longer sufficient to describe the firehose of lies (lie-hose?), often presented directly alongside conflicting information, that assaults us when we turn on our computers or unlock our phones. But then, the narrative managers’ aim is not necessarily persuasion in the traditional sense but to infect the target’s perception and processing centers so that they begin to doubt their own reality, gradually substituting elements of the establishment’s fantasy, sacrificing those cumbersome human instincts for the reassurance of being a Team Player on the winning team. No one can withstand the lie-hose forever – there’s a reason you and everyone you know look like you’ve aged 10 years since you first heard the word “coronavirus” – but if it hasn’t drained you of your sanity yet, you may want to see about deprogramming your loved ones from the Cult of Corona. We’re going to need everyone we can get.

Sorry, Not Sorry

Not long ago, ruling class rag the Atlantic published what was supposed to be a plea for ‘pandemic amnesty,’ an apparent white flag bylined by economist Emily Oster that argued that because the government’s devastating policies had been adopted with good intentions, and no one could have possibly guessed what the results would be, it was important for those on all sides of the issue to forgive and move on. It was the equivalent of a typewritten letter from Genghis Khan breezily explaining that you shouldn’t be mad that his Golden Horde razed your village to the ground, slaughtered your livestock and had their way with your daughters, he just thought buildings looked better on fire, and by the way could those girls maybe smile more? – but forgiving you for not having a four-course dinner ready to accompany his post-coital cigarette. It has been clear since the scale of the mRNA bioweapon’s harms became apparent that the architects of the Covid-19 experiment would have to either play dumb (“We didn’t know!”) or go full Nuremberg (“Just following orders!”) if they hoped to avoid a public execution, but this – suggesting those responsible for the most horrific crime against humanity in recorded history should be essentially forgiven for their crimes with the excuse that they didn’t know better while their victims are encouraged to beg for mercy from their tormentors (and presumably sign away the right to demand reparations) was a bold strategy indeed. Unsurprisingly, Oster was digitally torn limb from limb for her trouble, and some people even called the public display of rage a victory, believing the outpouring of powerful emotions had spooked the predators. But others desperately reached for what they were sure was an olive branch this time, falling for the same promise that led them first to submit to solitary confinement, then to wearing a bacteria-laden rag around their face, and ultimately to having themselves injected repeatedly with an experimental gene therapy: the promise that things could, if they just obeyed enough rules, go “back to normal.”

One had to be willfully delusional to read sincerity in Oster’s plea for a small-r reset, however, given that her recommendations included vaccine mandates for schoolchildren and more mRNA shots for everyone. She left “willful purveyors of misinformation” out of her to-forgive list, perhaps understanding that an ideological in-group can’t rely on the usual surface markers of difference to choose an outgroup when it comes time to make sacrifices. A person seeking amnesty for their misdeeds generally starts by admitting they’ve done something wrong. They typically stop committing the crime they’re hoping to be forgiven for, or at least try not to be balls-deep in another while begging to be spared the consequences of the last. A show of contrition, if not full repentance, is obligatory, and one certainly doesn’t blame the victim for bleeding on the killer’s Sunday best. Clearly, things work differently in the New Normal.

The predators who shredded the Nuremberg Codes by enrolling humanity in this unlicensed clinical trial against our will have, if anything, doubled down on their criminality since relaxing the mandates and admitting the shots can’t stop the spread. Not content with eliminating religious and medical exemptions to vaccine mandates, California passed a law allowing the state to strip doctors of their medical licenses for sharing “misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” taking the censorship of legitimate information that has been de rigueur under the Big Tech-Big Brother collusion propping up the pandemic narrative to the next level and injecting the corporate-state even further into the once-inviolable doctor-patient relationship. Many universities, including Yale, still require students to be not only vaxxed but boosted, despite the growing body of evidence proving the risks far outweigh any benefits the shots might provide to young people. Governments, health authorities, even sites like WebMD full-throatedly champion a complete course of mRNA injections for everyone down to the last 6-month-old child. The narrative managers who refused to acknowledge the shots were anything other than safe and effective even as hundreds of thousands of bodies piled up outside their doors only just last month admitted the link between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis was even being (belatedly) studied – and even then insisted any cases were likely due to Covid-19, that the rare vaccine-linked case was mild, and that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – did not lead to cardiac-related death. Far from closing the book on this disastrous interlude, the Rockefeller Foundation announced less than six months ago that it was expanding its questionably-titled Mercury Project – another experiment undertaken without informed consent, this time with a focus on manipulating internet use behavior – to increase vaccine uptake by studying “how mis- and disinformation spreads” around the world, presumably in order to spread some of its own. Not to be outdone, Stanford University is offering an online course on how to con people into getting vaccinated. The Biden administration recently ordered tens of millions more doses of bivalent Moderna boosters, the mRNA component manufactured special-order by CIA-funded firm Resilience, even though few Americans are eager to play side-effect roulette with a concoction tested on eight mice. But these sociopaths never tire. And not only are they not finished with their game, they’re barely getting started.

Trust us, we’re scientists

The Gates Foundation – along with the Johns Hopkins Global Center for Health Security and its other usual partners – wasted no time smothering the fantasy of a Covid armistice in its cradle, simulating another deadly pandemic almost exactly three years after Event 201 – and two years after a smirking Bill, chiding world governments for failing to lavish sufficient resources on Covid-19, promised “pandemic two” would “get attention next time”. There is nothing subtle about “Catastrophic Contagion,” which stars an improbably named pathogen called Severe Epidemic Enterovirus Respiratory Syndrome (SEERS), a virus which targets the young (15 million of its 20 million casualties are children) and leaves those it doesn’t kill with paralysis and brain damage. While SEERS hails from a fictionalized country sitting on Venezuela’s land (Johns Hopkins goons are not subtle in their foreign policy ambitions), its participants are mostly African leaders who read their stilted lines (“no one is safe until we all are safe!”) to the approving nods of noticeably-paler health bureaucrats (Gates, red-faced WHO pearl-clutcher Mike Ryan, and Johns Hopkins’ own Tom Inglesby) running the exercise. Those who believe these simulations merely put health officials through their paces to ensure optimal performance when faced with the real thing may be surprised how little discussion of saving lives actually takes place, or how much the “mistakes” made during the exercises are meticulously replicated when they go live. The redistribution of wealth (from the hoi polloi to the parasite class) and the need for behavioral controls dominate the highlight reels, and October’s was an especially naked advertisement for the WHO’s latest power grab, which combines a sweeping new global “pandemic treaty” complete with legally-binding controls on speech and movement that supersede national laws with a proposed update to the International Health Regulations, which govern public health rule-making.

Video excerpts from Catastrophic Contagion reveal it doubled down on the need to “trust” narrative managers, corporations, and government institutions, the importance of holding ever more pandemic simulations (a pet project of Gates, whose eponymous foundation and Gavi Vaccine Alliance are shoo-ins for the lucrative contracts to host and run these “germ games”), and the need to silence dissident voices – all key planks of the global pandemic treaty, an ambitious power-grabbing agreement that will not only supersede individual countries’ laws but set up and fund (through the generous contributions of member nations) a transnational Ministry of Truth to determine what information can be shared during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (a term that lost its last shred of meaning earlier this year when WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ignored the advice of his expert panel to declare monkeypox a PHEIC, despite its spread being almost exclusively limited to ultra-promiscuous gay men). Because PHEICs don’t expire – of the six declared since the classification was adopted in 2005, three are still in effect – that ministry would retain control of information indefinitely.

The ruling class have wasted no time in implementing the Johns Hopkins simulation’s conclusions, which play on longstanding anxieties regarding the seemingly inexorable decline of trust in authority in the age of the internet. Leading the crusade to revive trust in corporations – specifically social media, which suffered a fatal blow to its credibility when it emerged in September that all the major platforms were holding weekly meetings with at least 12 US government agencies and taking detailed orders from them on who and what to censor – is Elon Musk, hailed as a real-life Iron Man by people who should know better because he allowed a handful of journalists (and Bari Weiss) to post screenshots of what may or may not be internal Twitter communications that appear to confirm what was public knowledge three months ago. The effort to bring back trust in government – in the US at least – is in the sweaty hands of the Republican Party, who have promised to grill Fauci to within an inch of his life – now that he’s retired and can plead the Fifth until he dies in his sleep of old age. Taking on the rehabilitation of journalism is Tucker Carlson, who on the day Biden was supposed to (and predictably declined to) declassify the remaining government documents regarding the JFK assassination shared with his audience the blindingly obvious fact that the CIA was “involved” in Kennedy’s murder. And redeeming science is Andrew Huff, the Eco-Health Alliance whistleblower who blames the pandemic on sloppy containment procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – even though he admits he quit working at the controversial facility in 2016, years before the fatal “lab leak” supposedly took place – muddying the waters of guilt and blame in a way that would make Emily Oster proud. Limited hangouts all, but the respite they provide from the usual lie-hose waterboarding sessions means they will be embraced, even trusted.

