By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | March 4, 2023
The global health agency, the World Health Organization (WHO), this week held a meeting to advance the international pandemic treaty — a legally binding instrument that will enhance its powers to target anything that it deems to be “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” if passed.
The scope of the WHO is vast and its 194 member states (which account for 98% of all the countries in the world) will have to comply with the treaty under international law if it passes.
During this meeting, which began on February 27 and ended on March 3, a WHO intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) discussed a zero draft of the pandemic treaty that was released earlier this year.
This zero draft empowers the WHO to target so-called misinformation and disinformation via Article 17 (“Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy”).
Specifically, WHO member states are instructed to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation” and manage “infodemics…through effective channels, including social media.” Infodemics is a term that the WHO uses to describe “too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak.”
Additionally, Article 16 (“Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches at the national level”) recommends that WHO member states collaborate with non-state actors and the private sector when carrying out their obligations under the treaty.
As the treaty has progressed, it has faced increased political pushback from elected officials in member states, with US Republican Senators recently introducing a bill that would require the treaty to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.
But despite this pushback, the Biden administration committed to the international pandemic treaty on the first day of the recent WHO meeting.
And the WHO is continuing to discuss the treaty and plan for its future. The global health agency has another meeting to discuss the treaty scheduled for April 3 to April 6, plans to present the treaty to its decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), in May, and hopes to finalize the treaty by May 2024.
The WHO intends to adopt the treaty under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution through an international lawmaking process where a group of mostly unelected diplomats vote on the treaty.
If the treaty passes, WHO member states will be required to “raise financial resources for effective implementation” of the treaty and commit to allocating at least 5% of their annual health expenditure to “pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.” Additionally, the treaty tells member states to commit an undisclosed amount of their gross domestic product (GDP) to “international cooperation and assistance on pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.” This equates to billions of dollars in annual expenditure for many WHO member states and hundreds of billions of dollars per annum for some.
We obtained a copy of the zero draft of this international pandemic treaty for you here.
This WHO push to crack down on speech via this international pandemic treaty is being made in tandem with another WHO effort that targets “misinformation” and “disinformation” — proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
Like the treaty, these proposed amendments will be legally binding under international law if finalized. The amendments include provisions for the WHO to “counter misinformation and disinformation” at “the global level” and to develop member states’ capacities to gain “leverage of communication channels to communicate the risk, countering misinformation and dis-information.”
In a report that was released alongside the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), the WHO suggested it would use its new misinformation and disinformation targeting powers to go after content that could “undermine public trust in health agencies and impede public confidence in, and compliance with, governmental or WHO guidance.” It also called for “a balance between ensuring more accurate scientific information on one hand and freedom of speech and the press on the other.”
We obtained a copy of this report for you here.
As the WHO makes its move to take action against alleged misinformation and disinformation via international law, more and more evidence is being made available that supports the perspectives of those who were censored by Big Tech after being accused of spreading misinformation or disinformation. This evidence includes admissions about the Covid vaccine’s ability to prevent infections and growing support from officials for the Covid origins lab leak theory.
While many were censored by tech platforms for making these claims, the WHO was allowed to freely amplify a misleading claim from Chinese authorities that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of the coronavirus.
The WHO’s attempt to curb speech is just one part of the power grab the unelected health agency is vying for with this treaty and the proposed IHR amendments. It’s also planning an expansion of its surveillance powers and laying out plans for global vaccine passports.
Republican senators are pushing back against an accord that would give the World Health Organization (WHO) power over member states if it declares a pandemic. The accord, which is legally binding on all member states, will be finalized in Switzerland this week.
The accord will give the WHO power to declare pandemics and require member states to give the WHO the “central role” as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work” in areas like medical supply chains, treatments and lockdowns. However, the WHO also wants more power over surveillance and controlling “disinformation and fake news” when a pandemic is declared.
17 senators, led by Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, have introduced the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.” The bill states that the accord should be called a treaty. As a treaty, it would require approval by two-thirds of the Senate.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
“The WHO, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in their response to COVID-19,” Sen. Johnson stated. “This failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase the WHO’s power at the expense of American sovereignty.”
However, some legal experts believe the legislation will not stop President Joe Biden from signing the accord as the accord was drafted to bypass Senate approval.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 9, 2023
Pfizer missed a deadline to turn over internal studies on myocarditis, per an FDA order. The deadline came and went. Now, they quietly have a new date in June. Why the delay on such important data? And, why does the FDA set arbitrary deadlines which aren’t enforced?
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 9, 2023
As Biden announces the coming end of the Covid Public Health Emergency in the US, the new majority in Congress appear to not be letting agencies off the hook. The past three years of remarkably poor public health policy have placed the CDC, WHO, and Social Media companies in the sights of numerous committee investigations, and new legislation seeking answers and medical freedom.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 9, 2023
Airline pilot and co-founder of US Freedom Flyers, Josh Yoder, and Clinical Cardiologist, Dr. Thomas Levy, join Del to discuss the recent FAA change to the heart test limits and the coincidental timing of the change coming amid increasing concerns over myocarditis from the COVID-19 vaccine.
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | February 6, 2023
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released the latest zero draft of its international pandemic treaty which will give the unelected global health agency new sweeping surveillance powers if passed.
The treaty requires the WHO’s 194 member states (which represent 98% of all the countries in the world) to strengthen the WHO’s “One Health surveillance systems.”
One Health is a WHO system that aims to “optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems” and “uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods.”
The WHO’s One Health fact sheet points to Covid-19 as one of the main reasons for expanding its One Health approach and states that it “put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance.”
The draft treaty also orders WHO member states to strengthen surveillance functions for “outbreak investigation and control through interoperable early warning and alert systems.”
Additionally, it requires member states to recognize the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health work, in pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, and in convening and generating scientific evidence, and, more generally, fostering multilateral cooperation in global health governance.”
We obtained a copy of the zero draft of the WHO’s pandemic treaty for you here.
Although the draft treaty doesn’t mention surveillance tools that were used during Covid, such as contact tracing, testing, and vaccine passports, the WHO has previously confirmed that it’s a big supporter of vaccine passports. In the early stages of the pandemic, the WHO also lauded China’s Covid response, which utilized intense digital surveillance, before changing its position and criticizing China’s zero-Covid policy.
This draft treaty has been in the works since December 2021. A final report on the treaty is expected to be presented to the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), in May 2024.
If passed, this treaty will be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution — an article that allows the WHO to impose legally binding conventions on the WHO’s 194 member states if two-thirds of the member states’ representatives vote in favor of the conventions.
Unlike the lawmaking process in most democratic nations, where elected officials implement national law, this WHO process allows a small number of global representatives, often unelected diplomats, to impose international laws on all of the WHO’s member states.
While some politicians have pushed back against this international pandemic treaty, it has the support of many powerful nations including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Council (EC) (which represents 27 European Union (EU) member states).
This treaty is just one of the global surveillance proposals with ties to the WHO that is being pushed by influential global figures. At Business (B20) 2022, a summit of business leaders from Group of 20 (G20) countries, numerous countries agreed on a digital health passport that uses WHO standards. This digital health certificate will track whether people have been vaccinated or tested.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 30, 2023
The World Health Organization (WHO) last month named Dr. Jeremy Farrar its new chief scientist. Farrar will step down Feb. 25 as director of the Wellcome Trust, the largest funder of medical research in the U.K. and one of the largest in the world.
Farrar and the Wellcome Trust are less well-known relative to similar global public health giants, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — and that’s “to people’s detriment,” investigative journalist Whitney Webb told journalist Kim Iversen on a recent episode of “The Kim Iversen Show”:
“If what is essentially a power grab by the World Health Organization gets put into force, then Jeremy Farrar will have essentially total authority to impose upon member states what medical responses they would have to implement in the event of another pandemic.”
Webb referred to proposals in the works to transform the WHO from an advisory organization to a global governing body whose policies would be legally binding for member states in the case of a global health emergency.
While at Wellcome Trust, Farrar was the architect of several key WHO COVID-19 pandemic policy directives, including lockdowns, masking and mass vaccination.
“What we see with Farrar is a recipe for disaster when it comes to imposing experimental medical technology on the population during public health crises. This is a guy who was very much invested in this stuff,” Webb said.
It’s something out of ‘Brave New World’
Iversen asked about links between the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.
