WHO Director-general Tedros Adhanom has requested that social media companies around the world combat all “misinformation” regarding monkeypox.
“As we have seen with COVID-19, misinformation and disinformation can spread rapidly online. So, we call on all social media platforms, tech companies, and news organizations to work with us to prevent and counter harmful information,” Adhanom said earlier today.
This news comes only four days after the WHO chief Adhanom declared monkeypox an international health emergency, overruling a majority of panel members that voted against making such a declaration.
Now, it looks like the WHO is taking the next step: censoring anyone who isn’t on board with their monkeypox madness.
This is the same step the World Health Organization took in 2020 and 2021 when the WHO claimed that all information that went against the narrative was part of a broader “infodemic.”
“Soon after the world started getting used to the terms coronavirus and COVID-19, WHO coined another word: “infodemic” — an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news, images, and videos. Like the virus, it is highly contagious and grows exponentially. It also complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts,” reads a 2020 article entitled “Immunizing the public against misinformation.”
Over the course of the pandemic, the WHO began partnering with countries to combat the “infodemic,” which, more often than not, meant censoring people online who had genuine concerns or were trying to proliferate the truth of adverse reactions following mRNA jabs.
Such adverse reactions are now known to be a fact, and health officials worldwide have begun warning people of the risk from things like post-vaccine myocarditis, which the WHO has consistently waved away as a conspiracy theory.
July 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | WHO |
2 Comments
I’ve been looking again at Covid’s origins and the start of the pandemic. Last time I wrote on it I argued that Italy brought in China-style lockdowns on March 8th and 10th 2020 mainly as a result of panic owing to the leap in the death rate, with it being clear from the hospital situation there were many more deaths to come. I still believe that that was the immediate trigger for imposing lockdowns at the time. However, I now recognise that that is far from the full story. What it leaves out is the backdrop of who was pushing for lockdowns throughout the preceding two months, and why.
Two key pieces of data have emerged in the last few months that help to bring the picture into clearer focus. The first is that with the arrival of Omicron the Chinese have continued fanatically to pursue lockdowns, crippling their economy as they do it. To my mind, this is convincing evidence that the Chinese are sincere about their belief in the radical new disease management strategy they inaugurated on January 23rd 2020 in Wuhan. I initially (in 2020) thought it may be an elaborate ruse to convince the world to do something monumentally and pointlessly self-destructive. But it appears they really do think lockdowns are highly effective and the right way to fight a disease like COVID-19. I’m aware some suggest it could just be a cunning strategy to strengthen the grip of the ruling party on the population, but all the evidence indicates to me that they actually are trying to fight the disease in this way.
If this is accepted then one of the key pieces of the puzzle snaps into place: the global Covid narrative has, both behind closed doors and in front of them, been driven in part by the Chinese Government’s commitment to its extreme suppression strategy and its desire for other countries to adopt it as well. It’s been suggested this derives from a sense of national pride and seeking vindication of their efforts and ideas, and is part of a wider aim of achieving global Chinese cultural supremacy, which sounds plausible to me.
The second key piece of data are emails sent by White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, which reveal that behind closed doors as late as February 26th 2020, Dr. Fauci was still, as he had been consistently up to that point, advising people not to panic. But as of February 27th his approach suddenly changed and, from that moment on, he began consistently pushing restrictions.
On February 26th he wrote to CBS News that Americans should not yield to fear:
You cannot avoid having infections since you cannot shut off the country from the rest of the world… Do not let the fear of the unknown… distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day… do not yield to unreasonable fear.
But by the next day he was writing to actress Morgan Fairchild that the American public should prepare for pandemic restrictions:
It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers that although the current risk of coronavirus to the American public is low, the fact that there is community spread of virus in a number of countries besides China… poses a risk that we may progress to a global pandemic of COVID-19… And so for that reason, the American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures that include social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc. There is nothing to be done right now since there are so few cases in this country and these cases are being properly isolated, and so go about your daily business. However, be aware that behavioural adjustments may need to be made if a pandemic occurs.
Interestingly, February 27th was also the day the media narrative in the U.S. shifted, with the New York Times leading the way with its first alarmist piece, by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, and also an alarmist podcast with science and health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr., which quoted directly from China a 2% mortality rate for the virus.
The context for this shift was a WHO press briefing on February 24th by Bruce Aylward, who had just concluded a WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 and told the world that lockdown worked and “you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”
The timing obviously suggests the events are connected, but crucially it also implies that Fauci and those around him were not part of the behind-the-scenes decision of Aylward to throw the WHO’s weight behind the Chinese approach. This leaves, then, the question of why Fauci & Co flipped from their previous position of playing down the threat from the virus and not supporting extreme Chinese-style interventions to going all in with the panic.
The picture being painted here is of at least two ‘conspiracies’ going on – the Chinese one, seeking to push lockdowns as part of Chinese vindication and cultural supremacy, and the Fauci & Co one, the potential motives for which are discussed below. I am pretty confident these are not the same ‘conspiracy’, as I assume that Fauci and Co are not motivated by vindicating China and advancing its cultural supremacy (I’ve seen no evidence this should be the case).
A further element to throw into the mix is that the first Western lockdown occurred three days before the Aylward WHO briefing, on February 21st 2020, in a region of 50,000 people in Lombardy. Oddly, it seems to have been an isolated local initiative in response to the first identified ‘cases’ led by the regional health chief Giulio Gallera, with no clear links to the WHO or any other known lockdown protagonists. It would be interesting to ask Mr. Gallera why he decided to follow such a radical course of action that day.
Italy locked down on March 8th and 10th, a response it seems to the climbing death rate, and most of the rest of the world followed in the ensuing two weeks. The U.S. Government was persuaded by Deborah Birx and others to back lockdowns on March 16th. On March 12th-14th, U.K. Government ministers and officials did a media round promoting the idea of aiming for herd immunity and keeping calm and carrying on. However, that strategy soon collapsed in the face of shifting public opinion and alarmist models from scientists like Imperial’s Neil Ferguson. After March 23rd, Sweden was the only holdout among Western Governments.
Such a mess of uncoordinated action confirms to my mind a picture of different groups driven by different motives and agendas which sometimes overlap, catalysed by groupthink and hysteria, rather than any grand behind-the-scenes conspiracy involving all in a coordinated fashion.
The Chinese Communist Party is a crucial actor, of course. It invented lockdowns and since then has persistently pushed them to the rest of the world, including through an all too willing WHO. However, that doesn’t mean that all who promote panic and lockdowns do so because they are in thrall to China or doing its bidding.
So what was the deal with Fauci & Co – why did they oppose panic and lockdowns until February 27th, then flip to become among their most eager and high-powered proponents?
Fauci’s emails show that, starting at the end of January and into February 2020, he organised a series of secretive video conferences and phone calls because he and his associates suspected the virus may have been genetically modified and leaked from a lab. Yet despite these suspicions, on February 19th the group wrote a letter to the Lancet denouncing the lab leak as a “conspiracy theory”. The organiser of the letter was Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, one of Fauci’s associates who it later turned out had been funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of exactly the kind that was suspected as being responsible for creating COVID-19. Biologist Nick Patterson notes a grant application from EcoHealth Alliance to DARPA (the research agency of the U.S. Department of Defence), of which he says, “as far as I can make out, the plan here was for WIV to collect live virus, ship it to the USA, have U.S. scientists genetically modify the virus, and then ship modified virus… back to China”.
In light of information like this and Fauci and Co’s preoccupation during February 2020 with the origin of the virus, culminating in their cynical effort to suppress the claims of lab leak and genetic modification, I surmise that their major motivation was to cover themselves for the possibility that they and their research fields would be held responsible for the virus. Initially this took the form of suppressing the lab leak theory while also playing down the threat from the virus, which they would have been keen to be as uneventful as possible. But why then the flip to panic mode after February 27th? Did the WHO backing lockdowns on February 24th change the equation, so it was no longer deemed viable or good cover to oppose the new approach? The path of least resistance in other words. A related question is whether they were genuinely persuaded that the measures would be effective or if they retained an unspoken scepticism. If they did retain any scepticism there’s been precious little sign of it since March 2020.
Overall, I see no indication of a grand plan from the earliest days in which all are working from a common script to a common goal. Instead, I see various groups with their own agendas, interests and fears. It’s clear that, following Aylward’s team’s visit, China managed to capture the WHO and bring it on board with championing lockdowns. However, the motives of everyone besides China are largely opaque. Why did Aylward become China’s biggest fan – was he threatened or bribed or just duped and naïve? Why exactly did Lombardy regional health chief Giulio Gallera respond to the first cases in his region by imposing a Chinese-style lockdown even before the WHO had backed them? Why did Fauci flip on February 27th? What about curious figures like Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger, highlighted by Michael Senger, who despite being a known China critic, was a major alarmist influence within the White House from the get-go, drawing on mysterious ‘contacts in China’ to call for panic and restrictions as early as January?