Fool me once…

Any suggestion that bad pandemic policies were honest mistakes born of good intentions is frankly offensive given the amount of evidence to the contrary. Because we did know what would happen when the experimental conditions were imposed – that was the point of all those tabletop simulations. Face masks were known to be worse than useless for preventing respiratory illness, and only an absolute psycho would put one on a toddler who needs to see the mouths of his fellow humans to learn how to do things like smile or speak. There was no scientific evidence to support “social distancing,” and if you’d suggested locking Great-Aunt Imelda up alone in a plexiglas box with nothing but a TV and a grab-bag of midazolam and morphine to keep her company through her last days, you’d have been rightfully slapped. The harms of lockdowns were well-understood – yet like the rest of the medical knowledge held by human civilization in 2019, it supposedly deserted us in our hour of need. Scientists have known for years that loneliness poses a bigger risk to health than even obesity or smoking, that the elderly are in the greatest danger of becoming critically lonely, that vitamin D – absorbed from sunlight – is key to recovery from respiratory illness. But pointing any of that out got you exiled from polite society as a homicidal anti-science granny-killing lunatic washing your horse paste down with Trump-brand bleach. It clearly wasn’t a mistake that every “public health tip” the CDC issued was harmful and out of step with medical best practices. Had that been the case, there would have been at least a few “mistakes” on the side of wellness. Yet no one wanted to open the Pandora’s box of “the government is working against my interests” – certainly not when Chris Cuomo had just told them it was time to “sacrifice the me to the we,” the Year of the Team Player. Instead, putting aside everything they thought they knew about how to take care of their physical and mental health, they embraced the CDC’s strict limits on movement and association as a source of security – proof that Big Brother loved them and wanted them to be happy, even while he was quietly killing their grandparents to free up pension obligations.

Three years later, the standard response to the mounting evidence of permanent damage by mRNA shots is often anger – how could they?! – but rarely surprise. Given that Big Pharma’s track record is littered with corpses, no successful coronavirus vaccine has ever actually been manufactured despite decades of trying, and every other “public health intervention” of the pandemic has been based in part or in whole on lies, many of which had serious consequences for the rule-obeyers, it would have been truly shocking if these products were safe. As for “effective,” we knew by the end of 2020 that neither the Pfizer nor Moderna jab could stop transmission of the virus, but also that they hadn’t tried to. The CDC tried to claim otherwise, vaccine mandates were hastily adopted based on the “misunderstanding,” and millions of people lined up to get injected under that false premise, silencing any misgivings that might have interfered with following the advice of the Experts and crossing their fingers in the hope that this time they would get that return to Normal they’d been hearing so much about. But this required a level of willful suspension of disbelief that would have gotten one locked up as a delusional psychotic in the pre-Covid era, given Pandemic Pope Fauci’s history. The miniature Mengele pulled off a series of selfenriching scams over the course of the AIDS era, poisoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people – including tens of thousands of children – with drugs he knew were toxic, and given that he was never punished, he has merely repeated his old tricks, again and again. Accountability is a foreign concept in Washington, and in the misery-loves-company tradition of late-stage empire, we have exported this moral failure around the globe.

Given Pfizer’s literally record-breaking history of fraud and rampant criminality, one might ask why they were entrusted with being the public face of such a major project – hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars were riding on Warp Speed, after all, even though Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla isn’t a human-doctor at all but a veterinarian, having focused his education on “the biotechnology of reproduction” if Wikipedia is to be believed. Bourla was in charge of Pfizer’s animal vaccine division in 2010 when a diarrhea shot for pregnant cows, PregSure BVD, was discovered to be killing off as many as 15% of the calves who nursed from the jab recipients. They didn’t just die, they bled out of every hole in their bodies, including their pores. By denying everything and continuing to sell the shot outside Germany – where the problem had initially arisen – Bourla apparently distinguished himself as the man you want when you need to kill a lot of kids and get away with it. He also proved himself back in his veterinary days as a pioneer in expanding the definition of “vaccine” to include chemical castration, devising a shot for boars called ImproVac that he claimed was 99% as good as physically hacking their balls off (it’s unclear how he arrived at that figure, but then, it’s unclear what hole Pfizer pulled its effectiveness numbers out of either). Still think the Covid-19 shots’ disastrous effects on human fertility are a coincidence? Don’t tell Bourla – he understands why people fear his company’s products, but wants speaking up about the harm they cause to be criminalized. The US military was sending a very powerful message when it selected Pfizer and Bourla to be the standard-bearers of its mRNA bioweapon campaign. It is unfortunate for humanity that so few were listening.

Throw away the key

These people do not expect to be punished, but if humanity is to continue as something other than a slave species, they must be, and immediately. It’s hard to think of any crimes that haven’t been committed in the course of the planning, setup, and perpetration of these power-grab-s fraud, corruption, murder, genocide, and the coercive pharmaceutical rape that will become depressingly common when so-called “health passports” or any other permutation of the World Economic Forum’s Known Traveler Digital Identity social credit score are adopted worldwide. Where once the unvaxxed could merely be threatened with job loss or expulsion from school, or denied entry into a business or country, once all systems are linked, refusing the shot will effectively get a person occluded from society entirely – unable to withdraw or spend money, unable to enter any buildings or board transportation, unable to unlock even their phone or computer to communicate with loved ones. Most people wouldn’t last a day as a locked-out ghost in the prison state the pandemic pimps are building.

But the spirit to resist is fading fast, with bodily integrity turning into an anachronism at the hands of a generation who have never experienced privacy. Kids born in the 2010s are likely to believe it’s perfectly normal to be summoned to a school clinic for injections without their parents’ knowledge, uninterested in what’s in the needle and neither asked nor asking to sign a consent form. They don’t know they have a choice. Gates may have declared the Covid-19 shots a failure, but his foundation has already poured billions of dollars into DARPA’s choicest nightmare material, “flying needles” competing with drugged food and even human vaccine vectors to penetrate anyone they can get their hands on.

The body is merely a sideshow for these psychopaths, however – the real target is the multi-layered rape of the mind, a specialty of military technology which sits at the core of the mRNA bioweapon. Unlike standard vaccines, the mRNA formulas deployed under cover of Covid-19 can cross the blood-brain barrier with their hypertoxic spike protein, triggering a cascade of inflammation, autoimmune dysfunction, and other reactions that can bring about permanent personality changes (on top of the damage caused by the virus itself). It’s anyone’s guess how well these changes can be controlled – if one can select for docility over brute stupidity, say, or an eagerness to please on top of the inability to defy – but one can imagine that like the lobotomies of old, they will become a popular way of dealing with inconvenient dissidents as pressure to decrease the overt appearance of prisons (so unsightly!) grows internationally. Of course if you shrink the prison to fit within the skull, the division between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ becomes literally a state of mind, one that can be artificially imposed from without – a possibility Fourth Industrial Revolution fetishists like Klaus Schwab no doubt already see for contraptions like Neuralink (the kindler, gentler brain-rape!) and a “battery-free” deep-brain stimulator that uses the patient as its battery.

The possibilities for remote implantation of thought and emotion are alarming – simply envision the targeted censorship the Biden administration conducted against opinions and social media users that displeased it over the last three years, deploying representatives from no fewer than 12 agencies to meetings with all the major tech platforms to silence individual citizens because its own narratives were so poorly constructed they regularly fell down under their own weight. Informed consent will be a thing of the past – when adoption of such devices is widespread enough, the narrative managers will literally be able to conduct mass sentiment like an orchestra.

On the metaphorical front, the WHO wants to make sure its good little citizens wash their brains as often as their hands, holding meetings about a global “infodemic” before it had even declared Covid-19 a pandemic and talking up the importance of “information hygiene.” Just as environmental watchdogs condemn chemical companies for dumping toxic waste into the planet’s water supply, the Ministry of Truth whose charter is being woven into the WHO’s global pandemic treaty will argue that spreading “conspiracy theories” and other unauthorized opinions is poisoning the collective consciousness with dangerous doubt and hate. As Catastrophic Contagion glibly explainsall of this death could have been avoided if we just placed our trust in the Corporate State. Those millions of dead kids the Global Health Security Center warns are waiting at the end of the next pandemic rainbow? That ‘poisoning’ is what happens when you do your own research. UNESCO’s “think before sharing” campaign – aimed at recruiting an internal thought-police officer within every good citizen to squelch the innate human desire to post interesting or troubling rumors, question authority, or otherwise fan the flames of “infodemics,” lest their content inspire some kind of extremist to action motivated by hate and physically hurt someone – is the first step toward declaring every individual’s thoughts part of the global commons. It’s the “I wear my mask to keep you safe” of thoughtcrime.