While there is no direct link, Webb said, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a lot of these other organizations, including the Wellcome Trust, are very much pushing an agenda that I would argue is sort of the fusion of Big Pharma and Big Tech.”
“Essentially Big Pharma is looking for new markets and new products and Big Tech can help them accomplish that,” she said.
Over the last several decades, Big Pharma and “billionaire philanthropists” have come to dominate the WHO, Webb told Iversen. They are the ones, “in my opinion, executing this power grab more than the WHO itself,” she said.
There are also key ties between Big Tech and national security agencies, Webb said.
Farrar has connections to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, the Pentagon’s research arm, Webb said.
His philosophy of scientific innovation is best exemplified by the organization he created as an offshoot of the Wellcome Trust — Wellcome Leap, “a global health equivalent of DARPA” — to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, she said.
Wellcome Leap’s programs focus on “transhumanist” research. For example, one project seeks to map infants’ brain development to create a “perfect child brain model” to use as the basis for creating AI-based interventions in infants and toddlers that seek to make children cognitively homogenous.
Webb said:
“I mean it just sounds like mad scientist stuff and per Wellcome Leap, which again is an organization with a lot of influence, they’re hoping to have 80% of kids subjected to that by 2030.
“So if Jeremy Farrar as chief scientist of the WHO is willing to sign off on a program like that, with those kinds of insane ambitions … I mean it’s just like something out of Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’”
In fact, Huxley’s brother, Julian, was president of the British Eugenics Society, which later became the Galton Institute — and whose archives, to this day, are housed by the Wellcome Trust.
Webb said mainstream media and alternative media already have traditionally underreported on the Wellcome Trust.
Now, she said:
“The guy that’s been at the helm of that [Wellcome Trust] and signing off on a lot of these honestly hellish programs is due to have an insane amount of power when it comes to the sovereignty over your own body and your children’s bodies …
“I really think that Jeremy Farrar needs to be talked about a lot more, particularly by outlets that are rightfully covering the World Health Organization’s efforts to expand its influence and power.”
‘Beyond dystopia’
Iversen said that it sounded “beyond dystopia,” and because of that, people likely imagine they would never allow something so unthinkable to come to pass.
But, she said:
“Actually, people would let that happen, people have let [things like] that happen in the past, and we’re just human just like everybody else.
“I think what is important for people to understand is they incrementally push us in this direction using fear,” Iversen added, pointing to the example of the draconian COVID-19 public health measures that gained widespread support.
Webb agreed, noting that the COVID-19 emergency made possible changes to regulatory frameworks that authorized technologies like the mRNA vaccines that simply couldn’t get approval before the crisis.
She cautioned that new arguments saying wearable technology is necessary for healthcare are opening space for Big Tech companies to collaborate with the government “to surveil very intimate parts of our lives.” She cited Amazon’s wearable that can detect people’s emotional state, as an example.
Author Yuval Harari described this kind of technology at the World Economic Forum as something that will be used “‘to wipe out dissent because even if you outwardly act like you agree with leadership and are supportive of certain agendas and policies, but you’re internally not, the government will know’ … That’s his interpretation of that stuff and it’s just totally insane,” Webb concluded.
Watch here.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil | January 31, 2023
From: XXXXXX
Sent: 30 January 2023 12:33
To: Norman Fenton
Subject: Hart GroupDear Professor Fenton,
Apologies for any intrusion, but I’m contacting you directly since the Hart Group (which I understand you to be a member of), have not replied to my earlier emails – all very busy people, I do understand.
As a small group of individuals who between us have some journalistic and medical-science history, we are working on a presentation (with a further view to establishing a website), which aims to offer a wider range of information concerning Covid policies and treatment than, it appears, is usually available through current mainstream and social media.
Given that our aim is a balanced juxtaposition and presentation of arguments, hopefully allowing better-informed opinions to be arrived at, we do have a range of “issues” we’d love to understand better in order to present them fairly.
You are (I imagine) well-placed to comment on one specific matter, and I would be enormously grateful if you would spare a minute to advise, assuming this enquiry doesn’t create any conflict of interest or other problems for you:
The Times and other media recently reported on a QMUL study* which indicates that unvaccinated individuals with certain medical conditions are more likely to suffer “serious outcomes” than vaccinated individuals. I believe presenting this this demands careful attention to context and contrasting with other possible perspectives.
Dr Aseem Malhotra in a Twitter-hosted video makes reference to de-bunking claims about how this story has been reported, but makes no reference I can find to where such a de-bunking can be found; and sadly, he too seems unavailable to comment!
Probably, Dr Malhotra’s position is not an issue you are required in any way to comment on. However, in general, I do think that those who would like to see “better”, more balanced reporting on Covid should find time to speak to others, like us, who are trying to support exactly that cause – presumably it’s in everyone’s interest. But that’s just a peripheral observation on my part!
It would be truly helpful if you can find a moment to provide some pointers to help us present a balanced picture of the study referred to above.
Many thanks, and best wishes.
Your’s faithfully,
XXXXX
* Also reported on the QMUL website: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2022/smd/unvaccinated-individuals-with-heart-problems-up-to-9-times-more-likely-to-die-or-suffer-serious-complications-from-covid-19.html
The study referred to is this one.
Here is my self-explanatory response:
Dear XXXXX
I should make it clear that, although I just briefly discussed this with one or two members of HART, my response below should certainty not be construed as ‘the HART response’.
The most important point to note about the QMUL study is that it certainly does not claim anything like what either you or The Times seem to think it claims, i.e it certainly does not show that “unvaccinated individuals with certain medical conditions are more likely to suffer serious outcomes than vaccinated individuals.” In fact, no comparison with a vaccinated cohort was undertaken.
All the study actually did was look at the outcomes for covid patients with pre-existing conditions like myocarditis. This is something very different to the later studies (such as those Aseem Malhotra referred to) which compared incidence of myocarditis occurring post-vaccination with the base rates for unvaccinated. So, all the study actually shows is that “that individuals with certain pre-existing medical conditions who get covid are more likely to suffer serious outcomes than those without such medical conditions who get covid.” That is hardly novel, since this has been widely known since March 2020.
In fact, the authors of the study are demonstrating a very clear bias by referring to the people in the study as ‘unvaccinated’. Of course, they were unvaccinated – it was a meta-analysis of 110 published studies between 1st Dec 2019 and 16th July 2020. There was, of course, no vaccinations anywhere during that period so referring to these people as ‘unvaccinated’ must have been done to fit a particular mischievous agenda. I am actually pleased you brought this study to my attention since it needs to be exposed for leading people like the Times and yourself to believe it was showing something that it wasn’t.
One major conclusion in the paper seems sensible – that having diabetes or hypertension or ischaemic heart disease predicts for poorer outcomes (although the same could be said for many other conditions so there is hardly anything novel in this). But the first part of the conclusion seems entirely wrong. Just because you see covid hospitalising a lot of people who had pre-existing cardiac comorbidity certainly does not mean that covid caused their comorbidity. It seems that this part of the conclusion may have been influenced by possible conflicts of interests (see below).
There are a number of other specific concerns about the study:
A colleague also noted the link between Prof Gupta (the senior author) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other potential conflicts of interest:
I hope this helps you.
Yours
Norman Fenton
For clarification of the potential conflict of interest with BMGF, Scott McLachlan has provided the following information:
Bill Gates is the world’s largest single shareholder of Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer stocks and therefore every time Pfizer, Moderna, Lilly (Eli), GSK, CureVac or even AstraZeneca (he had something like 8% in AstraZeneca shares at one point) sell a vaccine, that’s money back in his pocket. (see here)
And while fact checkers claimed Gates would not profit from Gilead (Remdesivir), he actually purchased a significant chunk of Gilead and 27,000 shares in Merck in 2018 in preparation. (Merck are one of the manufacturers who licensed to manufacture Remdesivir in their plants)
The thing that journalists get confused on is the idea that he, through his foundations, made ‘grants’ to Moderna et al. These were not ‘grants’ in the way we get grants from EPSRC or UKRI – they are grant investments. Various companies in control of the BMGF are shareholders in Pfizer and Moderna. In return for sinking $50mil+ into Moderna, Gates’s foundation took a large slice of Moderna’s shares.