What drove each of these people to get behind the closing down of society as the ‘solution’ to a respiratory virus? We can largely see now who did what and when. What’s mainly missing is the why.
July 22, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | China, Covid-19, United States, WHO |
1 Comment
As I’ve repeated ad nauseum here at the Daily Sceptic, excess mortality provides a far better measure of the pandemic’s impact on mortality than the ‘official’ Covid death rate.
When it comes to cross-country comparisons, the ‘official’ Covid death rates are particularly deficient. Testing and diagnosis vary dramatically, so two countries with the same actual death tolls may still have very different ‘official’ death tolls – just because one tested more or had broader criteria for diagnosis.
Excess mortality, as most readers are no-doubt aware, is the difference between the number of deaths observed during the pandemic and the number that were expected, based on previous years. A five-year average is often used for the number of expected deaths – though one can use a linear trend or more complicated extrapolation instead.
Here’s a very simple example. Suppose a country had roughly 100,000 deaths per year in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Then in 2020, it records 120,000 deaths. In that case, excess mortality would be 20,000 deaths.
But of course, if we want to compare this country to other countries, the ‘20,000 deaths’ isn’t very useful. Larger countries will have more excess deaths just because there are more people at risk of death. And this is something we need to account for when making comparisons, or else we’ll conclude that all the small countries did well and all the large ones did badly.
So why not just divide the ‘20,000 deaths’ figure by the country’s population, thereby obtaining ‘excess deaths per 100,000 people’? Indeed, that’s exactly what the WHO did for its recent estimates of excess deaths associated with the pandemic (which were widely covered in the media).
Well, there’s a problem with this method of adjustment: countries have different age structures. And this matters because the risk of death (from both Covid and everything else) is far higher in older age-groups than in younger age-groups.
Consider two countries with the same number of excess deaths, say 20,000. One has a population of 10 million and one has a population of 12 million. Suppose the 2 million ‘extra’ people in the second country are all under the age of 40. So above the age of 40, the two countries have identical age structures.
Using the WHO’s method of adjustment, excess mortality would be 200 per 100,000 in the first country, but only 167 per 100,000 in the second country. Yet this clearly ‘rewards’ the second country. Why? Very few deaths occur among people under 40, so including them in the denominator artificially pulls down the rate of excess mortality.
Rather than dividing by the country’s population, there’s a much better way of making excess mortality figures comparable: divide by the number of expected deaths. This gives you a percentage, which is neither biased against large countries, nor against countries with aging populations.
As a matter of fact, the WHO’s decision to divide by the country’s population may help to explain its widely-reported (but almost certainly wrong) finding that Britain had less excess mortality than Germany. Estimates based on percentages clearly show that Britain had more excess mortality. Yet because Germany’s population pyramid has a narrower base, the denominator in the WHO’s calculation will have been smaller.
Having said that, I doubt the WHO’s estimates are substantially different from those based on percentages. But that’s not the point. The point is they used a bad method of adjustment, when an equally simple and better one was available.
July 19, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Germany, UK, WHO |
Leave a comment
The December 2020 resignation of Dr. Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Trump, revealed predictable hypocrisy. Like so many other government officials around the world, she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order. Therefore she finally left her post following nine months of causing unfathomable amounts of damage to life, liberty, property, and the very idea of hope for the future.
Even if Anthony Fauci had been the front man for the media, it was Birx who was the main influence in the White House behind the nationwide lockdowns that did not stop or control the pathogen but have caused immense suffering and continue to roil and wreck the world. So it was significant that she would not and could not comply with her own dictates, even as her fellow citizens were being hunted down for the same infractions against “public health.”
In the days before Thanksgiving 2020, she had warned Americans to “assume you’re infected” and to restrict gatherings to “your immediate household.” Then she packed her bags and headed to Fenwick Island in Delaware where she met with four generations for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, as if she were free to make normal choices and live a normal life while everyone else had to shelter in place.
The Associated Press was first out with the report on December 20, 2020.
Birx acknowledged in a statement that she went to her Delaware property. She declined to be interviewed.
She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule.
“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware.
Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes. She initially called the Potomac home a “3 generation household (formerly 4 generations).” White House officials later said it continues to be a four-generation household, a distinction that would include Birx as part of the home.
So it was all a sleight-of-hand: she was staying home; it’s just that she has several homes! This is how the power elite comply, one supposes.
The BBC then quoted her defense, which echo the pain experienced by hundreds of millions:
“My daughter hasn’t left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They’ve become deeply depressed as I’m sure many elderly have as they’ve not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters. My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things.”
Indeed. However, she was the major voice for the better part of 2020 for requiring exactly that. No one should blame her for wanting to get together with family; that she worked so hard for so long to prevent others from doing so is what is at issue.
The press piled on and she announced that she would be leaving her post and not seeking a position at the Biden White House. Trump tweeted that she will be missed. It was the final discrediting – or should have been – of a person that many in the White House and many around the country had come to see as an obvious fanatic and fake, a person whose influence wrecked the liberties and health of an entire country.
It was a fitting end to a catastrophic career. So it would make sense that people might pick up her new book to find out what it was like to go through that kind of media storm, the real reasons for her visit, what it was like to know for sure that she must violate her own rules in order to bring comfort to her family, and the difficult decision she made to throw in the towel knowing that she has compromised the integrity of her entire program.
One slogs through her entire book only to find this incredible fact: she never mentions this. The incident is missing entirely from her book.
Instead at the moment in the narrative at which she would be expected to recount the affair she says almost in passing that “When former vice president Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, I’d set a goal for myself—to hand over responsibility for the pandemic response, with all its many elements, in the best possible place.”
At that point, the book skips immediately to the new year. Done. It’s like Orwell, the story, even though it was reported for days in the world press and became a defining moment in her career, is just wiped out from the history book of her own authorship.
Somehow it makes sense that she would neglect to mention this. Reading her book is a very painful experience (all credit to Michael Senger’s review) simply because it seems to be weaving fables on page after page, strewn with bromides, completely lacking in self awareness, punctuated by revealing comments that make the opposite point of what she is seeking. Reading it is truly a surreal experience, astonishing especially because she is able to maintain her delusionary pose for 525 pages.
Recall that it was she who was tasked – by Anthony Fauci – with doing the really crucial thing of talking Donald Trump into green-lighting the lockdowns that began on March 12, 2020, and continued to their final hard-core deployment on March 16. This was the “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” that turned into two years in many parts of the country.
Her book admits that it was a two-level lie from the beginning.
“We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown,” she writes. “At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”
Further:
“At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.”
In other words, she wanted to go full CCP just like Italy but didn’t want to say that. Crucially, she knew for sure that two weeks was not the real plan. “I left the rest unstated: that this was just a starting point.”
“No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.
“Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.”
It was a solution in search of evidence she did not have. She told Trump that the evidence was there anyway. She actually tricked him into believing that locking down a whole population of people was somehow magically going to make a virus to which everyone would inevitably be exposed somehow vanish as a threat.
Meanwhile, the economy was wrecked domestically and then all over the world, as most governments in the world followed what the US did.
Where did she come up with the idea of lockdowns? By her own report, her only real experience with infectious disease came from her work on AIDS, a very different disease from a respiratory virus that everyone would eventually get but which would only be fatal or even severe for a small cohort, a fact that was known since late January. Still, her experience counted for more than science.
“In any health crisis, it is crucial to work at the personal behavior level,” she says with the presumption that avoidance at all costs was the only goal. “With HIV/AIDS, this meant convincing asymptomatic people to get tested, to seek treatment if they were HIV-positive, and to take preventative measures, including wearing condoms; or to employ other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if they were negative.”
She immediately hops to the analogy with Covid. “I knew the government agencies would need to do the same thing to have a similar effect on the spread of this novel coronavirus. The most obvious parallel with the HIV/AIDS example was the message of wearing masks.”
Masks = condoms. Remarkable. This “obvious parallel” remark sums the whole depth of her thinking. Behavior is all that matters. Just stay apart. Cover your mouth. Don’t gather. Don’t travel. Close the schools. Close everything. Whatever happens, don’t get it. Nothing else matters. Keep your immune system as unexposed as possible.
I wish I could say her thought is more complex than that but it is not. This was the basis for lockdowns. For how long? In her mind, it seems like it would be forever. Nowhere in the book does she reveal an exit strategy. Not even vaccines qualify.
From the very beginning, she revealed her epidemiological views. On March 16, 2020 at her press conference with Trump, she summarized her position: “We really want people to be separated at this time.” People? All people? Everywhere? Not one reporter raised a question about this obviously ridiculous and outrageous statement that would essentially destroy life on earth.