But even that isn’t sufficiently intrusive for these parasites. Their ultimate goal is to hijack and ultimately replace the natural instincts that arise to meet a hostile occupying force, substituting trust, obedience and docility, the precursors to a slave species blissfully ignorant of our slavery – who will “own nothing and be happy,” in WEFspeak. How? They seem to have settled on the lie-hose – gaslighting on steroids – in the hope of making it so exhausting to continue thinking critically that the target just gives up, overwhelmed, their bullshit-detector overheating in the wake of 3 years of “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Eagerly studying its captive audience back in 2020 as it urged them to stay glued to the couch while warning them obesity was the primary indicator of death with Covid-19, the CDC found it didn’t take many waterboarding sessions with the lie-hose to induce a roaring epidemic of Stockholm syndrome. After just two months of mask mandates, shelter-in-place, and six-feet-apart rules, only 25% of New Yorkers said they’d feel safe if the restrictions were scrapped. How much harm do you think decades of “safe and effective” has done?

It’s tempting to believe that the narrative managers’ insistence on doubling down on obvious falsehoods despite undeniable proof to the contrary will simply relegate them to a Pravda-level epistemological irritant – everyone knows the narrative is false, even the individuals selected to propagate it, and while one must pay lip service to the narrative in public if one wants to maintain their socioeconomic status, one can always discuss reality in private with trusted people, informed by underground publications not subject to censorship. However, technology has enabled the kind of information control the worst excesses of the Eastern Bloc could only have dreamed of. I’ve already written at great length about the informational iron curtain being constructed to quarantine wrongthink on the internet and eventually prevent its uploading (and contemplation) altogether, and this project has advanced dramatically under cover of Covid-19, with even non-Google search engines like DuckDuckGo vigorously scrubbed of competing narratives to the extent the user hoping to quickly confirm a fact or a name instead ends up in a hall of mirrors with one narrative showing on every screen, its production values as impeccable as its lies are threadbare. But it’s the only narrative in town, save the user’s own imagination – and since the US school system ensures no trace of viable imagination survives the third grade, they’re basically defenseless. Forced to internalize what they know is a bogus narrative, even temporarily, they’ve nonetheless become complicit in their own reprogramming, and the lie-hose residue has a corrosive effect on their memories and even sensory input when these contradict the lies they’ve grudgingly swallowed just to survive. “If vaccines weren’t really safe and effective, wouldn’t all the doctors be screaming from the rooftops?”

Thus what appears to be ham-handed slopaganda can actually insinuate the narrative managers into the target’s decision-making centers – the rather self-explanatory process known as the OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act) – where a little bit of pressure exerted at the right moment can have an outsize effect. Mentally knocking the individual off-balance with a jolt from the lie-hose while they’re trying to observe and orient themselves ensures whatever they do next will be misinformed at best, heinously miscalculated at worst. If they blame themselves rather than the predatory outside influences leading them astray, the self-perpetuating feedback loop becomes difficult to break. Doubt leads to “distrust your gut”, only to learn when they become suddenly sick and read way too many articles about spike proteins that they’ve basically poisoned themselves and now can likely never board a plane because of blood clots, the normal self-preservation urge – to have the problem taken care of medically, to warn others, even to demand those responsible “fix it” – is muted by guilt and embarrassment over their willing participation in this act of self-destruction.

Me or your lying eyes?

A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 56% of Americans believe the vaccine is at least somewhat effective in preventing infection – a claim that even the CDC doesn’t try to make anymore. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence the shots are harmful – evidence they accept as legitimate! – no one wants to admit they’ve subjected themselves or their children to a totally preventable risk, especially one that could kill them.

There’s a sense that speaking up about vaccine harms will somehow manifest more of them – or worse, cause others to become vaccine hesitant, a fate generally agreed upon to be worse than death even though it has become increasingly hard to ignore the causative relationship between death and the vaccines themselves. Health authorities’ rapid pivot (as mandates dropped across the US and Europe) from ordering the population to roll up their sleeves or else to insisting the shots were always voluntary deprives the injured of a clear target for their rage and plants a nagging sense of responsibility for their own suffering. In the same way they were incentivized to get the shot in the first place through an absurd selection of bribes from Krispy Kreme donuts to lap dances, the vaccine-injured can be cajoled back into the fold through universal basic income payments or other benefits specifically for the jabbed. The more they can be made to identify with the experimental compound colonizing their bodies, the more easily they can be turned back against the unvaccinated, those selfish throwbacks who are Not Team Players.

And the retconning of the pandemic is running at full speed as the narrative managers insinuate themselves into humanity’s collective OODA loop. Americans running at top speed away from the bivalent boosters are concerned about physical discomfort, not the possibility of dying suddenly! Rebelling against authority means wearing masks forever! And that 40% surge in non-Covid excess mortality among 18- to 49-year-olds that has actuaries all spooked? That’s just stealth-Covid! Anti-vaxxers are to blame for traffic accidentsantisemitism, and even sudden death itself!

Narrative managers’ refusal to give even an inch on the Big Lie that this class of ‘vaccines’ are 100% “safe and effective” as cries to the contrary hit critical mass suggests another epistemological rug-pull is just around the corner. So when I saw an actual news story last month describing the pandemic as “the biggest US intelligence failure since 9/11” I most certainly did not believe my lying eyes. With so much evidence pointing to years if not decades of premeditation in the unleashing of Covid-19 and a profound intent to cause harm, the reemergence and sudden popularity of the “lab leak” theory of Covid-19’s origins plays much too perfectly into the hands of the interests behind the pandemic. Indeed, it was first floated by a representative of one of them all the way back in 2020.

Forget for a moment that the architects of this grand scam have already explained their evil plot to us in Bond-villain-esque detail, repeatedly, accompanied by longshort, and medium-length write-ups, complete with helpful video. The lab leak hypothesis may make more sense than the zoonotic-origin hypothesis (it would be hard not to) but it conveniently absolves the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, the WHO, DARPA, BARDA, and the rest of the medical-totalitarian infrastructure – including the financial cartels that paid for the whole atrocity and have been reaping massive dividends – from responsibility for the millions of deaths ensuing from virus and injectable bioweapons alike by recasting what all evidence supports as a controlled release as mere accidental exposure. Like the deadly “mistakes” that governments supposedly made in responding to the outbreak, or the self-contradicting policies that “just don’t make sense” yet always err on the side of harm, tacitly admitting to a containment screw-up is their best option legally speaking for getting out of jail with their necks intact. But it simply doesn’t hold water with all the information currently in the public domain. I couldn’t completely rule out the possibility of an accidental leak when I wrote my first article on Covid-19 nearly three years ago, but even then the theory required extreme suspension of disbelief, given that its primary proponent was the same Israeli biowarfare specialist who spent the Bush II years telling anyone who would listen that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, specifically anthrax, and was responsible for the letters full of ominous white powder that had materialized on the desks of a handful of legislative and media opponents to the Patriot Act following a pattern set out in the events of 2001 Johns Hopkins tabletop simulation Dark Winter. The parallels between 9/11 and Covid-19 have been obvious since day one, but they do not include any “intelligence failures.”

It is very likely the ‘final’ narrative decided upon to explain the pandemic will center on an accidental release of some kind (perhaps more than one, to prevent any one country having to shoulder an unfair burden that could later result in its leaders letting slip what really happened), but this must not be allowed to stand. If the predatory parasites behind Covid-19 are allowed to walk on the grounds that the original pathogen’s release was just another “mistake,” we can all kiss our asses goodbye.

Look who’s Public Enemy #1

Medical totalitarianism is far more dangerous than any mere political dictatorship, no matter how repressive or violent. Most citizens of the latter regimes understand, even in the midst of hardcore reality mismanagement, that their enemies are ultimately human – bestial, perhaps, or even evil, but human nonetheless. However, the transnational capital class who built the Covid-19 experiment reviles traditional nation-states, and the WHO’s global pandemic treaty is so determined to communicate disdain for such unprofitable ideas like human dignity that it had language referencing the concept removed from the text. The catalyzing experience of Covid-19, recast for future newsreels as all of humanity uniting against a deadly invisible enemy, lends itself to War on Terror-like reductionism: “you’re either with us, or you’re with the virus.” Since no sane person could ever be pro-sickness, the growing crowd of opponents to vaccine mandates, killer lockdowns, ‘infodemic’ thought police, and mask fetishism can be written off as criminal insanity and taken out of circulation, forming a natural test reservoir for future clinical trials (the 21st century human sacrifice). With no natural enemies once it has seized the machinery of market and state under the guise of selfless do-gooderism, the public health technocracy can only continue to exist by demonizing and then sacrificing groups of its own constituents, creating the impression of a benevolent regime deftly battling the forces of “subversion” so that the masses can live their lives in peace. “First, they came for the anti-vaxxers, and I did not speak up, because I didn’t want to end up like Andrew Wakefield” is not an excuse when life and death hang in the balance.

Peter Hotez, the buffoonish tropical disease specialist who became a media darling for his ideological crusade against “anti-vaxxers” – a much-maligned group even before the Covid-19 experiment – has partnered with the WHO to condemn “anti-vaccine activism,” which he rechristens “anti-science aggression,” as “a major killing force globally.”