Further, Gates sells access to “investment opportunities” through GAVI COVAX and AMC. The ‘investor’ (usually a rich western govt or pharma/healthcare company) gives money to GAVI in their rich country where they make profits and need a tax write-off… then, they get included in the contract with some LMIC govt to sell them vaccines. The whole model works by shifting where the pharma/healthcare company make their profits. Pharma companies ‘invest’ by subsidising vax initially and then, over time the contract shifts to the country’s govt paying extortionate rates for future vax.
As one of the links above says – as the world keeps getting sicker Gates keeps getting richer. He invested $555mil into COVID vax companies during 2019/20 and has made an estimated $4bil return. Nice work if you can get it.
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 13, 2023
Secretive negotiations took place this week in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss proposed amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR), considered a binding instrument of international law.
Similar negotiations took place last month for drafting a new WHO pandemic treaty.
While the two are often conflated, the proposed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty represent two separate but related sets of proposals that would fundamentally alter the WHO’s ability to respond to “public health emergencies” throughout the world — and, critics warn, significantly strip nations of their sovereignty.
According to author and researcher James Roguski, these two proposals would transform the WHO from an advisory organization to a global governing body whose policies would be legally binding.
They also would greatly expand the scope and reach of the IHR, institute a system of global health certificates and “passports” and allow the WHO to mandate medical examinations, quarantine and treatment.
Roguski said the proposed documents would give the WHO power over the means of production during a declared pandemic, call for the development of IHR infrastructure at “points of entry” (such as national borders), redirect billions of dollars to the “Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex” and remove mention of “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said the proposed documents may also contravene international law.
Boyle, author of several international law textbooks and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, recently spoke with The Defender about the dangers — and potential illegality — of these two proposed documents
Other prominent analysts also sounded the alarm.
Proposals would create ‘worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state’
Meeting in Geneva between Jan. 9-13, the WHO’s IHR Review Committee worked to develop “technical recommendations to the [WHO’s] Director-General on amendments proposed by State Parties to the IHR,” according to a WHO document.
The IHR was first enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of SARS-CoV-1, and took effect in 2007. They constitute one of only two legally binding treaties the WHO has achieved since its inception in 1948 — the other being the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
As previously reported by The Defender, the IHR framework already allows the WHO director-general to declare a public health emergency in any country, without the consent of that country’s government, though the framework requires the two sides to first attempt to reach an agreement.
According to the same WHO document, the recommendations of the IHR Review Committee and the member states’ Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR) will be reported to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus by mid-January, in the leadup to the WHO’s 76th World Health Assembly in late May.
Boyle said he questioned the legality of the above documents, citing for instance the fact that “the proposed WHO treaty violates the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” which was ratified in 1969, and which Boyle described as “the international law of treaties for every state in the world.”
Boyle explained the difference between the latest pandemic treaty and IHR proposals. “The WHO treaty would set up a separate international organization, whereas the proposed regulations would work within the context of the WHO we have today.”
However, he said, “Having read through both of them, it’s a distinction without a difference.” He explained:
“Either one or both will set up a worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state under the control of Tedros and the WHO, which are basically a front organization for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Tony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and the Chinese Communist government that pays a good chunk of their bills.
“Either they’ll get the regulations or they’ll get the treaty, but both are existentially dangerous. These are truly dangerous, existentially dangerous and insidious documents.”
Boyle, who has written extensively on international law and argued cases on behalf of Palestine and Bosnia in the International Court of Justice, told The Defender he has “never read treaties and draft international organizations that are so completely totalitarian as the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty,” adding:
“Both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty, as far as I can tell from reading them, are specifically designed to circumvent national, state and local government authorities when it comes to pandemics, the treatment for pandemics and also including in there, vaccines.”
Talks for both the proposed pandemic treaty and the proposed IHR amendments appear to follow a similar timeline, in order to be submitted for consideration during the WHO’s World Health Assembly May 21-30.
“It’s clear to me they are preparing both the regulations and the treaty for adoption by the World Health Assembly in May of 2023,” Boyle said. “That’s where we stand right now as I see it.”
According to the WHO, the International Negotiating Body (INB) working on the Pandemic Treaty will present a “progress report” at the May meeting, with a view toward presenting its “final outcome” to the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.
Boyle: proposed legally-binding pandemic treaty violates international law
Commenting on the pandemic treaty, Tedros said, “The lessons of the pandemic must not go unlearned.” He described the current “conceptual zero draft” of the treaty as “a true reflection of the aspirations for a different paradigm for strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.”
Roguski, in his analysis of the “Pandemic Treaty,” warned that it will create a “legally binding framework convention that would hand over enormous additional, legally binding authority to the WHO.”
The WHO’s 194 member states would, in other words, “agree to hand over their national sovereignty to the WHO.” This would “dramatically expand the role of the WHO,” by including an “entirely new bureaucracy,” the “Conference of the Parties,” which would include not just member states but “relevant stakeholders.”
This new bureaucracy, according to Roguski, would “be empowered to analyze social media to identify misinformation and disinformation in order to counter it with their own propaganda.”
The WHO currently partners with numerous such organizations, such as “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard, for these purposes.
Roguski said the pandemic treaty also would speed up the approval process for drugs and injectables, provide support for gain-of-function research, develop a “Global Review Mechanism” to oversee national health systems, implement the concept of “One Health,” and increase funding for so-called “tabletop exercises” or “simulations.”
“One Health,” a brainchild of the WHO, is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment” that “mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities” and “is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In turn, “tabletop exercises” and “simulations” such as “Event 201,” were remarkably prescient in “predicting” the COVID-19 and monkeypox outbreaks before they actually occurred.
Roguski said the pandemic treaty would provide a structure to redirect massive amounts of money “via crony capitalism to corporations that profit from the declarations of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern” (‘pandemics’) and “the fear-mongering that naturally follows such emergency declarations.”
Boyle warned that the treaty and proposed IHR regulations go even further. “The WHO, which is a rotten, corrupt, criminal, despicable organization, will be able to issue orders going down the pike to your primary care physician on how you should be treated in the event they proclaim a pandemic.”
Moreover, Boyle said, the pandemic treaty would be unlike many other international agreements in that it would come into immediate effect. He told The Defender :
“If you read the WHO Treaty, at the very end, it says quite clearly that it will come into effect immediately upon signature.
“That violates the normal processes for ratification of treaties internationally under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also under the United States Constitution, requiring the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the terms of the treaty by two-thirds vote.”
Indeed, Article 32 of the proposed treaty regarding its “Provisional application” states:
“The [treaty] may be applied provisionally by a Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depository in writing at the time of signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession.
“Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
“Whoever drafted that knew exactly what they were doing to bring it into force immediately upon signature,” said Boyle. “Assuming the World Health Assembly adopts the treaty in May, Biden can just order Fauci or whoever his representative is there to sign the treaty, and it will immediately come into effect on a provisional basis,” he added.
“I don’t know, in any of my extensive studies of international treaties, let alone treaties setting up international organizations, of any that has a provision like that in it,” said Boyle. “It’s completely insidious.”
Proposed amendments to IHR described as a WHO ‘power grab’
According to Roguski, who said the WHO is “attempting a power grab,” the proposed amendments to the IHR may be even more concerning than the pandemic treaty.
Roguski wrote that while he believes the pandemic treaty is “an important issue,” he also thinks it is “functioning as a decoy that is designed to distract people from the much larger and more immediate threat to our rights and freedoms, which are the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.”
The IHR Review Committee working on the proposed amendments “began its work on 6 October 2022,” according to a WHO document, and has convened five times since then, including this week’s meetings in Geneva. Access to the meetings was prohibited for the unvaccinated.
The final proposals of the IHR Review Committee and the WGIHR will be presented to Tedros in mid-January and to the World Health Assembly in May. According to Roguski, “If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.”
As a result, Roguski said, compared to the proposed pandemic treaty, “The amendments to the International Health Regulations are a much more immediate and direct threat to the sovereignty of every nation and the rights and freedoms of every person on earth.”
According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would seek to remove 3 very important aspects of the existing regulations,” including “removing respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” from the text of the IHR, changing the IHR from “non-binding” to “legally binding” and obligating nations to “assist” other nations.
“Essentially, the WHO’s Emergency Committee would be given the power to overrule actions taken by sovereign nations,” Roguski said.
According to Boyle, similarly to the pandemic treaty, “again, Biden can instruct his representative in May, assuming they adopt the regulations, to sign the regulations. And then, the Biden administration will treat that as a binding international agreement, just like they did with the 2005 regulations,” referring to the original IHR ratified that year.