But she was serious – seriously deluded not only about how society functions but also about infectious disease of this sort. Only one thing mattered as a metric to her: reducing infections through any means possible, as if she on her own could cobble together a new kind of society in which exposure to air-born pathogens was made illegal.
Here is an example. There was a controversy about how many people should be allowed to gather in one space, as in home, church, store, stadium, or community center. She addresses how she came up with the rules:
The real problem with this fifty-versus-ten distinction, for me, was that it revealed that the CDC simply didn’t believe to the degree that I did that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread through the air silently and undetected from symptomless individuals. The numbers really did matter. As the years since have confirmed, in times of active viral community spread, as many as fifty people gathered together indoors (unmasked at this point, of course) was way too high a number. It increased the chances of someone among that number being infected exponentially. I had settled on ten knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans—high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.
She puts a fine point on it: “if I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”
What does it mean for zero people to gather? A suicide cult?
In any case, just like that, from her own thinking and straight to enforcement, birthday parties, sports, weddings, and funerals came to be forbidden.
Here we gain insight into the sheer insanity of her vision. It is nothing short of a marvel that she somehow managed to gain the amount of influence she did.
Notice her above mention of her dogma that asymptomatic spread was the whole key to understanding pandemic. In other words, on her own and without any scientific support, she presumed that Covid was both extremely fatal and had a long latency period. To her way of thinking, this is why the usual tradeoff between severity and prevalence did not matter.
She was somehow certain that the longest estimates of latency were correct: 14 days. This is the reason for the “wait two weeks” obsession. She held onto this dogma throughout, almost like the fictional movie “Contagion” had been her only guide to understanding.
Later in the book, she writes that symptoms mean next to nothing because people can always carry around the virus in their nose without being sick. After all, this is what PCR tests have shown. Instead of seeing that as a failure of PCR, she saw this as a confirmation that everyone is a carrier no matter what and therefore everyone has to lock down because otherwise we’ll deal with a black plague.
Somehow, despite her astonishing lack of scientific curiosity and experience in this area, she gained all influence over the initial Trump administration response. Briefly, she was godlike.
But Trump was not and is not a fool. He must have had some sleepless nights wondering how and why he had approved the destruction of that which he had seen as his greatest achievement. The virus was long here (probably from October 2019), it presented a specific danger to a narrow cohort, but otherwise behaved like a textbook flu. Maybe, he must have wondered, his initial instincts from January and February 2020 were correct all along.
Still, he very reluctantly approved a 30-day extension of lockdowns, entirely on Birx’s urging and with a few other fools standing around. Having given in a second time – still, no one thought to drop an email or make a phonecall for a second opinion! – this seemed to be the turning point. Birx reports that by April 1, 2020, Trump had lost confidence in her. He might have intuited that he had been tricked. He stopped speaking to her.
It would still take another month before he would fully rethink everything that he had approved at her behest.
It made no difference. The bulk of her book is a brag fest about how she kept subverting the White House’s push to open up the economy – that is, allow people to exercise their rights and freedoms. Once Trump turned against her, and eventually found other people to provide good advice like the tremendously brave Scott Atlas – it was five months later when he arrived in an attempt to save the country from disaster – Birx turned to rallying around her inner circle (Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Matthew Pottinger, and a few others) plus assembling a realm of protection outside of her that included CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta and, very likely, the virus team at the New York Times (which gives her book a glowing review).
Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies.
Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states.
After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit.
Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.
As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life.
After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction.
Birx reveals that it was her doing:
This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield… Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…
One might ask how the heck she got away with this. She explains:
[T]he guidance gambit was only the tip of the iceberg of my transgressions in my effort to subvert Scott Atlas’s dangerous positions. Ever since Vice President Pence told me to do what I needed to do, I’d engaged in very blunt conversations with the governors. I spoke the truth that some White House senior advisors weren’t willing to acknowledge. Censoring my reports and putting up guidance that negated the known solutions was only going to perpetuate Covid-19’s vicious circle. What I couldn’t sneak past the gatekeepers in my reports, I said in person.
Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators.
Largely missing from the narrative is any discussion of the science gathering outside the bubble she so carefully cultivated. Whereas anyone could have noted the studies pouring out from February onward that threw cold water on her entire paradigm – not to mention 15 years, or make that 50 years, or perhaps 100 years of warnings against such a reaction – from scientists all over the world with vastly more experience and knowledge than she. She cared nothing about it, and evidently still does not.
It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution.
For those interested, Chapter 8 provides a weird look into her first real scientific challenge: the seroprevalence study by Jayanta Bhattacharya published April 22, 2020. It demonstrated that the infection fatality rate – because infections and recovery was far more prevalent than Birx and Fauci were saying – was more in line with what one might expect from a severe flu but with a much more focused demographic impact. Bhattacharya’s paper revealed that the pathogen eluded all controls and would likely become endemic as every respiratory virus before. She took one look and concluded that he had unnamed “fundamental flaws in logic and methodology” and “damaged the cause of public health at this crucial moment in the pandemic.”
And that’s it: that’s Birx grappling with science. Meanwhile, the article was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and has over 700 citations. She saw all differences of opinion as an opportunity to go on the attack in order to intensify her cherished commitment to the lockdown paradigm.
Even now, with scientists the world over in outrage, with citizens furious at their governments, with governments falling, with regimes toppling and anger reaching a fevered pitch, while studies pour out by the day showing that lockdowns made no difference and that open societies at least protected their educational systems and economies, she is unmoved. It’s not even clear she is aware.
Birx dismisses all contrary cases such as Sweden: Americans could not take that route because we are too unhealthy. South Dakota: rural and backwater (Birx is still mad that the brave Governor Kristi Noem refused to meet with her). Florida: oddly and without evidence she dismisses that case as a killing field, even though its results were better than California while the population influx to the state sets new records.
Nor is she shaken by the reality that there is not one single country or territory anywhere on the planet earth that benefitted from her approach, not even her beloved China which still pursues a zero-Covid approach. As for New Zealand and Australia: she (probably wisely) doesn’t mention them at all, even though they followed the Birx approach exactly.
The story of the lockdowns is a tale of Biblical proportions, at once evil and desperately sad and tragic, a story of power, scientific failure, intellectual insularity and insanity, outrageous arrogance, feudalistic impulses, mass delusion, plus political treachery and conspiracy. It is real-life horror for the ages, a tale of how the land of the free became a depostic hellscape so quickly and unexpectedly. Birx was at the center of it, confirming all of your worst fears right here in a book anyone can buy. She is so proud of her role that she dares to take all credit, fully convinced that the Trump-hating media will love and protect her perfidies from exposure and condemnation.
There is no getting around Trump’s own culpability here. He never should have let her have her way. Never. It was a case of fallibility matched by ego (he has still not admitted error), but it is a case of enormous betrayal that played off presidential character flaws (like many in his income class, Trump had always been a germaphobe) that ended up wrecking hope and prosperity for billions of people for many years to come.
I’ve tried for two years to put myself in that scene at the White House that day. It’s a hothouse with only trusted souls in small rooms, and the people there in a crisis have the sense that they are running the world. Trump might have drawn on his experience running a casino in Atlantic City. The weather forecasters come to say a hurricane is on the way, so he needs to shut it down. He doesn’t want to but agrees in order to do the right thing.
Was this his thinking? Perhaps. Perhaps too someone told him that China’s President Xi Jinping managed to crush the virus with lockdowns so he can too, just as the WHO said in its February 26 report. It’s also difficult in that environment to avoid the rush of omnipotence, temporarily oblivious to the reality that your decision would affect life from Maine to Florida to California. It was a catastrophic and lawless decision based on pretense and folly.
What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The economic crisis, inflation, the broken lives, the desperation, the lost rights and lost hopes, and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days. Every day in this country, even two and a half years later, judges are struggling to regain control and revitalize the Constitution after this disaster.
The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime. This is what Dr. Birx has done in her book. But there are clearly limits to her transparency. She never explains the real reason for her resignation – even though it is known the world over – pretending like the entire Thanksgiving fiasco never happened and thus attempting to write it out of the history book that she wrote.
There is so much more to say and I hope this is one review of many because the book is absolutely packed with shocking passages. And yet her 525-page book, now selling at a 50% discount, does not contain a single citation to a single scientific study, paper, monograph, article, or book. It has zero footnotes. It offers no go-to authorities and displays not even a hint of humility that would normally be part of any actual scientific account.
And it nowhere offers an honest reckoning for what her influence over the White House and the states foisted on this country and on the world. As the country masks up yet again for a new variant, and is gradually being groomed for another round of disease panic, she can collect whatever royalties come from sales of her book while working at her new gig, a consultant to a company that makes air purifiers (ActivePure). In this latter role, she makes a greater contribution to public health than anything she did while she held the reins of power.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises.