Hotez made the absurd claim last month that “Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber attacks,” and while it’s tempting to laugh at his histrionics (or to simply point out that iatrogenesis – medical “error” – kills nearly 1 million Americans every year, topping cancer and heart disease), his demands for “political solutions” to the growing portion of the planet that disagrees with his medical totalitarianism are no laughing matter, given that he is backed by the WHO – which will be itching to cut its new global pandemic treaty teeth on a crowd-pleasing victim for its Ministry of Truth tribunals. He has repeatedly called for the Biden administration to sic the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department on those he deems insufficiently reverent of The Science, and thanks to a longstanding alliance with the ADL, he will likely get what he wants.

While it may be tempting to see the Covid-19 project as a failure – mandates rolled back, boosters sitting untouched on shelves or in landfills, doctors finally speaking up – this leaves out the big picture. When regarded as a coordinated operation to drive mad, enslave, and ultimately liquidate the human race, the Covid-19 experiment is shaping up to be a stunning success. This must be prevented at all costs.

January 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Powering up the WHO: be alert and alarmed

Why proposed changes to the International Health Regulations are a VERY BAD idea

By Libby Klein | Reclaim Ethical Medicine | December 18, 2022

One might think that of course we need an international body that can help everyone around the world to work together in times of crisis to combat pandemics and other scary global things.

Well that sounds sensible.

One might think that’s what we have the World Health Organisation (WHO) for.

Well that may have been the original idea, but it turns out there’s a few issues with the WHO. How effective is it and what role should it have?

Seems the world has skipped past those questions and gone straight to: let’s give the WHO all the power it needs so that it can do a better job of controlling pandemics.

And let’s not just tweak one or two things here and there. Let’s have a whole new treaty. And let’s call it something really long, like Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response and give it a confusing acronym, like CA+.

AND let’s also simultaneously amend the existing International Health Regulations. In ways that overlap. Through forums which are supposedly transparent but which are largely conducted in secret.

There’s a lot going on here. But don’t be fooled by the flowery language or put off by the density and complexity of the documents. Be assured there are some big issues which warrant your attention.

I’ve listed some of the issues in the most recent proposals to amend the International Health Regulations below. Please add your comments and share your insights!

Note: they don’t call a spade a spade and they don’t call a pandemic a pandemic. They call it a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”. There’s 2 reasons for that:

  1. they like to use long confusing names and make up impressive acronyms (“PHEIC”)
  2. they want to have power to do all sorts of things whether or not there’s actually a pandemic and even where they think there might be something happening which one day may result in a pandemic.


The scope of WHO’s powers is to be broadened significantly, from “public health risk” to “all risks with a potential to impact public health” (Article 2)

Obligations are to be legally binding

  • Proposed new article 13A recognises the WHO as the authority of public health response during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.  (Note: none of the published submissions make this suggestion. Where did it come from?)
  • Article 13A includes an undertaking by all Member States, that they will follow WHO’s “recommendations”.  Earlier in the document, “recommendations” are defined to be legally binding.
  • Countries are also required to ensure they have regulatory agency with legal authority to implement WHO’s dictates. (Article 4 para 1)
  • Countries can contest the legally binding recommendations but the Emergency Committee’s review decision will be final, following which the country must report to the WHO that it has complied. (Article 43 para 6).
  • The World Health Assembly can make decisions “on the strengthening of the implementation of these Regulations and improvement of compliance” – obscure language – does this mean the World Health Assembly can decide on sanctions?

Control of financing, production and supply of health products

  • Developed countries must provide funding (Article 44 para 2(f); Annex 1 new para “1 bis”)
  • The World Health Assembly will oversee expenditure of funds that Member States are required to provide (Article 44A para 2).
  • WHO decides on allocation of health products (Article 13A).
  • WHO requires Member States to scale up production (Article 13A para 4), and to supply health products to the WHO or other Member States as directed by the WHO (Article 13 para 5).

WHO tells us what we can do

  • The Director General – a single person – can make temporary, binding “recommendations” on the basis that an event has the potential to become a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and those recommendations can continue in force beyond the end of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (Article 15).
  • The concept of public health measures which are aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection” is to be removed. The new objective is to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality.
  • WHO can impose restrictions on international travel – and may not even disclose the information it has relied on in doing so – Article 11.
  • Any discussions that countries have amongst themselves must be reported to the WHO (Article 44 para 3).
  • Countries must comply with requests by WHO or other countries (Annex 10).
  • Governments will be required to enforce compliance with WHO health measures by all actors including NGOs (Article 42).

WHO tells us what we can say

  • Countries must cooperate in censorship of information which the WHO deems to be “false and unreliable (Article 44 para 1(h)).
  • WHO will strengthen capacities to counter misinformation and disinformation (Annex 1 para 7).

A single person decides when there is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern

  • The Director General – a single person – unilaterally determines whether there is a (potential or actual) Public Health Emergency of International Concern in a particular location. (Article 12 para 1).
  • In deciding whether to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, the Director General does not have to consult with the country concerned or its own Emergency Committee (Article 12 para 2).  (And at any rate the Director General chooses the members of the Emergency Committee – Article 48 para 2.)
  • The ability of the country to object to the WHO’s declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern has been removed (Article 12 para 3).

Your personal data will be shared globally

  • There is to be “secure global digital exchange of health information” (Article 44 para 2(d))
  • Centralised data sharing is to be controlled by the WHO (Article 11)
  • Governments can agree to share and store your personal health data (Article 45 para 4).

The focus is on production and supply of pharmaceutical products rather than safety and efficacy

  • Regulatory dossiers submitted by manufacturers concerning safety and efficacy, and manufacturing and quality control measures, have to be shared, but countries can only use that information for accelerating the manufacture and supply of those products and technologies. There is no reference to using the data to make their own assessment of safety and efficacy, betraying a blind spot on the part of the drafters: they are so focussed on facilitating the imposition of pharmaceutical products on everybody that they don’t even think to make provisions regarding sharing of information for the purpose of assessing or monitoring safety and efficacy.
  • There is a requirement to adopt “legal, administrative and technical measures to diversify and increase production of health products” (Annex 1 para 7) (but not to promote development of early treatment protocols for example).

WHO can have secret dealings with non-State actors

WHO can deal with non-State actors as it sees fit and does not have to provide full disclosure.
  • Rules of engagement: Malaysia (article 12 para 7) and Africa (article 13A para 7) have proposed new wording which ostensibly puts some guard rails around how the WHO engages with non-State actors, by requiring the WHO to comply with paragraph 73 of the Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA).  However, that paragraph in FENSA does not impose any constraints on the WHO.  On the contrary, it grants the Director-General complete flexibility:  “… the Director-General may exercise flexibility as might be needed in the application of procedures of this framework in those responses, when he/she deems necessary, in accordance with WHO’s responsibilities as health cluster lead.” This complete flexibility is given to a single individual, the Director-General of the WHO.
  • In terms of disclosure, the new article 13A does require the WHO to report all its engagements with other stakeholders to the World Health Assembly, and to “provide documents and information relating to such engagements upon request of State Parties.”  However, this is far from requiring full disclosure.  The WHO could supply summary documents and information, rather than making full disclosure.  The WHO has not disclosed who has proposed this new article 13A.

December 27, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

The Weaponization of the WHO

Corbett • 12/18/2022

via CHD.TV: Solve the intentionally confusing puzzle about what the WHO’s 2023 plans are regarding the “zero draft” for a new and potentially legally binding pandemic treaty, International Health Regulation amendments, recent Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings and more. Learn all about the corrupt public health organization “with teeth” with guest James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D on ‘Good Morning CHD.’



Background to my interview with James Corbett, as requested by a reader

Third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for a WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

WATCH: Latest WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings

World Health Organization meets to plot censorship of “misinformation” under international pandemic treaty

World Health Organization meets to discuss granting of increased surveillance powers under pandemic treaty

Conceptual zero draft for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its third meeting

Smith Mundt Act

Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)

IHR Amendments Text

Public Health Emergency Of International Concern (PHEIC)

IHR (2005) Text

Ebola Newsweek Article

Wayback Machine — April 2009 Definition Of ‘Influenza Pandemic’

Wayback Machine — May 2009 Definition Of ‘Influenza Pandemic’

WHO chief declares monkeypox an international emergency after expert panel fails to reach consensus

Peter Doshi H1N1 Response

Peter Doshi ‘The Elusive Definition Of Pandemic Influenza’

Who Is Bill Gates? Corbett Report Documentary

MAiD in Canada – #NewWorldNextWeek

December 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 4 Comments

The Myth of Pandemic Preparedness

The entire effort is based on the false assumption that pandemic preparedness would actually work. In fact, all it has done is create new pandemics.

1.     The most recent WHO-declared Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs) for SARS-CoV-2 and Monkeypox were both caused by lab-created viruses, based on many careful analyses of their genomes.

2.     There is no evidence that pandemic preparedness ever benefited anyone but the preparedness industry, and substantial evidence that it led to the creation of the COVID pandemic.

3.     The Democrat majority staff report, “Preparing for and preventing the next public health emergency.” echoes the WHO Amendments.