He added:
“Those [the 2005 IHR] were signed and the U.S. State Department at that time considered them to be a legally binding international executive agreement that they list in the official State Department publication, ‘Treaties in Force.’
“In other words, they treat the 2005 regulations as if they were a treaty that never received the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and therefore the supreme law of the land under Article 6 of the United States Constitution that would be binding upon all state and local governments here in the United States, even if they are resisting, the IHR regulations or the WHO treaty.”
According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would implement a great number of changes that everyone should absolutely disagree with.”
These changes include “dramatically expand[ing] the scope of the International Health Regulations from dealing with actual risks to dealing with anything that had the potential to be a risk to public health,” which Roguski said “would open up the doors wide to massive abuse beyond anything we have seen over the past three years.”
The proposed amendments also would shift the WHO’s focus “away from the health of real people” to “place primary preference upon the resilience of health care systems,” and would establish a “National Competent Authority” that “would be given great power to implement the obligations under these regulations,” Roguski said.
If the amendments come to pass, Roguski said, “The WHO will no longer need to consult any sovereign nation in which an event may or may not be occurring within that nation before declaring that there is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern within the borders of that nation.”
“Intermediate Public Health Alert[s],” “Public Health Emergenc[ies] of Regional Concern” and “World Alert and Response Notice[s]” could also be declared by the WHO’s director general, while the WHO would be recognized “as the guidance and coordinating authority during international emergencies.”
During such real or “potential” emergencies, the amendments would empower the WHO to mandate a variety of policies globally, which would be legally binding on member nations.
These policies could include requiring medical examinations or proof of such exams, requiring proof of vaccination, refusing travel, implementing quarantine and contact tracing or requiring travelers to furnish health declarations, to fill out passenger locator forms and to carry digital global health certificates.
“Competent health authorities” would also be empowered to commandeer aircraft and ships, while surveillance networks to “quickly detect public health events” within member nations would also be set up, as per the proposed amendments.
The WHO would also be empowered to be involved in the drafting of national health legislation.
The proposed amendments would give the WHO the power to develop an “Allocation Plan,” allowing it to commandeer the means of production of pharmaceuticals and other items during an “emergency,” and would oblige developed nations to provide “assistance” to developing nations.
“The proposed amendments … would facilitate digital access to everyone’s private health records,” Roguski said, and similar to the proposals in the pandemic treaty, would “also facilitate the censorship of any differing opinions under the guise of mis-information or dis-information.”
Roguski said the proposals are being made despite a “lack of input from the general public” by “unknown and unaccountable delegates” using vague and “undefined terminology” and vague criteria “by which to measure preparedness.”
He said the proposals would “trample our rights and restrict our freedoms,” including the right to privacy, to choose or refuse treatment, to express one’s opinions, to protect one’s children, to be with family and friends and to be free from discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of one’s vaccination status.
“The finality of decisions made by the Emergency Committee” foreseen by the amendments “would be a direct attack on national sovereignty,” Roguski said.
How did we get here?
According to the WHO, the members of the INB — during a meeting in Geneva July 18-21, 2022 — reached a “consensus,” agreeing that any new “convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” would be “legally binding” on member states.
For Boyle, this is the WHO’s response to the “enormous opposition” to the COVID-19-related restrictions of the past three years. He told The Defender :
“As far as I can figure out what happened here was this: As you know, there has been enormous opposition here in the United States [against] these totalitarian edicts coming out, and this was under both Trump and Biden.
“These totalitarian edicts coming out of the federal government, the White House, the CDC, everyone else on this pandemic and also the vaccine mandates, there’s enormous grassroots opposition. And so, as far as I can tell what happened, this culminated in Trump pulling us out of the WHO, which I think was a correct decision.
“So you know, I’m a political independent. I’m just looking at this subjectively. Now, what happened was then, when Biden came to power, his top scientific advisor was Tony Fauci. So Biden put us back into the WHO and then appointed Fauci as the U.S. representative on the Executive Committee of the WHO.
“That’s where both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty come from: to circumvent the enormous grassroots opposition to the handling of the edicts coming out of the federal government with respect to the pandemic and the vaccine mandates.”
Boyle explained what “legally binding” would mean in this context, if either set of proposals comes to pass:
“What will happen is the WHO will come up with an order, this new organization will come up with an order that they will then send to Washington, D.C., whereupon the Biden administration will enforce it as a binding international obligation of the United States of America under Article 6 of the United States Constitution, and it will usurp the state and local health authorities, who generally have constitutional authority to deal with public health under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“The Biden administration will then argue that either the regulations or the treaty will usurp the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and state and local health authorities, governors, attorney generals, public health authorities will have to obey [any] order coming out of the WHO.”
Referring to his remarks about the illegality of the two proposals under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Boyle clarified that under Article 18 of the convention, “a treaty does not come into force when signed. When the state has signed the treaty, it is only obligated to act in a manner that does not defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”
Article 18 states:
“A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when: (a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.”
According to Boyle a state’s signature “does not provisionally bring the treaty into force.”
Boyle also described the proposals as “a massive power grab by Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and Tedros.”
He added:
“I’ve never seen anything like this in any of my research, writing, teaching, litigating international organizations going back to the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, up until today.”
Roguski and Boyle argued that the U.S. — and other countries — should exit the WHO. Boyle told The Defender :
“I’m not a supporter of President Trump, but I think we have to go back to pulling out of the WHO right away. In the last session of Congress, there was legislation introduced pulling us out of the WHO. We need that legislation reintroduced immediately, in this new session of Congress.
“I think the House of Representatives has to make it clear that they object, that there’s no way they are going to go along with any orders coming out of the WHO, the World Health Assembly [WHA] or this new international pandemic organization, and that they have the power of the purse and that they will defund anything related to the WHO.”
However, for Boyle, this is not just a matter for federal lawmakers. “We need, certainly, the state governments here in the United States to take the position that they will not comply with any decisions coming out of the WHO, the WHA or this new international pandemic organization,” adding that he recently made such recommendations to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“We need that replicated all over the United States, on a state-by-state basis,” said Boyle, “and I think we need it right away because they’re trying to rush through these WHO regulations and the [pandemic] treaty for the WHO assembly in May.”
Close cooperation with Gates Foundation, others
According to the WHO, the INB discussions are taking place not just among all member states, but also with “relevant stakeholders” listed in document A/INB/2/4.
Who are these stakeholders? One example is GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, listed as an “Observer” alongside the Holy See (Vatican), Palestine and the Red Cross.
As previously reported by The Defender, GAVI proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”
GAVI describes its core partnership with various international organizations, including names that are by now familiar: the WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, and with the ID2020 Alliance, which supports the implementation of “vaccine passports.”
ID2020’s founding members include the Gates Foundation, Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation.
In turn, the Gates Foundation, alongside Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Air Transport Association (IATA — think “vaccine passports”) and the Population Council — founded by John D. Rockefeller and known for its “population control” initiatives — are listed in the same WHO document under Annex C as “non-state actors in official relations with WHO.”
“Other stakeholders, as decided by the INB, invited to attend [and] speak at open sessions of meetings of the INB [and] provide inputs to the INB” include IATA, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Bank Group.
“Open Philanthropy” and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and “nonprofit consumer advocacy organization” Public Citizen, are among the groups listed in the WHO document as “other stakeholders” that can “provide inputs to the INB,” alongside two Russian state-affiliated health organizations.
Lead U.S. negotiator for the pandemic treaty, Pamela Hamamoto — previously an investment banker with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch — “helped coordinate early responses to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2015 … and a strengthened WHO response.”
Hamamoto also was “instrumental in the 2014 launch of the Global Health Security Agenda” (GHSA), a “global effort … focused on strengthening the world’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats,” spearheaded by the CDC and founded with the purpose of accelerating the IHR passed in 2005.
The World Bank, the Global Health Security Consortium, the Private Sector Roundtable and the WHO are part of the GHSA’s steering group. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, are members of the Private Sector Roundtable.
Advising the GHSA is the “GHSA Consortium,” which includes within its steering committee the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (which hosted Event 201) and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).
As previously reported by The Defender, the NTI organized a “tabletop exercise” that predicted a “fictional” May 2022 monkeypox outbreak with remarkable accuracy. “Open Philanthropy” funded the final report for this exercise.