July 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Deborah Birx, Human rights, New York Times, United States, WHO |
1 Comment
Transcription:
Dear colleagues at the WHO, I think the time has come to admit that the mass vaccination program that you have been proposing in an attempt to put an end to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a complete failure. At the beginning of this year, I’ve been urging you to open a scientific debate on the potential risks of mass vaccination with these vaccines – in the midst of a pandemic. I’ve never received a response to that request. But shortly thereafter one of the most renowned vaccinologists on this planet wrote me an email saying; ‘vaccinating with these vaccines would only breed new variants. But that it wouldn’t make sense for me to go against the mainstream because nobody would listen to me anyway, and hopefully that second-generation vaccines would solve the problem.’
So, I wanted to let you know that it is not because you are the WHO, that you can afford to ignore the opinion of people who have long-standing expertise – in all of the different disciplines involved in this pandemic: virology, immunology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, zoonoses, etc. Whereas, some of us have been predicting that mass vaccination with these vaccines in the midst of a pandemic would inevitably lead to the expansion of more infectious variants, your leading scientists have been preaching the simplistic mantra that the more we vaccinate the less the virus will replicate, and the lower the likelihood that new variants will emerge. Now, the consequences of these simplistic and erroneous viewpoints is that today we are dealing with dominant circulation of Omicron, the most infectious SARS-CoV-2 variant that we have seen so far, and probably the most infectious virus that we have seen so far.
So, given the fact that we are now dealing with a number of variants that are circulating and a multitude, of course, of sub-variants, and that infection rates are going through the roof, and that also we are already most likely having a number of animal populations that are serving as a reservoir for the virus, the likelihood that viral variants are now recombining and building reassortments within one and the same host is becoming increasingly likely. So, what that means is that it will become increasingly difficult to trace the origin of new variants, and that it will be even more challenging to predict the characteristics of those new variants in terms of infectiousness, in terms of virulence, pathogenicity, and also in terms of resistance to vaccinal antibodies or to vaccines in general.
But what is very clear is that if those new variants are to survive on a background of high population-level immune pressure, then those variants will need to be more infectious – like, for example, the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant, however, is offering a very nice opportunity, because Omicron has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal antibodies, and that means that the vaccinal antibodies are less likely to outcompete the innate antibodies, which is very good news, because we know that innate antibodies can protect against SARS-CoV-2. This has been repeatedly reported in the literature. We also know that innate antibodies can be trained, and therefore they can even improve their recognition and protection against the virus. Innate antibodies can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained, by repeated exposure to what we call pathogen-associated molecular patterns. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced, and even to an extent such that vaccine efficacy, or we should say, in the population, vaccine effectiveness, would become negative. There is also increased evidence, or increasing evidence, that training of innate antibodies as a result of natural infection can enhance the abrogation of the infection, and that training of adaptive immunity – particularly the induction of T-cell memory, also as a result of natural infection – can enhance the abrogation of disease.
Thanks to the increased resistance of Omicron to vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies are set free and can now enable the vaccinees to eliminate the virus, to control viral transmission, and to lead to a dramatic decrease in the viral infection rate, just like healthy unvaccinated people are doing. So, in other words, the resistance to Omicron means, in fact, that we are freeing up a huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in vaccinees because the vaccinees are, in fact, regaining full functionality of their innate immune antibodies. That, of course, will lead to herd immunity because herd immunity requires that you induce a type of immunity that can sterilize the virus, that can dramatically diminish transmission. This would also mean: by freeing up this huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in the vaccinees – after certainly a very important incline of infectious cases – we would have a rapid decline of this wave. And we would also have a rapid decline of disease cases, and even more importantly and more dramatically, of severe disease. Now we know with (moderate) disease, when you recover from disease, you develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived and will protect you. And the few cases of severe disease, we have, of course, to treat – that is what we’ve always said.
It is important to realize that, in fact, Omicron is more or less serving, indeed, as a live attenuated vaccine, and that this is a unique opportunity. The fact that we free up the sterilizing capacity in the vaccinees, thanks to the increased level of resistance of Omicron to the vaccinal antibodies – those are no longer capable of outcompeting the innate antibodies – we may have a unique opportunity to achieve herd immunity, or to start building herd immunity. And so, it is very, very important that we leave people alone, and that we leave the children alone, and that we let the virus spread. And so, we shouldn’t have any vaccination against this Omicron variant, and we shouldn’t have lockdowns.
If we are now going to vaccinate against Omicron, we are going to take away this window of opportunity for the population to generate herd immunity, thanks to freeing up our innate antibodies. And what we are going to do is in fact we would build against antibodies, against the spike protein of Omicron, and particularly against the receptor-binding domain of this Omicron spike protein.
We know that this receptor-binding domain has already undergone a number, or several, important mutations. So, if we put again full pressure on this domain, there is a high likelihood that we are now going to promote variants that will be able to use a receptor that is different from ACE-2 to enter into the cell. And we know that SARS-CoV-2 can do that because it has already been described that SARS-CoV-2 can use receptors other than ACE-2 to enter into the cell. But so far this way of entering – this alternative way of entry into the cell – has not been the preferred way for the virus for entering the cells. But it would only take probably one or two mutations for the virus to make these alternative receptors the preferred receptors for viral entry.
By doing mass vaccination against Omicron, we may be putting enough immune pressure on viral infectiousness to give variants that are capable of entering into the cell through an alternative receptor – to give them a competitive advantage, and so, to provide them with a fitness advantage so that they can now become dominant in the population. What this means is pretty catastrophic, because this would mean that basically we end up with a situation where we have antibodies that still strongly bind to the virus, to the receptor binding domain, but that can no longer neutralize the virus because the virus is now using another domain to enter into the cell, a domain which is different from the domain that is blocked by the antibodies.
Such a situation is in fact, a textbook example, for how you provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. So, this would mean that such a situation, the virus covered with strongly binding antibodies but not being able to neutralize the virus, would basically lead, or would be similar, to a situation where the virus has acquired a higher level of virulence. This would be – this situation would really, really, really be at risk of provoking the kind of disastrous consequences that I have been warning against at the beginning of this year. And we know that industry is already gearing up for mass vaccination against Omicron. And, as this, according to my humble opinion, could potentially be – with a high likelihood – a real disaster. We must prevent such a thing from happening.
So in order to – or I would say unless – unless immediate action is taken to prevent this, it is clear that decision-makers in your organization, the WHO, will be held responsible, accountable, and liable for the dramatic consequences that this biological experiment on human beings could possibly entail. So I hope that this time you will take my warning very seriously into consideration.
Thank you.
July 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, WHO |
Leave a comment
We’re only three days removed from our last monkeypox article – We’re “losing the fight against monkeypox”… apparently – and already it’s time for an update.
It’s been a busy two days for the monkeypox madness.
First, the World Health Organization announced their plans to hold a second “emergency meeting” on the monkeypox outbreak, to discuss if it merits being declared a “global emergency”.
As if trying to supply fuel for the WHO’s meeting next week, countries all around the world are reporting up ticks in cases.
Yesterday Global News reported that Canada’s monkeypox cases had “risen by 59% in just 9 days” (from 300 to 477 if you’re one of those people who likes hard figures in place of scary-sounding percentages).
According to the Associated Press, the UK’s “cases” have risen to 1735. One nursery school even shut down for the summer two weeks early…just because one their pupils may have come into contact with monkeypox.
Elsewhere in the UK press, one “expert” was “warning” that Monkeypox will become “endemic” if we don’t “take action”.
The “expert” also suggests that it would be wrong to “sit back and watch” monkeypox become endemic in “men who have sex with men”. Perhaps revealing the point of that part of the narrative – that if you reject monkeypox as anything to be worried about at all, you’re just being homophobic or speaking with “straight privilege”.
A similar angle is taken in this NPR piece, which claims that “the warning signs were there” with monkeypox for over a decade, and the only reason we never did anything about it is that it only affected poor African nations. Ergo, if you don’t care about monkeypox you’re a racist.
New York is apparently experiencing “urgent” vaccine shortages amid “rising cases”… rising from 223 to 267.
The US generally has seen cases increase from 700 to over a thousand since Monday. Monday was also the day they started allowing private labs to begin running tests. It’s baffling, isn’t it?
Australia has had the “killer virus spread to another state”. (To be clear, there are currently 28 reported cases of monkeypox on Australia, including “probable cases”, and not one of them is alleged to have died)
It’s not just the West either – India reported their first case in the last hour.
Argentina reports cases surging up to twelve whole people, while Bosnia & Herzogovina reported their first.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Iron Curtain 2.0, Russia reported their first monkeypox case on Tuesday. A handy reminder of their current position on the great reset agenda.
So, given all this, will the WHO declare monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern”?
The smart money is very much on “yes”.