4.     The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board has also geared up to push the identical program as the WHO: surveillanceOne Health, and investment — “all topics that the GPMB has long recognised are crucial for the advancement of resilient pandemic preparedness mechanisms.”

5.     The G20 nations agreed last April to a $50 Billion dollars a year price tag for gloval pandemic preparedness.

6.     The Globalist agenda is out in the open for all to see.

The pandemic preparedness concept is based on fantasy; it is a dangerous money grab for a new biodefense industry. It brought:

·      Many more high-containment BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs,

·      15,000 new scientists trained to research biowarfare pathogens,

·      Poorly tested drugs and vaccines for which the manufacturers had no liability

·      More corruption and pork for politicians to distribute.

·      Nathan Wolfe’s company:  biolabs in Ukraine, squire to Ghislaine Maxwell, funding by Hunter Biden’s investment group

·      Peter Daszak’s ‘nonprofit’ that collected dangerous viruses from over 30 countries to bring to the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DOD’s DTRA) for further investigation

·      Extremely dangerous anthrax, smallpox and COVID vaccines

·      The COVID drug paxlovid, which led to relapses of COVID in President Biden, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and NIAID Director and Presidential COVID adviser Anthony Fauci and millions of Americans, presumably prolonging their infectiousness and causing more cases of COVID

·      Expensive new federal agencies (ASPR, BARDA in DHHS, and subagencies within DHS and within DOD) and new funding streams to the NIH

·      An excuse to censor alternate medical/scientific views

December 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments

Pandemic Preparedness: The New Parasite

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | DECEMBER 17, 2022

The frequency and impact of pandemic-prone pathogens are increasing. Modest investments in PPR capacities can prevent and contain disease outbreaks, thereby drastically reducing the cost of response”

So begins a recent joint paper from the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), written for the 2022 meeting of the G20. The paper is seeking to justify a request for unprecedented international public health funding directed to the burgeoning pandemic preparedness and response (PPR) industry. The modest investments they refer to includes $10 billion in new funding; three times the WHO’s current annual budget.

In the century prior to the Covid debacle pandemics were not increasing and their impact was steadily diminishing, as noted in WHO’s 2019 pandemic guidelines. The cost of the Covid response would also have been far lower if these abandoned but evidence-based 2019 guidelines were followed. The WHO guidelines note that the approaches that comprised Covid lockdowns would be costly, especially to lower-income people.

However, the joint statement is not intended to reflect reality; rather it is intended to paint a picture through which the public will perceive a false reality. By triggering fear and deference, the wealth-concentrating response used against Covid can be normalized and then repeated. False assertions stated as accepted fact have proven very effective in increasing the industry’s share of the global financial cake. International agencies have no advertising standards to comply with.

When an industry absorbs material value to produce mostly unquantifiable products, perceptions are vital. Growth in the public health industry can only occur in two ways. Firstly, the industry and the public can jointly identify mutually beneficent areas of work that the public considers worth funding. Secondly, the industry can mislead, coerce or force the public, with the assistance of cooperative governments, to provide support that is not in the public’s interest. The latter is what parasites do.

As a disclaimer, I have spent the bulk of my working life employed by governments or on aid budgets, living off money taken from taxpayers so that I could have it. It can be a great lifestyle, as global health salaries and benefits are generally very attractive, offer travel to exotic locations, and commonly offer generous health and education benefits. It can still work for the public if the relationship is symbiotic, increasing their general health and well-being and improving the functioning of a moral decent society. Sometimes that outcome can occur.

For public health to work for the public, the public must remain in control of this relationship. Oxpeckers, the birds that hitch a ride on rhinoceroses, have a useful symbiotic relationship with their host. They remove skin parasites from awkward crevices, providing the rhinoceros with a healthier skin and fewer irritating itches. If they pecked out the eyes of the host, they would cease to be of benefit, and become a marauding parasite.

For a while, the oxpecker may gain more for themselves, feasting on the rhino’s softer parts. Eventually their host will succumb as a blind rhinoceros, unless confined to a zoo, cannot sustain its being. But the oxpecker, if overcome by greed, may not have thought that far ahead.

To remain in charge and manage public health for mutual benefit, the public must be told the truth. But in a problem-solving industry where solved problems no longer require work, truth-telling risks job security.

This is where the symbiotic relationship of public health is prone to become parasitic. If one is paid to address a particular health issue, and the issue is resolved through good management or a changing risk environment, there is a clear and urgent need to justify continuation of salary.

On a larger scale, whole public health bureaucracies have an incentive to find more issues that ‘must’ be addressed, make new rules that must then be enforced, and identify more risks to investigate. New international public health bodies keep emerging and growing, but they don’t close down. People rarely choose redundancy and unemployment.

This is where the public health industry has a real advantage. In nature, parasites usually must concentrate on just one host to survive, adapting to maximize their gains. A hookworm is designed specifically to survive in its host’s gut. The host, however, has a whole variety of parasites, illnesses, and other pressing concerns to deal with. A host must therefore ignore the hookworm as long as it does not pose an obvious immediate threat. The worm needs to milk the host of blood whilst seeming relatively innocuous.

A really smart hookworm would find a way to trick the host into thinking it beneficial – perhaps by promoting the benefits of Medieval practices such as bloodletting, as we have seen with masks and curfews through the recent Covid response. The global health industry can use this approach by building a story that will benefit them, plausible enough to the public to pass rudimentary scrutiny. If it sounds sufficiently specialized, it will dissuade deeper examination.

In the current rendering of this ploy, the public faces an ever-growing threat of pandemics that will devastate society if we in the public health industry are not given more money. They are given a story of urgency, and shielded from the historical and scientific realities that would undermine it.

International public health organizations solely concentrated on addressing pandemics already exist, such as CEPI, inaugurated by the Gates Foundation, Norway and Wellcome Trust at the World Economic Forum in 2017, and the new Financial Intermediary Fund for pandemics of the World Bank. Others such as Gavi, and increasingly the WHO and Unicef, focus heavily on this area. Many of their sponsors, including large pharmaceutical companies and their investors, stand to gain very large profits off the back of this gravy train.

The average taxpayer, dealing with inflation, family life, jobs and myriad other priorities can hardly be expected to delve into the veracity of what ‘experts’ say in some far distant place. They must trust that a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship is still in place. They hope that the public health industry will do the right thing; that it is still on their side. Sadly, it is not.

White papers on pandemic preparedness don’t have detailed cost-benefit analyses, just as these were not provided for Covid lockdowns, school closures or mass vaccination. Cursory calculations suggest poor overall benefit, so they have been avoided. We now see this playing out through declining economiesrising poverty and inequality. Diverting billions of dollars annually to hypothetical pandemics will add to this burden. Yet this is being done, and the public is acquiescing to this use of their increasingly hard-earned taxes.

A dead rhinoceros will not support many oxpeckers, and a hookworm will not survive bleeding its host to death. A public health industry that impoverishes its funding base and harms society through ill-advised policies will eventually be caught up in the outcome. But the short-term gains from parasitism are attractive and humans don’t seem to have the instincts (or intelligence) that keep the oxpecker in healthy symbiosis.

Thus, the public health industry will probably continue its current trajectory, increasing inequality and poverty, comfortably on the receiving end of the wealth redistribution it promotes. The money requested for pandemic preparedness will be paid, because the people deciding whether to use your taxes are essentially the same people asking for them.

They run the international financial and health sector and they all meet at their private club called the World Economic Forum. Their sponsors now have more than enough spare cash swirling around to keep needy politicians and media on board.

Those working within the industry know what they are doing – at least those who pause long enough to think. This abuse will continue until the host, the parasitized, realizes that the symbiotic relationship they had been banking on is a fallacy, and they have been duped.

There are ways to deal with parasites that are not good for the parasite. A really smart public health industry would adopt a more measured approach and ensure their policies benefit the public more than themselves. But that would also require a moral code and some courage.

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

December 17, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

World Health Organization’s Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Treaty

These proposals are a major threat to our sovereignty and democracy

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | December 11, 2022

The WHO has been flexing its muscles for several years but Covid-19 has provided a huge opportunity for mission creep. The latest in its quest for  ever-increasing power is the proposed legally binding Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Treaty.  Without even waiting for the dust to settle and for countries to undertake their own inquiries into what went well and what mistakes were made, there is a clear intention to force every nation into a straight-jacket of centralised pandemic management with the WHO at its heart. No Anders Tegnell or Ron de Santis to instil a modicum of common sense or proportionality, we would all be hurtling into masks and testing at the first hint or droplet of ‘concern’, and doubtless another rushed mRNA vaccine.

In March 2021, Boris Johnson was centre stage in publishing an article laying out the route to this new international treaty. By December 2021, an intergovernmental negotiating body was established and a Zero Draft report was published in May 2022. It was a number of African nations who called a halt. But undaunted, the WHO this week held another 3-day session and issued the following news release.

 “Member States of the World Health Organization today agreed to develop the first draft of a legally binding agreement designed to protect the world from future pandemics. This “zero draft” of the pandemic accord, rooted in the WHO Constitution, will be discussed by Member States in February 2023.”