General members of the GHSA Consortium include the Gates Foundation, Amazon Web Services (which maintained COVID-19 immunization databases for the CDC), Boston University and the institution’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL), and Emergent BioSolutions.
As previously reported by The Defender, NEIDL is where “a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus” was recently developed.
Emergent BioSolutions, which produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, is connected to the 2001 Dark Winter anthrax simulation.
In June 2022, with the support of the U.S., Italy (current chair of the GHSA) and then-G20 president Indonesia, the World Bank announced the launch of a $1 billion “pandemic fund.”
In November 2022, Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, at the G20 meeting held in Bali, pushed for an international “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” to enable the public to “move around.” Indonesia is also a permanent member of the GHSA’s steering group.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Three years on, we have enough information on the pandemic architects to send them to prison. So why are they still getting away with murder?
Helen of desTroy | January 5, 2023
The information barrier separating establishment media consumers from pandemic heretics who do their own research is unmistakably crumbling. Every day, more doctors and more scientific papers are admitting that the mRNA gene therapy injections they once championed so fervently not only don’t protect the user from catching Covid-19 but may actually destroy their immune system, stop their hearts, or cause sudden death. Statisticians have incontrovertible proof of excess deaths in previously-healthy young people far outstripping any rise in mortality during the supposed height of the pandemic – or any other time in recent history, for that matter. The utterly avoidable carnage is such that even if we didn’t have an extensive psychological profile of the culprits, there would be no doubt it was premeditated and deliberate. And since those scumbags couldn’t resist leaving behind the usual array of PowerPoint slideshows, tabletop pandemic simulations, woefully fictionalized clinical trial data, and other criminal detritus, prosecution should be a breeze. After three years, we know more than ever about this criminal enterprise and the people responsible – certainly enough to make sure they never breathe free air again.
Except Anthony Fauci, architect of the steepest decline in life expectancy in American history, was allowed to gracefully bow out after 40 years bilking the taxpayer out of the highest salary in Washington as director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, his entire bloodstained career a case study in how to get away with murder. Bill Gates, not two years after threatening that the next pandemic would “get our attention,” has just conducted another tabletop pandemic simulation, this time whipping up an enterovirus that kills 15 million children, only to whine that no one trusts his miracle shots anymore. The WHO has designated “anti-vaxxers” public enemy number one, even accusing them of murder, while the New Yorker calls for permanent mask mandates and a coterie of washed-up celebrities insist the unvaccinated belong in jail. This is not the behavior of a criminal gang caught red-handed. What happened to “knowledge is power”? Why has humanity gone limp when it should be dealing the killing blow to these psychopaths and those giving them their marching orders?
As moribund as human civilization seemed in 2020, the world at the start of 2023 is practically unrecognizable. No longer mocking the TV-gullible in their fear-forts built of toilet paper and canned beans, we can’t even afford to stockpile such luxury objects – but religiously defend our penury as a necessary sacrifice, enduring cold showers so that a Nazi fetishist can climb into bed with BlackRock. A “democracy” whose citizens knew the system was rigged has become an indoctrination center where questioning that rigging is seen as a terrorism threat. A language once merely fraught with cliches and self-marginalizing semantic boobytraps has become one whose most loaded terms change definitions from day to day, where raising questions about why the linguistic ground is constantly shifting beneath one’s feet is dismissed as irrational.
But it has always been like this, we’re reassured by the faceless “fact-checkers” who have formed an impenetrable biofilm over social media, nudging us into a homogenous future while rewriting the recent past to remove any stray genocide. If words are truly violence as so many of them insist, their body count surely rivals that of Fauci and his white-coated army. The word “gaslight,” overused to the point of meaninglessness, is no longer sufficient to describe the firehose of lies (lie-hose?), often presented directly alongside conflicting information, that assaults us when we turn on our computers or unlock our phones. But then, the narrative managers’ aim is not necessarily persuasion in the traditional sense but to infect the target’s perception and processing centers so that they begin to doubt their own reality, gradually substituting elements of the establishment’s fantasy, sacrificing those cumbersome human instincts for the reassurance of being a Team Player on the winning team. No one can withstand the lie-hose forever – there’s a reason you and everyone you know look like you’ve aged 10 years since you first heard the word “coronavirus” – but if it hasn’t drained you of your sanity yet, you may want to see about deprogramming your loved ones from the Cult of Corona. We’re going to need everyone we can get.
Not long ago, ruling class rag the Atlantic published what was supposed to be a plea for ‘pandemic amnesty,’ an apparent white flag bylined by economist Emily Oster that argued that because the government’s devastating policies had been adopted with good intentions, and no one could have possibly guessed what the results would be, it was important for those on all sides of the issue to forgive and move on. It was the equivalent of a typewritten letter from Genghis Khan breezily explaining that you shouldn’t be mad that his Golden Horde razed your village to the ground, slaughtered your livestock and had their way with your daughters, he just thought buildings looked better on fire, and by the way could those girls maybe smile more? – but forgiving you for not having a four-course dinner ready to accompany his post-coital cigarette. It has been clear since the scale of the mRNA bioweapon’s harms became apparent that the architects of the Covid-19 experiment would have to either play dumb (“We didn’t know!”) or go full Nuremberg (“Just following orders!”) if they hoped to avoid a public execution, but this – suggesting those responsible for the most horrific crime against humanity in recorded history should be essentially forgiven for their crimes with the excuse that they didn’t know better while their victims are encouraged to beg for mercy from their tormentors (and presumably sign away the right to demand reparations) was a bold strategy indeed. Unsurprisingly, Oster was digitally torn limb from limb for her trouble, and some people even called the public display of rage a victory, believing the outpouring of powerful emotions had spooked the predators. But others desperately reached for what they were sure was an olive branch this time, falling for the same promise that led them first to submit to solitary confinement, then to wearing a bacteria-laden rag around their face, and ultimately to having themselves injected repeatedly with an experimental gene therapy: the promise that things could, if they just obeyed enough rules, go “back to normal.”
One had to be willfully delusional to read sincerity in Oster’s plea for a small-r reset, however, given that her recommendations included vaccine mandates for schoolchildren and more mRNA shots for everyone. She left “willful purveyors of misinformation” out of her to-forgive list, perhaps understanding that an ideological in-group can’t rely on the usual surface markers of difference to choose an outgroup when it comes time to make sacrifices. A person seeking amnesty for their misdeeds generally starts by admitting they’ve done something wrong. They typically stop committing the crime they’re hoping to be forgiven for, or at least try not to be balls-deep in another while begging to be spared the consequences of the last. A show of contrition, if not full repentance, is obligatory, and one certainly doesn’t blame the victim for bleeding on the killer’s Sunday best. Clearly, things work differently in the New Normal.
The predators who shredded the Nuremberg Codes by enrolling humanity in this unlicensed clinical trial against our will have, if anything, doubled down on their criminality since relaxing the mandates and admitting the shots can’t stop the spread. Not content with eliminating religious and medical exemptions to vaccine mandates, California passed a law allowing the state to strip doctors of their medical licenses for sharing “misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” taking the censorship of legitimate information that has been de rigueur under the Big Tech-Big Brother collusion propping up the pandemic narrative to the next level and injecting the corporate-state even further into the once-inviolable doctor-patient relationship. Many universities, including Yale, still require students to be not only vaxxed but boosted, despite the growing body of evidence proving the risks far outweigh any benefits the shots might provide to young people. Governments, health authorities, even sites like WebMD full-throatedly champion a complete course of mRNA injections for everyone down to the last 6-month-old child. The narrative managers who refused to acknowledge the shots were anything other than safe and effective even as hundreds of thousands of bodies piled up outside their doors only just last month admitted the link between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis was even being (belatedly) studied – and even then insisted any cases were likely due to Covid-19, that the rare vaccine-linked case was mild, and that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – did not lead to cardiac-related death. Far from closing the book on this disastrous interlude, the Rockefeller Foundation announced less than six months ago that it was expanding its questionably-titled Mercury Project – another experiment undertaken without informed consent, this time with a focus on manipulating internet use behavior – to increase vaccine uptake by studying “how mis- and disinformation spreads” around the world, presumably in order to spread some of its own. Not to be outdone, Stanford University is offering an online course on how to con people into getting vaccinated. The Biden administration recently ordered tens of millions more doses of bivalent Moderna boosters, the mRNA component manufactured special-order by CIA-funded firm Resilience, even though few Americans are eager to play side-effect roulette with a concoction tested on eight mice. But these sociopaths never tire. And not only are they not finished with their game, they’re barely getting started.