But there’s good news too… for biotech shareholders. China’s ZJ Biotech has seen its share prices increase by over 10% in just a day after the WHO announced a supply deal with the tech firm to manufacture Monkeypox test kits.
They still haven’t told us what they’re changing the name to, though. Maybe they can discuss that at the emergency meeting too.
July 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | WHO |
3 Comments
In Geneva in late May at the 75th meeting of the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), amendments to its International Health Regulations (IHRs) were debated and voted upon. If passed, they would grant the WHO the right to exert unconscionable pressure on countries to accept the WHO’s authority and health policy actions if the WHO decides that there is a public health threat that might spread beyond a country’s borders.
As Ramesh Thakur, the second man at the UN for years, noted, the amendments would mean “the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers and budgets will depend on outbreaks of pandemics, the more the better.”
This is the first clear instance of a globalist coup attempt. It would subvert national sovereignty worldwide by putting real power into the hands of an international group of bureaucrats. It has long been suspected that the authoritarian elites arisen during covid times would try to strengthen their positions by undermining nation states, and the this 75th jamboree is the first solid evidence of this being true.
What an opportunity then to see who is in the conspiring club. Who drafted the amendments? What was in them? Which individuals supported them or spoke out against them?
WHO were the conspirators?
The amendments on the table at the May WHA meeting had been transmitted to the WHO by the US Department of Health and Human Services on January 18, circulated by WHO to its member states (‘States Parties’) on January 20 and formally introduced to the WHA on April 12.
The proposals, according to an announcement on January 26, were co-sponsored by 19 countries plus the European Union. Even if some co-sponsors had little direct involvement in drafting them, they all would have approved in principle the overarching goal of tightening up the WHO’s authority over member states in the face of a public health event.
Loyce Pace, the HHS’s Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs – the leading US official nominally responsible for the proposed amendments – arrived at the Biden administration fresh from a stint as executive director of an advocacy organization called the Global Health Council.
That council receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its members include Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott Labs, and Johnson & Johnson. You get the idea. Via one of the foxes-turned-chicken-guard, it appears the HHS ‘worked closely’ on these amendments with large pharmaceutical companies, who will be chomping at the bit for a more proactive (read: profitable) response to any public health emergency, real or imagined.
So the conspiring club consists primarily of the US government and its Western allies in lockstep with Big Pharma, and they are looking to undermine both the sovereignty of their own governments and that of other countries, presumably with the idea that the Western elites would do the running.
What was in them? A blizzard of acronyms and euphemisms
To understand what the US proposed at the WHA, we need first to understand how things have worked in the WHO to this point.
The IHRs in their current form have been in force as international law since June 2007. Among other things, they impose requirements on countries to detect, report and respond to ‘public health events of international concern,’ or PHEICs. The WHO Director-General consults with the state where a possible public health event has occurred, and within 48 hours they are meant to come to a mutual agreement on whether or not it actually is a PHEIC, whether or not it needs to be announced to the world as such, and what counter-measures, if any, should be taken. It’s essentially an early-warning system on major health crises. This is a good thing if it’s run by people you can trust and if it has checks and balances to rein in expansionary tendencies.
The proposed amendments would greatly strengthen the power of the WHO relative to this baseline, in a number of ways.
First, they lower the threshold for the WHO to declare a public health emergency by empowering its Regional Directors to declare a ‘public health event of regional concern’ (PHERC, italics ours) and for the WHO to put out a new thing called an ‘intermediate public health alert.’
Second, they permit the WHO to consider allegations about a public health event from non-official sources, meaning sources other than the government of the state concerned, and allow that government only 24 hours to confirm the allegations and a further 24 hours to accept the WHO’s offer of ‘collaboration.’
Collaboration is essentially a euphemism for on-site assessment by teams of WHO investigators, and concomitant pressure at the whim of WHO personnel to enact potentially far-reaching measures such as lockdowns, movement restrictions, school closures, consumption of medicines, administration of vaccines and any or all of the other social, economic, and health paraphernalia that we have come to associate with the covid circus.
Should the state’s government acceptance of the WHO’s ‘offer’ not be forthcoming, the WHO is empowered to disclose the information it has to the other 194 WHO countries, while continuing to pressure the state to yield to the WHO’s invitation to ‘collaborate.’ A non-collaborating country would risk becoming a pariah.
Third, the proposal includes a new Chapter IV, which would establish a ‘Compliance Committee’ consisting of six government-appointed experts from each WHO region tasked with permanently nosing around to ensure the member states are complying with IHR regulations.
There are more crossings-out of the existing IHR language and new language added in, but the flavour of what the US-led alliance is shooting for is a WHO that can unilaterally decide whether there is a problem and what to do about it, and can isolate countries that disagree.
Compliant WHO member states could act as a supporting cast in the isolation effort, through the distribution of their own health budgets and their ‘health-related’ policies, which would include travel and trade restrictions. The WHO would become a kind of command-and-control center for globalist agendas, pushing the produce of (Western) Big Pharma.
Why and how would this work?
We learned during covid times why it would make sense that the US and its allies are insisting on these amendments.
Lowering the bar for declaring a global (or regional) public health threat triggers a huge opportunity for Western pharmaceutical companies. As legal experts have observed: “WHO emergency declarations can trigger the fast-track development and subsequent global distribution and administration of unlicensed investigational diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.
This is done via the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EULP). The introduction of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ in particular will also further incentivise the pharmaceutical industry’s move to activate domestic fast-track emergency trial protocols as well as for advance purchase, production and stockpile agreements with governments before the existence of a concrete health threat to the world’s population has been detected, as is already the case under WHO’s EULP via the procedures developed for a ‘pre-public health emergency phase’.”
You can bet that the WHO ‘expert teams’ sent in to make on-the-ground assessments, under the banner of ‘collaboration’ with the host country experiencing the health event, will be chock-a-block with operatives from the CDC and who knows what other Western agencies, all poking around potentially sensitive facilities that a host government might justifiably claim a sovereign right to keep to itself. Likewise with the ‘Compliance Committee’ proposed by the US under the new Chapter IV of the IHRs: its government-appointed members have an open-ended brief, enshrined in international law, to be busybodies.
In layman’s terms, the WHO would be turned into an international thug, with its member states offered the role of backyard gang members.
As a bonus for Western elites, the proposals are a sneaky form of rewriting history. By cementing authority within an international organisation to determine the existence of public health crises and direct potentially draconian emergency responses, Western governments would get to enshrine and legitimise their own extreme responses to the covid outbreak, as we have pointed out previously. Their backsides would thereby be given some protection from legal challenges.
The refusniks: Developing countries
The proposals were pushed primarily by Western countries: the US was joined by Australia, the UK and the EU in arguing for passage. The resistance was led by developing countries who saw it as a colonialist ambush in which their ability to set policy and respond to health threats in a manner commensurate with their domestic situations would be overridden.
Brazil reportedly went so far as to threaten to withdraw from the WHO, and the African group of almost 50 countries, along with India, argued that the amendments were being rushed through without adequate consultation. Russia, China and Iran also objected.
Failure on the first try, but the US and its allies in the West will get more shots to push it through.
How do we expect them to do this? Well, when a proposal gets bogged down inside a giant bureaucratic machine like the WHO, the inevitable response is to set up committees to work in the background and circle back with a new set of proposals to be presented at a future meeting. True to form, a ‘working group’ and ‘expert committee’ are being assembled to accept member state proposals on IHR reform by the end of September this year. These will be ‘sifted through’ and reports will be prepared for review by the WHO’s executive board in January next year. The objective is to have a fresh set of proposals on the table when the WHA convenes for the 77th time in 2024.
Not all was lost
Salvaging something from the fact that the WHA failed to get a consensus around its biggest agenda item, the US and its allies got a small victory on the point of when they can try again – though in their desperation they needed to violate the IHRs’ own rules to accomplish it. Article 55 of the IHRs states unambiguously that a four-month notice period is required for any amendments.
In this instance, revised amendments were presented on May 24, the same day that the first lot were rejected. These were discussed, further amended on May 27 and then adopted on the same day. The approved amendments halve the two-year period for any (further) approved amendments to the IHRs to take effect. (The IHRs that came into force in 2007 were agreed to in 2005 – but under the new resolution, anything agreed to in 2024 would come into effect in 2025 rather than 2026.)
Yet, what was achieved in terms of fast-tracking the force of new amendments was lost in slow-tracking their implementation. Nations would have up to 12 months – double the previous suggestion of six months – to implement any IHR amendments that newly enter into force of law.
State of play
Where is all this going?
If the WHO takes the reins on decisions about what constitutes a health crisis, and can pressure every country into a one-size-fits-all set of responses that it, the WHO, also determines, that’s bad enough. But what about if its invitation to ‘collaborate’ with countries is backed up with teeth, such as sanctions against those who demur? And what about if it then broadens the definition of ‘public health’ by, for example, declaring that climate change falls under that definition? Or racism? Or discrimination against LBTQIA+ people? The possibilities thereby opened up for running the world are endless.