‘Zero draft’ is worryingly reminiscent of ‘Zero-Covid’, a policy which has been causing havoc in China. There is also an extraordinary degree of mission creep evident, with a newly established subgroup, the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), which:

“will also have a role in investigating the impact of human activity on the environment and wildlife habitats, and how this drives disease threats. Critical areas include food production, urbanization and infrastructure development, international travel and trade, activities that lead to biodiversity loss and climate change, and those that put increased pressure on the natural resource base — all of which can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases.”

Shiraz Akram, of the Thinking Coalition, drafted an extremely detailed analysis of the proposals and a number of like-minded groups have endorsed his open letter. Thinking Coalition, the Freedom AllianceHARTNot Our FutureTime for Recovery and the Together Declaration have all submitted this letter to members of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

It is vital that our Parliamentarians take a serious interest in this. Both the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee have previously reported on the numerous problems related to the way in which treaties are ratified in the UK, with the latter stating that “the powers available to Parliament to scrutinise Ministers’ actions are anachronistic and inadequate”.

These committees have only a few weeks to scrutinise the proposals and prevent a lurch into a legally binding agreement at the diktat of the totally unelected WHO.

December 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

One Health: what is it and why is it important?

One Health is being embedded into the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHRs) and Pandemic Treaty/Accord

By Meryl Nass | December 5, 2022

First, what is One Health? It is essentially a meaningless concept that is important to the WHO, CDC and the new pandemic regulations being negotiated, as I heard it mentioned several times by country representatives discussing the new IHR amendments. My best guess is that One Health will be invoked as the justification to move people off the land in certain rural communities. The authors of a June 2019 article titled “The One Health Approach—Why Is It So Important?” provide 3 definitions and a graphic to try and explain the term:

The most commonly used definition shared by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the One Health Commission is: ‘One Health is defined as a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment’. A definition suggested by the One Health Global Network is: ‘One Health recognizes that the health of humans, animals and ecosystems are interconnected. It involves applying a coordinated, collaborative, multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to address potential or existing risks that originate at the animal-human-ecosystems interface’. A much simpler version of these two definitions is provided by the One Health Institute of the University of California at Davis: ‘One Health is an approach to ensure the well-being of people, animals and the environment through collaborative problem solving—locally, nationally, and globally’. Others have a much broader view, as encapsulated in Figure 1.

I hope you agree that these definitions shed no light on the meaningfulness of this concept, nor how it might be relevant to public health. However, the definitions seem to rope a lot of other things into a consideration of “health” which I fear is its main objective—eventually to justify social engineering under the rubric of health, or rather ‘One Health.’

The authors of the piece cited above note that they have not gotten buy-in from the medical community:

“Interdisciplinary collaboration is at the heart of the One Health concept, but while the veterinarian community has embraced the One Health concept, the medical community has been much slower to fully engage, despite support for One Health from bodies such as the American Medical Association, Public Health England, and WHO. Engaging the medical community more fully in the future may require the incorporation of the One Health concept into the medical school curricula so that medical students see it as an essential component in the context of public health and infectious diseases.”

And so cheap fixes are being applied. November 3 has been designated “One Health Day” since 2016 by the One Health Commission, the One Health Platform Foundation, and the One Health Initiative. One Health Day is celebrated through One Health educational and awareness events held around the world. Students are especially encouraged to envision and implement One Health projects, and to enter them into an annual competition for the best student-led initiatives in each of four global regions.

After titling their article as if it was going to explain why One Health is important, in the end all we get is a spurious sentence asserting that it is so:

Today’s health problems are frequently complex, transboundary, multifactorial, and across species, and if approached from a purely medical, veterinary, or ecological standpoint, it is unlikely that sustainable mitigation strategies will be produced.

I went to the WHO website to see if I could get a more satisfying explanation of this concept, but was left with the same sense—that it was simply an attempt to throw every living thing, plus every ‘ecosystem’ on the planet into the One Health basket, where pretty much everything might in future be manipulated under the guise of public health. See if you get a different take:

One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.

It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animalsplants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.

While health, food, water, energy and environment are all wider topics with sector-specific concerns, the collaboration across sectors and disciplines contributes to protect health, address health challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food safety and promote the health and integrity of our ecosystems.

By linking humans, animals and the environment, One Health can help to address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.

The approach can be applied at the community, subnational, national, regional and global levels, and relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration and coordination. Having the One Health approach in place makes it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions.

It matters because One Health appears to be a necessary part of the globalist, WEF plan to corral the earth’s people, akin to vaccine passports. Please help educate those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. This needs to be stopped. The best way is by exiting the WHO. Trump started the process, which was immediately reversed by the Biden administration. We can do it again. Or they will keep coming up with cockamamie programs designed to control us under the guise of health.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | 1 Comment

World Health Organization meets to discuss granting of increased surveillance powers under pandemic treaty

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2022

The unelected global health agency the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently meeting to consider a draft version of a controversial international pandemic treaty that will give the WHO increased surveillance powers.

The new surveillance powers are detailed in Article 10 (“Strengthening and sustaining capacities for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems”) and Article 17 (“One Health”) of the draft treaty. They include requirements for the WHO’s member states to “build and reinforce surveillance systems” across both the public and private sector and to strengthen the WHO’s “One Health surveillance systems.”

In its fact sheet on One Health, the WHO cites Covid-19 as one of the main drivers for expanding its One Health approach and notes that the COVID-19 pandemic “put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.”

While the draft treaty doesn’t mention contact tracing and testing, these were two of the main surveillance tools that were used to track the spread of Covid-19 during the pandemic and create a mass surveillance dragnet. Not only did this result in many citizens being forced to use surveillance apps and devices but the data was often abused by governments and third parties.

Not only does this treaty grant the WHO new surveillance powers but it also recognizes “the central role of WHO” and deems it to be “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.”

We obtained a copy of the draft international pandemic treaty for you here.

The three-day meeting to discuss this draft treaty began on Monday (December 5) and ends Wednesday (December 7). Members of an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) that was created by the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), are in attendance and have been tasked with drafting and negotiating this international pandemic treaty.

The INB is projecting that it will finalize this international pandemic treaty by May 2024 and present a final report to the seventy-seventh WHA meeting.

We obtained a copy of the INB’s current proposed timeline for you here.

If it passes, the treaty will be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. This provision allows the WHA to impose legally binding conventions or agreements on the WHO’s 194 member states (which represent 98% of all the countries in the world) if two-thirds of the WHA vote for them.

Unlike the lawmaking process within many democratic nations, where officials are elected to implement national laws that reflect the will of the people in the country and voted out if they fail to achieve this goal, the WHO empowers a small number of global representatives, who are often unelected diplomats, to decide on international laws that are imposed on the WHO’s 194 member states.

Before these meetings took place, the WHO demonstrated its love of mass surveillance. It has publicly supported vaccine passports multiple times. The WHO also initially commended China’s response to Covid, which relies heavily on digital surveillance, and only recently changed its stance to criticize China’s zero-Covid policy.

Many powerful nations support this WHO power grab including the United States (US),  (UK), Canada, , New Zealand, and the European Council (EC) (which represents 27  (EU) member states).

While some politicians in these countries have opposed this treaty, the pushback has so far failed to stop or slow down the progress of this international pandemic treaty and the May 2024 finalization is still very much in play.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Four Myths about Pandemic Preparedness

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | November 24, 2022

We are assured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bankthe G20, and their friends that pandemics pose an existential threat to our survival and well-being. Pandemics are becoming more common, and if we don’t move urgently we will have ourselves to blame for more mass death of the ‘next pandemic.’

The proof of this is the catastrophic harm done to the world by COVID-19, a repeat of which can only be prevented by transferring unprecedented funds and decision-making power to the care of public health institutions and their corporate partners. They have the resources, experience, knowledge and technical know-how to keep us safe.

This is a no-brainer, all of it, and only a fool who desires mass death would oppose it. But there are still people who claim that the link between the public health establishment and large corporations appears to be the only part of this narrative that withstands scrutiny.

If true, this would imply that we are being systematically deceived by our leaders, the health establishment, and most of our media; a ludicrous allegation in a free and democratic society. Only a fascist or otherwise totalitarian regime could run such a broad and inclusive deception, and only people with truly bad intent could nurture it.

So let’s hope such ‘appearances’ are deceptive. To believe that the premise behind our leaders’ Pandemic Preparedness and Response agenda is knowingly based on a set of complete fabrications would be a conspiracy theory too far. It would be too uncomfortable to accept that we are being deliberately misled by people we elected and the health establishment we trust; that the assurances of inclusivity, equity and tolerance are mere facades hiding fascists. We should examine the key claims supporting the pandemic agenda carefully and hope to find them credible.

Myth #1: Pandemics are becoming more common

In its 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines, the WHO listed 3 pandemics in the century between the 1918-20 Spanish flu and COVID-19. The Spanish flu killed mainly through secondary bacterial infections at a time before modern antibiotics. Today we would expect most of these people, many relatively young and fit, to survive.