The Gates Foundation – along with the Johns Hopkins Global Center for Health Security and its other usual partners – wasted no time smothering the fantasy of a Covid armistice in its cradle, simulating another deadly pandemic almost exactly three years after Event 201 – and two years after a smirking Bill, chiding world governments for failing to lavish sufficient resources on Covid-19, promised “pandemic two” would “get attention next time”. There is nothing subtle about “Catastrophic Contagion,” which stars an improbably named pathogen called Severe Epidemic Enterovirus Respiratory Syndrome (SEERS), a virus which targets the young (15 million of its 20 million casualties are children) and leaves those it doesn’t kill with paralysis and brain damage. While SEERS hails from a fictionalized country sitting on Venezuela’s land (Johns Hopkins goons are not subtle in their foreign policy ambitions), its participants are mostly African leaders who read their stilted lines (“no one is safe until we all are safe!”) to the approving nods of noticeably-paler health bureaucrats (Gates, red-faced WHO pearl-clutcher Mike Ryan, and Johns Hopkins’ own Tom Inglesby) running the exercise. Those who believe these simulations merely put health officials through their paces to ensure optimal performance when faced with the real thing may be surprised how little discussion of saving lives actually takes place, or how much the “mistakes” made during the exercises are meticulously replicated when they go live. The redistribution of wealth (from the hoi polloi to the parasite class) and the need for behavioral controls dominate the highlight reels, and October’s was an especially naked advertisement for the WHO’s latest power grab, which combines a sweeping new global “pandemic treaty” complete with legally-binding controls on speech and movement that supersede national laws with a proposed update to the International Health Regulations, which govern public health rule-making.
Video excerpts from Catastrophic Contagion reveal it doubled down on the need to “trust” narrative managers, corporations, and government institutions, the importance of holding ever more pandemic simulations (a pet project of Gates, whose eponymous foundation and Gavi Vaccine Alliance are shoo-ins for the lucrative contracts to host and run these “germ games”), and the need to silence dissident voices – all key planks of the global pandemic treaty, an ambitious power-grabbing agreement that will not only supersede individual countries’ laws but set up and fund (through the generous contributions of member nations) a transnational Ministry of Truth to determine what information can be shared during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (a term that lost its last shred of meaning earlier this year when WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ignored the advice of his expert panel to declare monkeypox a PHEIC, despite its spread being almost exclusively limited to ultra-promiscuous gay men). Because PHEICs don’t expire – of the six declared since the classification was adopted in 2005, three are still in effect – that ministry would retain control of information indefinitely.
The ruling class have wasted no time in implementing the Johns Hopkins simulation’s conclusions, which play on longstanding anxieties regarding the seemingly inexorable decline of trust in authority in the age of the internet. Leading the crusade to revive trust in corporations – specifically social media, which suffered a fatal blow to its credibility when it emerged in September that all the major platforms were holding weekly meetings with at least 12 US government agencies and taking detailed orders from them on who and what to censor – is Elon Musk, hailed as a real-life Iron Man by people who should know better because he allowed a handful of journalists (and Bari Weiss) to post screenshots of what may or may not be internal Twitter communications that appear to confirm what was public knowledge three months ago. The effort to bring back trust in government – in the US at least – is in the sweaty hands of the Republican Party, who have promised to grill Fauci to within an inch of his life – now that he’s retired and can plead the Fifth until he dies in his sleep of old age. Taking on the rehabilitation of journalism is Tucker Carlson, who on the day Biden was supposed to (and predictably declined to) declassify the remaining government documents regarding the JFK assassination shared with his audience the blindingly obvious fact that the CIA was “involved” in Kennedy’s murder. And redeeming science is Andrew Huff, the Eco-Health Alliance whistleblower who blames the pandemic on sloppy containment procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – even though he admits he quit working at the controversial facility in 2016, years before the fatal “lab leak” supposedly took place – muddying the waters of guilt and blame in a way that would make Emily Oster proud. Limited hangouts all, but the respite they provide from the usual lie-hose waterboarding sessions means they will be embraced, even trusted.
Any suggestion that bad pandemic policies were honest mistakes born of good intentions is frankly offensive given the amount of evidence to the contrary. Because we did know what would happen when the experimental conditions were imposed – that was the point of all those tabletop simulations. Face masks were known to be worse than useless for preventing respiratory illness, and only an absolute psycho would put one on a toddler who needs to see the mouths of his fellow humans to learn how to do things like smile or speak. There was no scientific evidence to support “social distancing,” and if you’d suggested locking Great-Aunt Imelda up alone in a plexiglas box with nothing but a TV and a grab-bag of midazolam and morphine to keep her company through her last days, you’d have been rightfully slapped. The harms of lockdowns were well-understood – yet like the rest of the medical knowledge held by human civilization in 2019, it supposedly deserted us in our hour of need. Scientists have known for years that loneliness poses a bigger risk to health than even obesity or smoking, that the elderly are in the greatest danger of becoming critically lonely, that vitamin D – absorbed from sunlight – is key to recovery from respiratory illness. But pointing any of that out got you exiled from polite society as a homicidal anti-science granny-killing lunatic washing your horse paste down with Trump-brand bleach. It clearly wasn’t a mistake that every “public health tip” the CDC issued was harmful and out of step with medical best practices. Had that been the case, there would have been at least a few “mistakes” on the side of wellness. Yet no one wanted to open the Pandora’s box of “the government is working against my interests” – certainly not when Chris Cuomo had just told them it was time to “sacrifice the me to the we,” the Year of the Team Player. Instead, putting aside everything they thought they knew about how to take care of their physical and mental health, they embraced the CDC’s strict limits on movement and association as a source of security – proof that Big Brother loved them and wanted them to be happy, even while he was quietly killing their grandparents to free up pension obligations.
Three years later, the standard response to the mounting evidence of permanent damage by mRNA shots is often anger – how could they?! – but rarely surprise. Given that Big Pharma’s track record is littered with corpses, no successful coronavirus vaccine has ever actually been manufactured despite decades of trying, and every other “public health intervention” of the pandemic has been based in part or in whole on lies, many of which had serious consequences for the rule-obeyers, it would have been truly shocking if these products were safe. As for “effective,” we knew by the end of 2020 that neither the Pfizer nor Moderna jab could stop transmission of the virus, but also that they hadn’t tried to. The CDC tried to claim otherwise, vaccine mandates were hastily adopted based on the “misunderstanding,” and millions of people lined up to get injected under that false premise, silencing any misgivings that might have interfered with following the advice of the Experts and crossing their fingers in the hope that this time they would get that return to Normal they’d been hearing so much about. But this required a level of willful suspension of disbelief that would have gotten one locked up as a delusional psychotic in the pre-Covid era, given Pandemic Pope Fauci’s history. The miniature Mengele pulled off a series of self–enriching scams over the course of the AIDS era, poisoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people – including tens of thousands of children – with drugs he knew were toxic, and given that he was never punished, he has merely repeated his old tricks, again and again. Accountability is a foreign concept in Washington, and in the misery-loves-company tradition of late-stage empire, we have exported this moral failure around the globe.
Given Pfizer’s literally record-breaking history of fraud and rampant criminality, one might ask why they were entrusted with being the public face of such a major project – hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars were riding on Warp Speed, after all, even though Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla isn’t a human-doctor at all but a veterinarian, having focused his education on “the biotechnology of reproduction” if Wikipedia is to be believed. Bourla was in charge of Pfizer’s animal vaccine division in 2010 when a diarrhea shot for pregnant cows, PregSure BVD, was discovered to be killing off as many as 15% of the calves who nursed from the jab recipients. They didn’t just die, they bled out of every hole in their bodies, including their pores. By denying everything and continuing to sell the shot outside Germany – where the problem had initially arisen – Bourla apparently distinguished himself as the man you want when you need to kill a lot of kids and get away with it. He also proved himself back in his veterinary days as a pioneer in expanding the definition of “vaccine” to include chemical castration, devising a shot for boars called ImproVac that he claimed was 99% as good as physically hacking their balls off (it’s unclear how he arrived at that figure, but then, it’s unclear what hole Pfizer pulled its effectiveness numbers out of either). Still think the Covid-19 shots’ disastrous effects on human fertility are a coincidence? Don’t tell Bourla – he understands why people fear his company’s products, but wants speaking up about the harm they cause to be criminalized. The US military was sending a very powerful message when it selected Pfizer and Bourla to be the standard-bearers of its mRNA bioweapon campaign. It is unfortunate for humanity that so few were listening.