A global ‘health’ empire would bring huge harms to humanity, but a lot of power and money is pushing for it. Don’t think it can’t happen.
Paul Frijters is a Professor of Wellbeing Economics at the London School of Economics: from 2016 through November 2019 at the Center for Economic Performance, thereafter at the Department of Social Policy
July 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Abbott Labs, Africa, Australia, China, Eli Lilly, European Union, Gates Foundation, Iran, Johnson & Johnson, Latin America, Merck, Pfizer, Russia, UK, United States, WHO |
Leave a comment
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aJDAjtkBchfw
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again.
The Backstory
As explained in the film, the World Health Organization began working on an anti-fertility vaccine, led by Dr. G.P. Talwar in New Delhi, India, in the 1970s, “in response to perceived overpopulation.” For 20 years, the WHO’s Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation worked with population control in mind.
In 1993, the WHO finally announced a birth-control vaccine had successfully been created to help with “family planning.”1 The paper trail reveals that by 1976, WHO researchers had successfully conjugated, meaning combined or attached, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) onto tetanus toxoid, used in the tetanus vaccine. As a result, when given to a woman, she develops antibodies against both tetanus and hCG.
HCG is a hormone produced by cells surrounding the growing embryo. These hormone-producing cells protect and support embryonic growth and eventually form the placenta.
As explained in the film, hCG is the first signal that tells the woman’s body she’s pregnant. In response to this signal, her ovaries then produce a second hormone, progesterone, which maintains the pregnancy to term.
By combining hCG with tetanus toxoid, it causes this crucial pregnancy hormone to be attacked and destroyed by your immune system, as it’s now misperceived as an invading pathogen. Since hCG is destroyed, progesterone is never produced and, hence, the pregnancy cannot be maintained.
So, if you’re already pregnant when taking this witches’ brew, it will likely result in a spontaneous abortion, and if you’re not already pregnant, you won’t be able to get pregnant, as this crucial pregnancy hormone is under constant attack by your immune system. Repeated doses prolong these effects, effectively rendering you sterile.
The WHO Has Been in the Depopulation Business for Decades
As detailed in a Scientific Research paper published in 2017,2 “WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable ‘less developed countries.’”
In other words, the WHO’s longstanding policy has been to support depopulation in third world countries, and they’ve studied depopulation strategies in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, The Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia for decades.3
While creating an anti-fertility vaccine for those who really don’t want children is one thing, using deception to lure girls and young women into taking it is another entirely. As it turns out, the WHO is not above using deception and trickery to shut down fertility in populations they deem unworthy of reproduction.
The Great Deception
The central figures of the film are two Kenyan gynecologists, Drs. Wahome Ngare, and the late Stephen K. Karanja. Both state in the film that infertility is now the biggest gynecological problem in Africa. In recent years, there’s been a significant increase in women losing their pregnancies and couples who cannot conceive.
“I have seen the tears. They lose their identity. You die inside,” Antoninah Mutinda says. She knows, because she’s one of the African women whose fertility has been mysteriously impacted. After her third miscarriage, she was tested and found to have extremely high anti-hCG antibodies. She now suspects the tetanus vaccine she was given may be the culprit.
The anti-fertility vaccine was rolled out in the mid-‘90s, but despite support from the Kenyan leadership and “elite groups,” it was not popular among Kenyan women, who were concerned about the potential for abuse. They worried it might be disguised as a regular tetanus vaccine program.
Their concerns were valid because, as it turns out, this had already happened. In 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF tetanus program that was using tetanus vaccine laced with hCG. Three million women between the ages of 12 and 45 had by that time already been vaccinated. Anti-hCG-laced vaccines had also been found in at least four other countries.
Undeterred by bad press, that same year, 1995, the Kenyan government launched a WHO tetanus campaign under the guise of eradicating neonatal tetanus. There were telltale signs that something was wrong, however, because it was already standard practice to vaccinate pregnant women against tetanus. Now, the WHO insisted women who weren’t pregnant needed the shot as well, in case they were to become pregnant.
Karanja learned of the deceptive anti-fertility campaigns in other countries during a medical conference in 1995, and became immediately suspicious of the tetanus campaign in his own country. Karanja convinced leaders of the Catholic church — one of the largest health care providers in Kenya — to test the tetanus vaccine being given, to make sure there was no foul play.
Without explanation, the WHO suddenly abandoned the campaign. Alas, 19 years later, in 2013, they were back. All girls and women, 15 to 49 years of age, were instructed to get vaccinated with a series of five injections, six months apart. This, it turns out, is the exact schedule required for the anti-fertility vaccine to produce sterility. Regular tetanus prevention requires only one injection every five to 10 years, and under no circumstance would you need five of them.
Vaccines Test Positive for Anti-hCG
The Catholic Church decided to test the vaccines, and collected three sample vials directly from clinics during the 2014 campaign. The samples were then sent to three independent laboratories for testing. As feared, they found hCG in them. Another six vials were then collected, and tested by six independent labs. This time, half were found to contain hCG.
At this point, the Catholic Church went public, urging girls and women to not comply with the vaccination campaign. In an effort to settle the dispute, an investigative committee was formed, consisting of three representatives selected by the Catholic bishops, and three government officials.
It was agreed that the nine vials already collected would be retested, along with 52 samples from a distributor who sells tetanus vaccine to the Kenyan government. This time, a more precise type of test, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), was chosen.
Dr. Nicholas Muraguri, director of medical services for the Kenyan government, contracted agriQ Quest to perform this testing. However, he urged them to test samples provided directly by him rather than the vials previously agreed upon. AgriQ Quest decided to analyze both batches.
The vials that tested positive for hCG using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), still tested positive using HPLC, but none of the samples provided by Muraguri tested positive.
A Decades’ Long Cover-Up
Shockingly, the government then demanded agriQ Quest “alter their report to indicate that they were safe to be administered.” When agriQ Quest refused, the government, the WHO and UNICEF responded by launching a public attack, accusing the Catholic Church of “peddling misinformation.”
And, since the only samples found to contain hCG were those provided by the Church, the government accused them of tampering with the vials in an effort to undermine confidence in the vaccine.
An added twist here is that the vials that tested positive had the same batch numbers as vials that tested negative. Only later did agriQ Quest discover that these negative vials had fake labels on them. They were not, in fact, from the same lots as those that tested positive. They weren’t even made by the same manufacturer.
AgriQ Quest also claims they can prove the positive samples were not tampered with, because they did not test positive for hCG in general. The test clearly shows the hCG was conjugated with tetanus toxoid, and this cannot occur by simply adding hCG to a vial of tetanus vaccine.
The conjugation — the chemical linking or bonding — of hCG to the tetanus toxoid can only occur during the manufacturing process. This is the smoking gun that proves the neonatal tetanus vaccine campaign was a cover for a population control campaign.
Muraguri also lied when he claimed the Kenyan government had only one supplier of tetanus vaccine. As it turns out, there were two. Biological E. Limited provided a regular tetanus vaccine, while the hCG-positive batches came from Serum Institute of India — the same country where most of the WHO’s anti-fertility research had been conducted.
Both Ngare and Karanja paid a steep price for their vigilance. The medical board called them for disciplinary action. Karanja was issued a gag order, and since 2014 was not allowed to speak publicly about vaccines in Kenya. He broke that gag order for this film. April 29, 2021, Karanja died, allegedly from COVID infection.
A Truly Diabolical Agenda
Speaking for millions of women just like her, Mutinda, who has now struggled with infertility for years, says:
“To imagine there’s a system somewhere, that some people somewhere are behind my inability to carry pregnancy to term, that is a diabolical agenda!”
Before his untimely death, Karanja shared a message with the world, through the makers of this film:
“When they are through with Africa, they’re coming for you.”
Sources and References
July 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video | Africa, Human rights, WHO |
1 Comment
Many have suspected and even found research to indicate vaccines are being used secretly for population control. Bill Gates even alludes to this arrogantly in several of the videos he appears in. But how long has this been going on, and who is advancing this agenda.
When those with a hidden agenda exercise massive political and legally sponsored influence over the health of entire populations to advance that agenda, then is is not for the benefit of the masses, but instead for the benefit of those who would gain financially or through the accumulation and consolidation of power!
We have seen a massive increase of sterility in America over the last several generations, and the accelerating rise in sterility coincides with the steady increase in the amount of vaccinations we receive and the massive increase of GMO’s in our diet. America is the most vaccinated country on this planet … with the fastest increasing infertility rate! So where does coincidence leave off, and fact come in?