The WHO subsequently recorded pandemic flu outbreaks in 1957-58 (‘Asian flu’) and 1968-69 (‘Hong Kong flu’). The Swine flu outbreak that occurred in 2009 was classed by WHO as a ‘pandemic’ but caused just 125,000 to 250,000 deaths. This is far less than a normal flu year and so hardly deserving of the pandemic label. Then we had COVID-19. That’s it for a whole century; one outbreak the WHO classifies as a pandemic per generation. Rare, or at least highly unusual, events.

Myth #2: Pandemics are a major cause of death

The Black Death, the Bubonic Plague that swept Europe in the 1300s, killed perhaps a third of the entire population. Repeat outbreaks over the following centuries caused similar harm, as had plagues known from Greek and Roman times. Even the Spanish flu did not compare with these. Life changed prior to antibiotics – including nutrition, accommodation, ventilation and sanitation – and these mass-mortality events subsided.

Since the Spanish flu we have developed an array of antibiotics that remain extremely effective against community-acquired pneumonia. Fit young people still die from influenza through secondary bacterial infection, but this is rare.

The WHO tells us there were 1.1 million deaths from the 1957-58 ‘Asian flu,’ and a million from the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu. In context, seasonal influenza kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people every year. As the global population was 3 to 3.5 billion when these two pandemics occurred, they classify as bad flu years killing about 1 in 700 mostly elderly people, with little influence on total deaths. They were treated as such, with the Woodstock Festival proceeding without super-spreader panic (regarding the virus, at least…).

COVID-19 has a higher associated mortality, but at an old average age equivalent to that of all-cause mortality, and is nearly always associated with comorbidities. Much mortality also occurred in the presence of the withdrawal of normal supportive care such as close nursing and physiotherapy, and intubation practices may have played a role.

Of the 6.5 million that the WHO records as dying from COVID-19, we don’t know how many would have died anyway from cancer, heart disease or the complications of diabetes mellitus and just happening to have a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. We don’t know because most authorities decided not to check, but recorded such deaths as being due to COVID-19. The WHO records about 15 million excess deaths throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but this includes lockdown deaths (malnutritionrising infectious diseaseneonatal death etc).

If we take the 6.5 million toll as likely, we can understand its context by comparing it with tuberculosis, a globally endemic respiratory disease that few worry about in their day-to-day lives. Tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year, which is almost half the annual COVID-19 toll in 2020 and 2021. Tuberculosis kills far younger on average than COVID, removing more potential life-years with each death.

So based on normal metrics for disease burden, we could say they are roughly equivalent – COVID-19 has had an impact on life expectancy overall fairly similar to TB – worse in older populations in Western countries, far less in low-income countries. Even in the US COVID-19 was associated with less (and older) deaths in 2020-21 than normally occur from cancer and cardiovascular disease.

COVID-19 has not therefore been an existential threat to the life of many people. The infection mortality rate globally is probably around 0.15%, higher in the elderly, much lower in healthy young adults and children. It is not unreasonable to think that if standard medical knowledge had been followed, such as physiotherapy and mobility for frail elderly people and micronutrient supplementation for those at risk, the mortality rate may have been even lower.

Whatever one’s views on COVID-19 death definitions and management, it is unavoidable that death is rare in healthy younger people. Over the past century all pandemic deaths have been very low. Averaging less than 100,000 people per year inclusive of COVID-19, they are a small fraction of that caused by seasonal flu.

Myth #3: Diversion of resource to pandemic preparedness makes public health sense

The G20 has just agreed with the World Bank to allocate $10.5 billion annually to its pandemic prevention and response Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF). There is, in their view, about $50 billion needed in total per year. This is the annual, holding budget for pandemic preparedness. As an example of their preferred response when an outbreak occurs, Yale University modelers estimate that to vaccinate people in low and middle income countries with just 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine would cost about $35 billion. Adding one booster would total $61 billion. Over $7 billion has thus far been committed to COVAX, the WHO’s Covid vaccine financing facility, vaccinating most who are already immune to the virus.

To put these sums in context, the annual budget of the WHO is normally below $4 billion. The entire world spends about $3 billion annually on malaria – a disease that kills well over half a million young children each year. The largest financing facility for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, the Global Fund, spends less than $4 billion per year on these three diseases combined. Other and larger preventable killers of children, – such as pneumonia and diarrhea, receive still less attention.

Malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and diseases of malnutrition are all increasing, while economies globally – the main long-term determinant of life expectancy in lower-income countries – decline. Taxpayers are being asked, by institutions that themselves will benefit, to spend vast resources on this problem rather than on diseases that kill more and younger people. The people pushing this agenda do not appear to be dedicated to reducing annual mortality or improving overall health. Alternatively, they either cannot manage data or have a window on the future that they are keeping to themselves.

Myth #4: COVID-19 caused massive harm to health and the global economy

The age-skewing of COVID mortality has been unmistakable since early 2020, when data from China demonstrated almost no mortality in healthy young to middle-aged adults and children. This has not changed. Those contributing to economic activity, working in factories, farms and transport, were never at great risk.

The economic and personal harm arising from the restrictions on these people, unemployment, destruction of small businesses and supply-line disruption, was a choice made against orthodox policy of the WHO and public health in general. The prolonged school closures, locking in generational poverty and inequality on both a sub-national and international level, was a choice to perhaps buy months for the elderly.

The 2019 WHO pandemic guidelines advised against lockdowns due to the inevitability that they would increase poverty, and poverty drives illness and reduces life expectancy. The WHO noted this disproportionately harms poorer people. This is not complicated – even those at the center of the lockdown and future digital ID agenda such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) acknowledge this reality. If the aim of poverty-promoting measures had been to reduce elderly death, the evidence for success is poor.

There seems little reasonable doubt that growing malnutrition and long-term poverty, rising endemic infectious disease, and the impacts of education loss, increased child marriage and increased inequality will far outweigh any possible mortality reduction achieved. UNICEF’s estimation of a quarter-million child deaths from lockdowns in South Asia in 2020 provides a window into the enormity of the harm lockdowns wrought. It was the novel public health response that caused the massive harm associated with this historically mild pandemic, not the virus.

Facing truth

It seems unavoidable that those advocating for the current pandemic and preparedness agenda are intentionally misleading the public in order to achieve their aims. This explains why, in the background documents of the WHO, the World Bank, G20 and others, detailed cost-benefit analyses are avoided. The same absence of this basic requirement characterized the introduction of Covid lockdowns.

Cost-benefit analyses are essential for any large-scale intervention, and their absence reflects either incompetence or malfeasance. Prior to 2019, the resource diversion being contemplated for pandemic preparedness would have been unthinkable without such analysis. We can therefore reasonably assume that their continued absence is based on fear or certainty that their outcomes would scupper the program.

A lot of people who should know better are going along with this deceit. Their motives can be surmised elsewhere. Many may feel they need a good salary, and the resultant dead and impoverished will be far enough away to be considered abstract. The media, owned by the same investment houses who own the Pharma and software companies sponsoring public health, are mostly silent. It is hardly a conspiracy to believe that investment houses such as BlackRock and Vanguard work to maximize return for their investors, using their various assets to do so.

A few decades of our elected leaders trooping off for closed-door sessions at Davos, together with a steady concentration of wealth with the individuals they were meeting, could not really have landed us anywhere else.

We knew this 20 years ago, when the media still warned of the harm that increasing inequality would bring. When individuals and corporations richer than medium-sized countries control major international health organizations such as Gavi and CEPI, the real question is why so many people struggle to acknowledge that conflicts of interest define international health policy.

The subversion of health for profit runs contrary to the entire ethos of the post-World War Two anti-fascist, anti-colonialist movement. When people across politics can acknowledge this reality, they can put aside the false divisions that this corruption has sown.

We are being deceived for a reason. Whatever that is, going along with a deception is a poor choice. Denial of truth never leads to a good place. When public health policy is based on a demonstrably false narrative, it is the role of public health workers, and the public, to oppose it.

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is the former Program Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Lancet reports on Human Rights failures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Is the tide turning? Think again.

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | November 24, 2022

When I first read the title of an article in The Lancet last week, I thought, this might be interesting, some acknowledgement about how bad lockdowns and mandates were. The title ‘Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis’ made me read on.

Maybe, I shouldn’t have been so naïve and maybe I should have looked at who the authors were first but I read on anyway.

I was still hopeful during the summary.

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, the failure of many states to live up to their human rights obligations should be a central narrative.

Which states will they talk about? The UK? America? I’d put money on Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Since then, COVID-19’s effects have been profoundly unequal, both nationally and globally. These inequalities have emphatically highlighted how far countries are from meeting the supreme human rights command of non-discrimination, from achieving the highest attainable standard of health that is equally the right of all people everywhere, and from taking the human rights obligation of international assistance and cooperation seriously.

Rubbing my hands together, I scrolled on, expecting to see scathing criticism of citizens being locked at home and how Covid mandates were completely unjust.