These people do not expect to be punished, but if humanity is to continue as something other than a slave species, they must be, and immediately. It’s hard to think of any crimes that haven’t been committed in the course of the planning, setup, and perpetration of these power-grab-s fraud, corruption, murder, genocide, and the coercive pharmaceutical rape that will become depressingly common when so-called “health passports” or any other permutation of the World Economic Forum’s Known Traveler Digital Identity social credit score are adopted worldwide. Where once the unvaxxed could merely be threatened with job loss or expulsion from school, or denied entry into a business or country, once all systems are linked, refusing the shot will effectively get a person occluded from society entirely – unable to withdraw or spend money, unable to enter any buildings or board transportation, unable to unlock even their phone or computer to communicate with loved ones. Most people wouldn’t last a day as a locked-out ghost in the prison state the pandemic pimps are building.
But the spirit to resist is fading fast, with bodily integrity turning into an anachronism at the hands of a generation who have never experienced privacy. Kids born in the 2010s are likely to believe it’s perfectly normal to be summoned to a school clinic for injections without their parents’ knowledge, uninterested in what’s in the needle and neither asked nor asking to sign a consent form. They don’t know they have a choice. Gates may have declared the Covid-19 shots a failure, but his foundation has already poured billions of dollars into DARPA’s choicest nightmare material, “flying needles” competing with drugged food and even human vaccine vectors to penetrate anyone they can get their hands on.
The body is merely a sideshow for these psychopaths, however – the real target is the multi-layered rape of the mind, a specialty of military technology which sits at the core of the mRNA bioweapon. Unlike standard vaccines, the mRNA formulas deployed under cover of Covid-19 can cross the blood-brain barrier with their hypertoxic spike protein, triggering a cascade of inflammation, autoimmune dysfunction, and other reactions that can bring about permanent personality changes (on top of the damage caused by the virus itself). It’s anyone’s guess how well these changes can be controlled – if one can select for docility over brute stupidity, say, or an eagerness to please on top of the inability to defy – but one can imagine that like the lobotomies of old, they will become a popular way of dealing with inconvenient dissidents as pressure to decrease the overt appearance of prisons (so unsightly!) grows internationally. Of course if you shrink the prison to fit within the skull, the division between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ becomes literally a state of mind, one that can be artificially imposed from without – a possibility Fourth Industrial Revolution fetishists like Klaus Schwab no doubt already see for contraptions like Neuralink (the kindler, gentler brain-rape!) and a “battery-free” deep-brain stimulator that uses the patient as its battery.
The possibilities for remote implantation of thought and emotion are alarming – simply envision the targeted censorship the Biden administration conducted against opinions and social media users that displeased it over the last three years, deploying representatives from no fewer than 12 agencies to meetings with all the major tech platforms to silence individual citizens because its own narratives were so poorly constructed they regularly fell down under their own weight. Informed consent will be a thing of the past – when adoption of such devices is widespread enough, the narrative managers will literally be able to conduct mass sentiment like an orchestra.
On the metaphorical front, the WHO wants to make sure its good little citizens wash their brains as often as their hands, holding meetings about a global “infodemic” before it had even declared Covid-19 a pandemic and talking up the importance of “information hygiene.” Just as environmental watchdogs condemn chemical companies for dumping toxic waste into the planet’s water supply, the Ministry of Truth whose charter is being woven into the WHO’s global pandemic treaty will argue that spreading “conspiracy theories” and other unauthorized opinions is poisoning the collective consciousness with dangerous doubt and hate. As Catastrophic Contagion glibly explains, all of this death could have been avoided if we just placed our trust in the Corporate State. Those millions of dead kids the Global Health Security Center warns are waiting at the end of the next pandemic rainbow? That ‘poisoning’ is what happens when you do your own research. UNESCO’s “think before sharing” campaign – aimed at recruiting an internal thought-police officer within every good citizen to squelch the innate human desire to post interesting or troubling rumors, question authority, or otherwise fan the flames of “infodemics,” lest their content inspire some kind of extremist to action motivated by hate and physically hurt someone – is the first step toward declaring every individual’s thoughts part of the global commons. It’s the “I wear my mask to keep you safe” of thoughtcrime.
https://helenofdestroy.substack.com/p/whose-mind-is-it-anyway
But even that isn’t sufficiently intrusive for these parasites. Their ultimate goal is to hijack and ultimately replace the natural instincts that arise to meet a hostile occupying force, substituting trust, obedience and docility, the precursors to a slave species blissfully ignorant of our slavery – who will “own nothing and be happy,” in WEFspeak. How? They seem to have settled on the lie-hose – gaslighting on steroids – in the hope of making it so exhausting to continue thinking critically that the target just gives up, overwhelmed, their bullshit-detector overheating in the wake of 3 years of “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Eagerly studying its captive audience back in 2020 as it urged them to stay glued to the couch while warning them obesity was the primary indicator of death with Covid-19, the CDC found it didn’t take many waterboarding sessions with the lie-hose to induce a roaring epidemic of Stockholm syndrome. After just two months of mask mandates, shelter-in-place, and six-feet-apart rules, only 25% of New Yorkers said they’d feel safe if the restrictions were scrapped. How much harm do you think decades of “safe and effective” has done?
It’s tempting to believe that the narrative managers’ insistence on doubling down on obvious falsehoods despite undeniable proof to the contrary will simply relegate them to a Pravda-level epistemological irritant – everyone knows the narrative is false, even the individuals selected to propagate it, and while one must pay lip service to the narrative in public if one wants to maintain their socioeconomic status, one can always discuss reality in private with trusted people, informed by underground publications not subject to censorship. However, technology has enabled the kind of information control the worst excesses of the Eastern Bloc could only have dreamed of. I’ve already written at great length about the informational iron curtain being constructed to quarantine wrongthink on the internet and eventually prevent its uploading (and contemplation) altogether, and this project has advanced dramatically under cover of Covid-19, with even non-Google search engines like DuckDuckGo vigorously scrubbed of competing narratives to the extent the user hoping to quickly confirm a fact or a name instead ends up in a hall of mirrors with one narrative showing on every screen, its production values as impeccable as its lies are threadbare. But it’s the only narrative in town, save the user’s own imagination – and since the US school system ensures no trace of viable imagination survives the third grade, they’re basically defenseless. Forced to internalize what they know is a bogus narrative, even temporarily, they’ve nonetheless become complicit in their own reprogramming, and the lie-hose residue has a corrosive effect on their memories and even sensory input when these contradict the lies they’ve grudgingly swallowed just to survive. “If vaccines weren’t really safe and effective, wouldn’t all the doctors be screaming from the rooftops?”
Thus what appears to be ham-handed slopaganda can actually insinuate the narrative managers into the target’s decision-making centers – the rather self-explanatory process known as the OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act) – where a little bit of pressure exerted at the right moment can have an outsize effect. Mentally knocking the individual off-balance with a jolt from the lie-hose while they’re trying to observe and orient themselves ensures whatever they do next will be misinformed at best, heinously miscalculated at worst. If they blame themselves rather than the predatory outside influences leading them astray, the self-perpetuating feedback loop becomes difficult to break. Doubt leads to “distrust your gut”, only to learn when they become suddenly sick and read way too many articles about spike proteins that they’ve basically poisoned themselves and now can likely never board a plane because of blood clots, the normal self-preservation urge – to have the problem taken care of medically, to warn others, even to demand those responsible “fix it” – is muted by guilt and embarrassment over their willing participation in this act of self-destruction.
A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 56% of Americans believe the vaccine is at least somewhat effective in preventing infection – a claim that even the CDC doesn’t try to make anymore. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence the shots are harmful – evidence they accept as legitimate! – no one wants to admit they’ve subjected themselves or their children to a totally preventable risk, especially one that could kill them.
There’s a sense that speaking up about vaccine harms will somehow manifest more of them – or worse, cause others to become vaccine hesitant, a fate generally agreed upon to be worse than death even though it has become increasingly hard to ignore the causative relationship between death and the vaccines themselves. Health authorities’ rapid pivot (as mandates dropped across the US and Europe) from ordering the population to roll up their sleeves or else to insisting the shots were always voluntary deprives the injured of a clear target for their rage and plants a nagging sense of responsibility for their own suffering. In the same way they were incentivized to get the shot in the first place through an absurd selection of bribes from Krispy Kreme donuts to lap dances, the vaccine-injured can be cajoled back into the fold through universal basic income payments or other benefits specifically for the jabbed. The more they can be made to identify with the experimental compound colonizing their bodies, the more easily they can be turned back against the unvaccinated, those selfish throwbacks who are Not Team Players.
And the retconning of the pandemic is running at full speed as the narrative managers insinuate themselves into humanity’s collective OODA loop. Americans running at top speed away from the bivalent boosters are concerned about physical discomfort, not the possibility of dying suddenly! Rebelling against authority means wearing masks forever! And that 40% surge in non-Covid excess mortality among 18- to 49-year-olds that has actuaries all spooked? That’s just stealth-Covid! Anti-vaxxers are to blame for traffic accidents, antisemitism, and even sudden death itself!
Narrative managers’ refusal to give even an inch on the Big Lie that this class of ‘vaccines’ are 100% “safe and effective” as cries to the contrary hit critical mass suggests another epistemological rug-pull is just around the corner. So when I saw an actual news story last month describing the pandemic as “the biggest US intelligence failure since 9/11” I most certainly did not believe my lying eyes. With so much evidence pointing to years if not decades of premeditation in the unleashing of Covid-19 and a profound intent to cause harm, the reemergence and sudden popularity of the “lab leak” theory of Covid-19’s origins plays much too perfectly into the hands of the interests behind the pandemic. Indeed, it was first floated by a representative of one of them all the way back in 2020.
Forget for a moment that the architects of this grand scam have already explained their evil plot to us in Bond-villain-esque detail, repeatedly, accompanied by long, short, and medium-length write-ups, complete with helpful video. The lab leak hypothesis may make more sense than the zoonotic-origin hypothesis (it would be hard not to) but it conveniently absolves the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, the WHO, DARPA, BARDA, and the rest of the medical-totalitarian infrastructure – including the financial cartels that paid for the whole atrocity and have been reaping massive dividends – from responsibility for the millions of deaths ensuing from virus and injectable bioweapons alike by recasting what all evidence supports as a controlled release as mere accidental exposure. Like the deadly “mistakes” that governments supposedly made in responding to the outbreak, or the self-contradicting policies that “just don’t make sense” yet always err on the side of harm, tacitly admitting to a containment screw-up is their best option legally speaking for getting out of jail with their necks intact. But it simply doesn’t hold water with all the information currently in the public domain. I couldn’t completely rule out the possibility of an accidental leak when I wrote my first article on Covid-19 nearly three years ago, but even then the theory required extreme suspension of disbelief, given that its primary proponent was the same Israeli biowarfare specialist who spent the Bush II years telling anyone who would listen that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, specifically anthrax, and was responsible for the letters full of ominous white powder that had materialized on the desks of a handful of legislative and media opponents to the Patriot Act following a pattern set out in the events of 2001 Johns Hopkins tabletop simulation Dark Winter. The parallels between 9/11 and Covid-19 have been obvious since day one, but they do not include any “intelligence failures.”
It is very likely the ‘final’ narrative decided upon to explain the pandemic will center on an accidental release of some kind (perhaps more than one, to prevent any one country having to shoulder an unfair burden that could later result in its leaders letting slip what really happened), but this must not be allowed to stand. If the predatory parasites behind Covid-19 are allowed to walk on the grounds that the original pathogen’s release was just another “mistake,” we can all kiss our asses goodbye.
Medical totalitarianism is far more dangerous than any mere political dictatorship, no matter how repressive or violent. Most citizens of the latter regimes understand, even in the midst of hardcore reality mismanagement, that their enemies are ultimately human – bestial, perhaps, or even evil, but human nonetheless. However, the transnational capital class who built the Covid-19 experiment reviles traditional nation-states, and the WHO’s global pandemic treaty is so determined to communicate disdain for such unprofitable ideas like human dignity that it had language referencing the concept removed from the text. The catalyzing experience of Covid-19, recast for future newsreels as all of humanity uniting against a deadly invisible enemy, lends itself to War on Terror-like reductionism: “you’re either with us, or you’re with the virus.” Since no sane person could ever be pro-sickness, the growing crowd of opponents to vaccine mandates, killer lockdowns, ‘infodemic’ thought police, and mask fetishism can be written off as criminal insanity and taken out of circulation, forming a natural test reservoir for future clinical trials (the 21st century human sacrifice). With no natural enemies once it has seized the machinery of market and state under the guise of selfless do-gooderism, the public health technocracy can only continue to exist by demonizing and then sacrificing groups of its own constituents, creating the impression of a benevolent regime deftly battling the forces of “subversion” so that the masses can live their lives in peace. “First, they came for the anti-vaxxers, and I did not speak up, because I didn’t want to end up like Andrew Wakefield” is not an excuse when life and death hang in the balance.
Peter Hotez, the buffoonish tropical disease specialist who became a media darling for his ideological crusade against “anti-vaxxers” – a much-maligned group even before the Covid-19 experiment – has partnered with the WHO to condemn “anti-vaccine activism,” which he rechristens “anti-science aggression,” as “a major killing force globally.”
Hotez made the absurd claim last month that “Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber attacks,” and while it’s tempting to laugh at his histrionics (or to simply point out that iatrogenesis – medical “error” – kills nearly 1 million Americans every year, topping cancer and heart disease), his demands for “political solutions” to the growing portion of the planet that disagrees with his medical totalitarianism are no laughing matter, given that he is backed by the WHO – which will be itching to cut its new global pandemic treaty teeth on a crowd-pleasing victim for its Ministry of Truth tribunals. He has repeatedly called for the Biden administration to sic the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department on those he deems insufficiently reverent of The Science, and thanks to a longstanding alliance with the ADL, he will likely get what he wants.
While it may be tempting to see the Covid-19 project as a failure – mandates rolled back, boosters sitting untouched on shelves or in landfills, doctors finally speaking up – this leaves out the big picture. When regarded as a coordinated operation to drive mad, enslave, and ultimately liquidate the human race, the Covid-19 experiment is shaping up to be a stunning success. This must be prevented at all costs.
Why proposed changes to the International Health Regulations are a VERY BAD idea
By Libby Klein | Reclaim Ethical Medicine | December 18, 2022
One might think that of course we need an international body that can help everyone around the world to work together in times of crisis to combat pandemics and other scary global things.
Well that sounds sensible.
One might think that’s what we have the World Health Organisation (WHO) for.
Well that may have been the original idea, but it turns out there’s a few issues with the WHO. How effective is it and what role should it have?
Seems the world has skipped past those questions and gone straight to: let’s give the WHO all the power it needs so that it can do a better job of controlling pandemics.
And let’s not just tweak one or two things here and there. Let’s have a whole new treaty. And let’s call it something really long, like Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response and give it a confusing acronym, like CA+.
AND let’s also simultaneously amend the existing International Health Regulations. In ways that overlap. Through forums which are supposedly transparent but which are largely conducted in secret.
There’s a lot going on here. But don’t be fooled by the flowery language or put off by the density and complexity of the documents. Be assured there are some big issues which warrant your attention.
I’ve listed some of the issues in the most recent proposals to amend the International Health Regulations below. Please add your comments and share your insights!
Note: they don’t call a spade a spade and they don’t call a pandemic a pandemic. They call it a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”. There’s 2 reasons for that:
The scope of WHO’s powers is to be broadened significantly, from “public health risk” to “all risks with a potential to impact public health” (Article 2)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Irfan Chowdhury | Palestine Chronicle | July 18, 2020
… Israel has been carrying out the longest-running military occupation in modern history and the longest-running siege in modern history. These two facts alone render Israel unique in terms of the scope of its brutality and criminality.
There are other respects in which Israel stands out from other countries in its use of terror and violence; for example, it is one of the most aggressive countries in the world, having waged wars of aggression against Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006, and against Gaza in 2004, 2006, 2008/9, 2012 and 2014, killing huge numbers of civilians in the process (all while issuing threats and carrying out various covert attacks against Iran, which are all in violation of the UN Charter). … continue
 | Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… |
 | Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… |
 | Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… |
| Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… |
 | papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… |
 | loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… |
| Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… |
 | Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… |
| Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… |
| John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… | |
 | eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… |
 | rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 