It seems that America is not the only target of this subterfuge and this has been happening for quite some time. So lets delve into: The Tyranny of Days Gone By …
We who follow this topic constantly hear of the tens of thousands paralyzed, and the countless deaths associated with massive global vaccination programs sponsored by the UN, WHO, and other entities such as the Gates Foundation. Yet these programs continue unabated and accelerate (especially in third world countries). We also suspect population control to be a serious motive behind this massive push to vaccinate the world … and our suspicions ring true.
The attached article was first published in 1995 covering a United Nations, World health Organization (WHO) program that had been underway for several years at that time. Please read it and learn of the tyranny that has been going on for well over a generation (and possibly much longer). Is there any reason to believe it is not continuing today … and at an accelerated rate?
There are those in this world who would play God, without our consent or knowledge …
__________________________________________________________
Are New Vaccines Laced With Birth Control Drugs?
By James A. Miller – Human Life International – June/July 1995
During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. In October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite’ Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country’s anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite’ obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists. Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.
hCG and Anti-hCG Antibodies
In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.
However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)
HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.
The Known Facts
Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:
* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?
* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there — in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been “contaminated.”
* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)
* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)
The Anti-Fertility Gang
Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)
The WHO begain its “Special Programme” in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on “reproductive health” research.(7) It is this “Programme” which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme’s funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed “only” $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.
WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses
When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from “right-to-life and Catholic” sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila — and all four vials tested positive for hCG!
From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly “insignificant” quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.
But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only “insignificant” quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.
New arguments surfaced: hCG’s apparent presence in the vaccine was due to “false positives” resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid “Carrier”?
Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: “Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG.”(8)
Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau
After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands “did not apply for registration.”(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.
It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO — there they are again! — there was assurance enough that the “vaccines come from reputable manufacturers.”(10)
Just how “reputable” one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)
Epilogue
At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. Monies.
NOTES:
(1) “Abortifacient vaccines loom as new threat,” HLI Reports, November 1993, pp. 1-2.
(2) World Council Reports, 28 November 1994, pp. 4-5.
(3) A call placed by this writer on 5 May 1995 to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Health Department, Epidemology Division — Infectious Diseases — Adult Immunizations, elicited the following information:
Q. For how long a time does the tetanus vaccination offer protection?
A. 10 years.
Q. Have you ever heard of any adult requiring three tetanus vaccinations within a 3 or 4 month time period, and a total of 5 vaccinations in all within a year or so?
A. Whaaaat! Never. No way!
Reports from the Philippines appear to confirm the 10-year immunity afforded by tetanus toxoid vaccinations: prior to the campaigns begun in 1993, the so-called booster shots were given only every 10 years.
(4) More than a score of articles, many written by WHO researchers, document WHO’s attempts to create an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing tetanus toxoid as a carrier. Some leading articles include:
“Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with Pr-B-hCG-TT,” Contraception, February, 1976, pp. 253-268.
“Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate antipregnancy vaccine: B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin linked to tetanus toxoid,” Fertility and Sterility, October 1980, pp. 328-335.
“Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organisation Birth Control Vaccine, ” The Lancet, 11 June 1988, pp. 1295-1298. “Vaccines for Fertility Regulation,” Chapter 11, pp. 177-198, Research in Human Reproduction, Biennial Report (1986-1987), WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (WHO, Geneva 1988).
“Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials,” Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, Vol. 36, 1992, pp. 123-126.
(5) These institutional names are garnered from the journal articles cited in the previous footnote.
(6) Lancet, 11 June 1988, p. 1296.
(7) Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report 1992-1993, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.
(8) G.P. Talwar, et al, “Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing antibodies of high affinity…(etc),” Reproductive Technology 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231.
(9) “3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD,” The Philippine Star, 4 April 1995, pp. 1, 12.
(10) “BFAD junks re-testing of controversial shot,” Manila Standard, 7 April 1995; “DOH: Toxoid vaccines are safe,” The Philippine Star, 7 April 1995.
(11) “Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV.” Ottawa Citizen, 4 April 1995.
(12) A nearly two-year old communique from Tanzania tells a familiar story: tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women aged 15-45. Nigeria, too, may have been victimized; see The Lancet, 4 June 1988, p. 1273.
James A. Miller is a special correspondent for Human Life International. This article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8.
July 7, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Gates Foundation, Human rights, WHO |
Leave a comment
Health officials in the U.K. this month identified the country’s first polio outbreak in 40 years, and believe the outbreak was caused by a strain of polio found in the oral polio vaccine.
Health officials in Britain warned parents on June 22 to ensure their children have been vaccinated against polio after multiple closely related versions of the virus that cause the disease were found in sewage water at the London Beckton Sewage Treatment Works — the largest water treatment plant in the U.K.
“The Global Polio Laboratory Network has confirmed the isolation of type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV2) from environmental samples in London, United Kingdom, which were detected as part of ongoing disease surveillance,” the World Health Organization (WHO) states on its website.
The U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said it believes the virus was “vaccine-derived,” meaning it came from someone who received the live polio vaccine. That person then passed the virus to individuals in London, who shed the virus into their feces.
The viruses’ genetic sequences suggest “there has been some spread between closely linked individuals in north and east London,” the UKHSA said.
The virus was isolated from environmental samples collected between February and May, and no related cases of paralysis have been detected, the WHO said. “Additional sewage samples collected upstream from the main waste-water treatment plant’s inlet are being analyzed.”
People vaccinated with the live oral polio vaccine (OPV) shed traces of the virus in their stool — which eventually end up in sewage wastewater, NPR reported. Scientists believe a person brought the virus into London and then spread it to others who were unvaccinated.
“We are urgently investigating to better understand the extent of this transmission,” Vanessa Saliba, an epidemiologist who consults for the UKHSA, said in the statement.
The risk to the general public is thought to be “extremely low” but the agency encourages anyone not fully vaccinated to receive a polio vaccine.
WHO approves Gates’ oral polio vaccine for emergency use
The WHO on Nov. 13, 2020, granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) to a new novel oral polio vaccine called nOPV2, designed to treat the type of polio outbreak occurring in the U.K.
Based on the WHO’s review of data and research available on nOPV2, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) recommended Gates’ nOPV2 become the “vaccine of choice” for responding to type 2 polio outbreaks caused by OPV.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided 100% of the funding for the development and clinical trials of the vaccine.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) states on its website:
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded all development and clinical trials of nOPV2 to date, working closely with GPEI partners throughout the process to ensure resources are going toward a tool that could prove critical to helping end all forms of polio.
“Based on promising data from clinical trials, and the public health emergency that cVDPV2 [vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2] constitutes, the Foundation is funding at-risk production of 160 million doses of nOPV2 to ensure it can be deployed immediately following the issuance of WHO’s interim Emergency Use Listing (EUL) recommendation for use.”
“The emergency use listing, or EUL, is the first of its kind for a vaccine” designed to “pave the way for potential listing of COVID-19 vaccines,” the WHO said on its website.
On December 31, 2020, the WHO issued its first EUL listing for a COVID-19 vaccine. According to the WHO, the agency granted the listing for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.
The EUL is a regulatory pathway that allows the WHO — whose second-largest financial donor is the Gates Foundation — to distribute an unlicensed product for a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern,” which the organization claims polio has been since 2014.
The EUL allows vaccines and medicines to be made available more quickly to address health emergencies, without long-term phase 3 data, and is the same mechanism used for distribution of Zika, Ebola and COVID-19 vaccines.
According to the WHO, in “very rare cases,” the administration of OPV results in vaccine-associated paralytic polio associated with a “reversion of the vaccine strains to the more neurovirulent profile of wild poliovirus.”
In addition to causing vaccine-associated paralytic polio, vaccine strains have the capacity to cause disease of the nervous system and to transmit from person to person resulting in infectious poliomyelitis.
Based on the WHO’s review of data and research available on nOPV2, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) recommended Gates’ nOPV2 become the “vaccine of choice” for responding to type 2 polio outbreaks caused by OPV.
According to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), the nOPV2 was developed to address vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks, which “can emerge when the weakened strain of the vaccine virus circulates in under-immunized populations and, with time, can genetically revert into a form that causes paralysis.”
In other words, “under-immunized” populations — not the OPV — are to blame for the vaccine-related polio strains.
In an email to The Defender, Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University said:
“Once again, Big Pharma, fueled by the Gates Foundation, has created a huge problem that only they can solve. The introduction of the new OPV in the U.K. has predictably led to polio virus in the sewage (i.e., where poliovirus propagates) and now the “only solution” is to inject U.K. citizens with the nPOV2 to prevent the spread of OPV-induced polio. If this isn’t a scam, I don’t know what is!”
The U.K.’s Medicines and Regulatory Health Products Agency (MHRA) on June 17 said in a tweet: “An exciting new global study, co-authored by our lead scientist Javier Martin, shows that new polio vaccine nOPV2 is an effective tool in reducing the risk of Vaccine-Derived Polio Viruses.“
The tweet linked to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advocating for the use of Gates’ nOPV2 vaccine.
Between the launch of nOPV2 in March 2021 and late May 2022, more than 350 million doses had been administered across 18 countries.
The GPEI confirmed, as of May 30, 16 other countries are “ready to use nOPV2” and an additional 17 are in the midst of preparations.
WHO, GPEI and other organizations pushing Gates-funded vaccine
According to UNICEF, the GPEI is a public-private partnership led by national governments with six core partners: Rotary International, the WHO, the CDC, UNICEF, the Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
The Gates Foundation, in addition to funding the nPOV2 vaccine, GPEI and the WHO, also funds Rotary International, UNICEF, Gavi and the CDC Foundation.
The entity in charge of monitoring vaccine adverse events following administraton of nPOV2 is the WHO’s own Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS).
“The GACVS Sub-Committee on nOPV2 Safety will advise WHO and its Member States on safety outcomes following the use of initially pre-licensed type 2 novel oral poliovirus vaccine, during the EUL period, prior to the availability of Phase III clinical trial results,” according to GPEI.
In essence, the Gates Foundation funded the creation, development and clinical trials for the new nPOV2 polio vaccine, funds the organizations that administered millions of doses to be given under EUL without any long-term data, funds the organizations implementing its roll-out and surveillance and funds the entity monitoring adverse events associated with nPOV2’s use.
The Gates Foundation is also a funder of NPR and NPR’s blog, which have published numerous articles on VDPV2 and paved the way for Gates’ nPOV2 vaccine as the solution.
Oral polio v. inactivated polio vaccines
According to the WHO, the original OPV uses a mixture of “live attenuated poliovirus strains of each of the three serotypes,” selected for their ability to mimic the immune system’s response following infection with wild polioviruses, but with a reduced chance of spreading to the central nervous system.
To achieve the desired immune response, three or more doses of OPV are required spaced out over a period of time.
The U.S. and some western countries use an inactivated (killed) polio vaccine (IPV) developed by Dr. Jonas Salk and first used in 1955.
Scientists claim the inactivated virus poses no risk of spread, although the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system shows two reported cases of poliomyelitis reported following vaccination with IPV.
The U.S. stopped using OPV in 2000 because it caused paralytic polio.
According to NPR, countries in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia are experiencing a rise in cases of vaccine-derived polio. These countries mostly use the OPV developed by Albert Sabin and first used in 1961.
Gates’ nOPV2 vaccine is a modified version of Sabin’s existing OPV vaccine.
“The spread of vaccine-derived polio virus from OPV vaccine in multiple countries throughout Africa and Asia resulted in 1,612 cases of paralytic polio from 2017 through 2020,” Dr. Liz Mumper, pediatrician and former medical director of the Autism Research Institute told The Defender.
“Since these polio virus samples are in wastewater in a developed country, those who have access to clean water should not be at risk,” Mumper said. “However, the media is raising alarms. This is a setback for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.”
According to the CDC, three cases of paralytic polio caused by the OPV vaccine have been reported in the U.S. since the vaccine was discontinued in 2000.
The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, shows 66 reports of polio following administration of the OPV.
VAERS also shows 14 reported cases of poliomyelitis following vaccination with IPV. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
June 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Africa, Gates Foundation, UK, United States, WHO |
1 Comment
Polio is on the front pages of British newspapers again for the first time in decades. What a time to be alive.
For those who missed it, two days ago the UK government declared a “national incident” after traces of the polio virus were detected in sewage from North London.
Yes, a “national incident”… for traces… found in sewage.
This is a massive escalation, even compared to the pandemic. Covid and Monkeypox at least had the good taste to wait for a single person to actually have the disease (allegedly) before hitting the big red panic button.
In a somewhat startling coincidence, just two days before the “polio in London” news broke, Forbes published an article headlined…
There May Be A New Polio Epidemic On Its Way- If So, What We Can Do
It’s totally unrelated, talking about a “polio-like” enterovirus that hasn’t yet had a vaccine approved in the US, and never mentions London once.
The same (or similar) news hitting headlines around the world for (supposedly) totally different reasons makes my inner-cynic twitch.
So, what’s going on here?
While it may look like polio is suddenly back in the news, it’s actually been there longer than you’d think and has been building to this point.
The truth is it all fits into a very predictable pattern.
In November of 2020, a new “genetically engineered” and “triple-locked” polio vaccine was the first vaccine to be granted “emergency use listing” by the World Health Organization, despite there being only around five thousand cases of polio in the world over the last decade.
In October 2021, the government of Ukraine declared a “biological emergency” due to the “re-emergence” of polio, which was blamed on low vaccine uptake.
This was steadily reported in back pages of the news for months. Culminating in headlines like “Polio Makes a Comeback in Ukraine as War Halts Vaccination Campaign”, following Russia beginning its “special operation”.
Later, in March of this year, Israel reported they too had a “re-emergence” of polio after allegedly detecting “vaccine-derived” polio in the stool of a young girl suffering from paralysis.
At this point, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) started speaking out. GPEI is a project co-funded by the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI the vaccine alliance and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
… in other words, exactly who you’d expect.
Following the reported case in Israel, GPEI released a statement calling for “enhanced surveillance”…
The GPEI partnership urges all health authorities to enhance surveillance for poliovirus and implement enhanced vaccination response to prevent further transmission, so that no child is at risk of lifelong paralysis from a disease that can so easily be prevented. GPEI is committed to assisting the health authorities in their efforts to stop the cVDPV3 outbreak.
A month later, in April of this year, using alleged “re-emergence” as a springboard, GPEI called for “renewed efforts” to combat polio, launching their new “Strategy” and claiming to need a further 4.8 billion dollars in funding.
Then in late May, at the WHO’s 75th World Health Assembly, “global health leaders” called for “urgent action to end polio once and for all before a unique window of opportunity closes for good.”
The same week, the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus addressed the assembly regarding polio [emphasis added]:
“Worrying developments in recent months highlight how fragile this progress [of eradicating polio] is […] This year, we have the real opportunity to halt wild poliovirus transmission. At the same time, we must respond faster and better to cVDPV outbreaks, to interrupt all transmission by end-2023.”
… which brings us to June, and scare-stories on both sides of the Atlantic warning of “low vaccination rates”
Note that the WHO report claims the virus entered the UK on someone who received a “live vaccination” overseas, and the alleged outbreak in Israel is “vaccine-derived”.
Do you see how this works yet?
- The WHO approves “emergency use vaccine”, bypassing need for trials and safety data
- A handful of cases of polio are reported (as they are every year)
- Gates/WHO funded thinktank calls for “increased surveillance”, meaning more testing (using PCR tests)
- More testing inevitably finds more “cases”
- Cases are blamed on the old vaccines
- New “modern” and “safer” vaccines are rolled out.
- Everyone makes a LOT of money.
In October, at the World Health Summit in Germany, GPEI is launching a “pledging moment” to try and raise around 5 billion dollars to “achieve a polio-free world”.
Given the headlines, they should pass that mark pretty easily, wouldn’t you think?
It’s interesting to note that market researchers found the polio vaccine market had “stagnated” through 2020 and 2021, due to the Covid19 “pandemic”.
No more stagnation now.
June 24, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Gates Foundation, WHO |
3 Comments
Samizdat – June 22, 2022
The US needs more money to plan for “the second pandemic,” President Joe Biden said during a press briefing on Tuesday, as he praised his government’s efforts to ensure children under five can get Covid-19 vaccines.
Biden also hailed as “a very historic milestone” that the US has become the first country in the world to offer “safe and effective” Covid-19 vaccines for children as young as six months old.
When asked about how long the administration could keep up the new vaccine campaign, Biden suggested that the current budget would be enough to “get through at least this year” but stressed that “we do need more money.”
He went on to insist that he needed even more money for an unspecified “second pandemic.” “We need more money to plan for the second pandemic. There’s going to be another pandemic,” the president warned, without going into detail about what this new wave might entail.
Biden also took the opportunity to take a swipe at his predecessor, implying that Donald Trump’s lack of preparation increased the impact of the Covid pandemic. “We have to think ahead. That’s not something the last outfit did very well and that’s something we’ve been doing fairly well. That’s why we need the money,” surmised Biden.
Some health experts and agencies such as the World Health Organization have also warned of the likelihood of future pandemics. The WHO had previously announced that it plans to confirm a global pandemic treaty at the 2024 World Health Assembly, which it hopes will help “set out the objectives and fundamental principles in order to structure the necessary collective action to fight pandemics.”
The agreement, which heavily focuses on increased surveillance, vaccinations and “restoring trust in the international health system,” would legally bind its members under international law, superseding regulations of individual countries in an effort to get all nations to act as one in the face of a future outbreak.
June 22, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Joe Biden, WHO |
1 Comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 