We propose embedding human rights and equity within a transformed global health architecture as the necessary response to COVID-19’s rights violations. This means vastly more funding from high-income countries to support low-income and middle-income countries in rights-based recoveries, plus implementing measures to ensure equitable distribution of COVID-19 medical technologies.

We also emphasise structured approaches to funding and equitable distribution going forward, which includes embedding human rights into a new pandemic treaty. Above all, new legal instruments and mechanisms, from a right to health treaty to a fund for civil society right to health advocacy, are required so that the narratives of future health emergencies—and people’s daily lives—are ones of equality and human rights.

Oh, here we go – high-income countries imposing their views on low-income countries. Distribution of mRNA vaccines and a new pandemic treaty.

Deflated, I finally checked the authors. The lead author works for the WHO and many of the other authors championed vaccine passports.

Realising this isn’t going to be the article I thought it was going to be, I skipped to the conclusion.

Equity demands treating health as a global public good and creating new legal instruments grounded in rights and equity. A reimagined, strengthened global health architecture, with human rights as its foundation, would be a fitting monument to the tens of millions who have died and suffered grievously—and would better prepare the world to address climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and other global threats. Furthermore, it would enable a swift, effective response the next time a novel or emerging infection threatens the globe—honouring the dignity of each of us.

I’ve seen that language before. “Equity demands”, “global public good”, “grounded in rights and equity”, “human rights as its foundation”. And whilst it all sounds lovely, it never ends well and the only human rights that are respected are those belonging to the humans that agree with what is being proposed.

You don’t want a pandemic treaty, forced vaccinations and mandates? Think of the tens of millions who have died and suffered grievously, you monster. Think of climate change, you devil in disguise. This is being done to honour the dignity of each of us. Well, not your dignity, you don’t agree with us, you stay locked in the quarantine camp thinking about the lovely dignity you could have if you did agree with us.

It was a struggle but I forced myself to read the rest of the article.

A failure to safeguard the public’s health

Many authoritarian regimes and populist leaders, however, have disregarded science, and have imposed harsh restrictions on human freedoms

One again, my hopes were raised. Maybe there is a small section on lockdowns etc. I saw the letters U.S.A. Maybe it will discuss how it is ridiculous that unvaccinated people still can’t travel there. Nope, it criticised the USA for opposing risk-mitigation measures such as business closures and mask or vaccine mandates.

It continued to get worse.

Public health officials have not always followed the science. The Public Health Agency of Sweden chose to allow a large portion of the country’s population to become infected, aiming to achieve herd immunity through eschewing basic scientific guidance of physical distancing and mask-wearing. This course was so fundamentally unsuccessful in protecting people’s health that it was beyond the discretion permissible under the right to health. By the end of 2020, Sweden’s mortality rate was ten times that of its neighbours, four-times higher than Denmark’s, and higher than in most European countries.

A pandemic of inequality

I agree with much of this section to a large extent, impacts of COVID-19 does disproportionately affect people with little money due to a plethora of risk factors. But so does any disease. And by locking people up, making them unhealthier and poorer, you only exacerbate this inequality.

But carry on with the virtual signalling and keep blaming it on systemic racism. Or Covid racism, I’m not quite sure. Either way, by not investigating why certain races disproportionately filled critical care units meant that more ethnic minorities carried on dying. Congratulations, by trying not to be racist, you actually ended up being racist.

Inequities harm rights to health, education, food, and an adequate standard of living

Service disruptions were responsible for an estimated 47,000 additional malaria deaths in 2020 compared with 2019, and 100,000 additional tuberculosis deaths. 121 (93%) of 130 countries reported mental health service disruptions, as depression and anxiety levels greatly increased. By 2022, more than 200 million additional people faced acute hunger compared with in 2019, while COVID-19 forced nearly 80 million people into extreme poverty.

One word – Lockdowns.

The COVID-19 excuse: abrogating freedoms

Governments exercised vast emergency health powers, including business closures, cordon sanitaire, and full lockdowns, which are warranted only if supported by science, and are necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory.

So lockdowns are warranted if supported by science. Still no acknowledgement of the terrible harms they have caused.

authoritarian leaders have used the pandemic as an excuse to violate human rights, including suppressing information, punishing whistleblowers, arresting and detaining opponents and citizen journalists, and undermining democratic rights

I recognise all of those things having happened in many Western countries but are they mentioned? Of course not. China, Tanzania, Egypt, Russia, Pakistan, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Cayman Islands, Burundi, India, Hungary, Malaysia, Zambia, El Salvador, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Ethiopia and Uganda all get a mention but nothing about the US, UK, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.

France and Greece get a brief mention. Maybe they haven’t been sending enough funding to the WHO recently.

Building back better with justice: a human rights response to COVID-19

And there we have it. Now we know exactly where this article has come from!

Global health with justice embedded into legislation and institution

A new rights-based national and global governance for the right to health would respond to the daily health emergency of health inequities that COVID-19 revealed and reinforced. Future governance, and the mechanisms that underpin it, must ensure equitable and effective responses to health emergencies by embedding the right to health, accountability, participation, and equity in global and national policies and international responses.

A new right-based global governance. Where have we heard that before? Nothing to see here. It all sounds completely reasonable and not sinister or dystopian at all.

These people don’t have a clue. That don’t recognise the harms they have caused and they wouldn’t recognise a human right if it jabbed them in the arm.

But they are calling the shots and they want global governance based around the greater good. Not enough countries did as they were told during this pandemic, so next time they want a structure in place that means your democratically elected leaders can’t decide if lockdowns are appropriate or not, the whole world will be locking down together.

Don’t get in the way of the greater good because if you do, you aren’t good and that means we can lock you up. Nobody likes not-good people and everyone will cheer your incarceration because it will keep them safe.

If these recommendations are allowed to go ahead, not only is it dangerous but also stupid. Never again will we know if a certain measure was the correct one to take or if a vaccine or treatment has a particular side effect because everybody in every country will have to do the same thing.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 2 Comments

Swissmedic and Vaccinating Doctors Criminally Sued for Authorizing and Administering Covid-19 mRNA Jabs

Do not underestimate the Swiss diligence

By Andreas Oehler | Live To Fight Another Day | November 14, 2022

The detail-oriented Swiss are taking their medical establishment to task in a big way for authorizing and administering the Covid-19 mRNA jabs, in a formal criminal complaint.

That is what the criminal complaint against Swissmedic is about” (SRF, 2022.11.14):

That’s what it’s all about: On July 14, 2022, a lawyer submitted a 300-page criminal complaint to the responsible cantonal public prosecutor’s office on behalf of six people allegedly injured by mRNA vaccinations. It is directed against three representatives of the Swiss licensing and supervisory authority for medicinal products and medical devices (Swissmedic) and five vaccinating doctors from the Inselspital in Bern. A criminal investigation is to be opened against them. The lawyer has now gone public with a media conference.

These are the plaintiffs: The lawyer for those affected, Philipp Kruse, is a declared opponent of vaccination and Covid measures. He represented people who refused to wear masks or parents who didn’t want their children to take part in pool tests. Doctors who were noticed as corona skeptics also appeared at the media conference.

This is what the indictment says: The defendants are accused of violating basic drug law due diligence by allowing and administering the Covid 19 vaccination. There are a number of other charges listed, including intentional or possibly negligent bodily harm, endangering life, killing and abortion.

These are the alleged damages: According to lawyer Kruse, the damages range from circular hair loss, derailment of the menstrual cycle to polyarthritis, muscle weakness and chronic exhaustion to the death of a 20-year-old person. Some of the six victims listed are still unable to work. The connection to the Covid 19 vaccination was confirmed by experts in five cases. In the case of the deceased, the causal connection must be proven on the basis of pathological examinations. However, these investigations are not yet complete.

What Swissmedic says: Nothing. Swissmedic does not want to comment on the ongoing court proceedings. The Federal Office of Public Health and the Federal Vaccination Commission also do not want to comment.

What may fly under the radar in other countries, in terms of the lack of accountability and responsibility for Covid-19 jabbing injuries, is unlikely to pass muster in Switzerland. The Swiss pride themselves on being OBJECTIVE, diligent, thorough and just. Because of these very high public expectations, it is impossible to sweep under the carpet, gaslight, or outright ignore the laws on the books over there, let’s hope:

It is about these articles of the Medicines Act

Art. 3 Duty of care 1 Anyone who handles medicinal products must take all the necessary measures based on the current state of science and technology to ensure that the health of humans and animals is not endangered.

Chapter 8: Penal Provisions Art. 86233 Crimes and misdemeanors 1 Anyone who willfully: a. manufactures, places on the market, uses, prescribes medicinal products without the necessary authorization or authorization, contrary to the terms and conditions associated with an authorization or authorization or contrary to the due diligence obligations stipulated in Articles 3, 7, 21, 22, 26, 29 and 42, imports, exports or trades abroad; (…).

Link to the Medicines Act .

Also of note here is that Swissmedic is the key conduit of the global vaccination programmes in partnership with Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and WHO, and also FDA.

Good luck in court!

November 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments