By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | March 29, 2023
An Australian senator’s motion to hold an inquiry into the World Health Organization‘s (WHO’s) controversial international pandemic treaty was blocked after Labor and Greens voted against it.
The treaty, which will be legally binding under international law, will expand the WHO’s surveillance powers, allow the unelected global health agency to target “misinformation,” and more. The next stage of discussions on the treaty will begin next week.
The motion, which was introduced by Senator Malcolm Roberts, called for the WHO’s international pandemic treaty to be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade References Committee for an inquiry.
Numerous lawmakers supported the motion and blasted the pandemic treaty during a debate.
Senator Roberts accused WHO Director-General of “misleading the public about what the WHO is doing with the pandemic treaty.”
Senator Ralph Babet warned about the “ever-encroaching power of the WHO” and blasted those who had dismissed criticism of the pandemic treaty as a “conspiracy theory.”
Senator Geraard Rennick said that Australia risks being influenced by the “vibe” of the WHO if the treaty passes and pointed to the way where Australia would “religiously… follow the orders or the proclamations from the WHO without any questioning” during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Senator Alex Antic highlighted the mass censorship that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic and criticized the way people were branded “conspiracy theorists” if they went against the establishment’s Covid narrative.
“Anyone who defied the WHO’s supposedly expert advice, including emminent medical professionals, were censored and vilified by the media and Big Tech at the behest of government and these organizations and… the only narrative that was allowed oxygen were those parroting the WHO,” Antic added. “Many Australian Health Care Providers were suspended for contradicting what was ultimately the WHO’s position on Covid-19 vaccines. Their predictions and observations have turned out to be correct and we’ll see how that narrative is slowly changing.”
Senator Matthew Canavan said Australia “should be getting out of the World Health Organization because of their negligent handling of the coronavirus” and pointed to several of the unelected health agency’s missteps during the pandemic.
However, several senators opposed the motion and praised the WHO.
“This is actually a good thing,” Senator Dorinda Cox said in reference to the treaty. “It’s important that we learn from the responses of governments right across the world so that we can do better next time.”
Senator David Shoebridge claimed that criticism of the WHO’s pandemic treaty was “disinformation” being pushed by a “conspiracy club.”
Despite strong support for the motion from several senators, it was ultimately defeated by two votes, with Labor and Greens voting against it.
You can watch the full debate on this motion here.
This is one of several recent efforts to shine a light on the WHO’s far-reaching pandemic treaty. United States (US) Senator Ron Johnson recently introduced an amendment to require Senate ratification for any pandemic agreement with the WHO. However, Johnson’s attempt to scrutinize the treaty was also defeated.
Ideological zealots wanted jabs in arms
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 11, 2023
Our recent “Null Hypothesis” article postulates and evidences a succinct summary of the happenings of the last three years: “The hypothesis that will likely stand the test of time goes like this: a nasty — if not particularly unusual — respiratory disease season was turned into a catastrophe by human misadventure, and this catastrophe was compounded by efforts to save face and justify the unjustifiable”.
In answering the question ‘what happened’, we did not attempt to tackle the obvious follow-up question (apart from a brief discussion about social contagion): ‘why did it happen’?
The sceptical community – living up to its decentralised worldview – is not short of opinions and theories, robustly debated. These are too numerous to cover in detail in this short piece: it suffices to say that they cover a wide spectrum ranging from calamitous ineptitude (and innumeracy) of politicians and civil servants, deceitful and underhand sales & marketing by nefarious global corporations, efforts by the elite to enrich themselves by impoverishing the middle classes and the digital enslavement of the masses, through to some more esoteric beliefs covering depopulation agendas, eugenics and long-in-the-planning Satanic plots… the list just goes on and on.
As many of the most ardent supporters of both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions (PIs and NPIs) begin to wake up to the collateral damage they helped bring about, it is instructive to stand back and observe tried-and-tested Biblical precedent being re-enacted. Few are not enjoying seeing the pantomime villain Matt Hancock being hoist by his own self-promoting petard via the Oakeshott WhatsApp trove. After all, who does not take some satisfaction from the fall of a petty tyrant? But much like the goat that gets bestowed with the sins of the community in Leviticus (“the goat will carry on itself all their iniquities” ) before being cast out into the wilderness (thus avoiding a full and frank ‘lessons learned’ exercise), the demonisation of this preening ’cock (or monkey) does not necessarily get us much further in terms of identifying whodunnit — who was the organ grinder? After all, a self-promoting chancer whose self-confessed epidemiological education is based on a studious viewing of the film ‘Contagion’ is demonstrably not an evil Blofeld mastermind. Indeed, some sceptics have attempted to use the Telegraph’s Lockdown Files to scotch any discussion of conspiracy and underscore their belief that the disastrous events of 2020-2022 were ‘merely’ a cock-up.
But that simplistic take assumes that the former Secretary of State for Health was more than just a bumbling low-grade chaos agent intent on filling his boots via fast-track procurement channels. Loathsome though he might be, Hancock and his cronies are a symptom – not a cause – of the pit we find ourselves in. Why did he – and the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson – get themselves into such a pickle such that they were not able to navigate a more rational – and less damaging – course through the crisis?
The answer is probably to be found somewhere within what one might term the ‘pandemic preparedness industry’ as outlined a few months ago in the Daily Sceptic :
“The response to the COVID-19 pandemic represented the triumph of a pseudo-scientific biosecurity agenda that emerged in 2005 and has been pushed ever since by a well-organised, well-funded and well-embedded network of ideologues. These fanatics promote and perpetuate the ideas underpinning the draconian new approach by publishing them in leading journals, planting them in public policy and law, pushing them in the media and smearing those who dissent, however eminent or well-qualified.
This avenue of investigation is, we believe, more likely to lead to the source of our misadventure than attempting to rationalise ‘scorched earth’ attempts at containment, suppression and eradication of a killer virus. There was only ever a warped logic to these actions, unless – one way or the other (perhaps for the ‘greater good’ or simply for old-fashioned crony capitalist ends) – you wanted to create a favourable backdrop for a new set of medical interventions that might otherwise have met with limited take-up or even downright opposition. CMO Chris Whitty advised government ministers in February 2020 (!) that covid was not deadly enough to justify fast-tracking vaccines. Put another way, earth could not have been scorched in this way if seasonal respiratory disease had not been given a name such that scariants could be ‘deployed’ to ‘frighten the pants off’ the general populace.
Whether the driving force behind these fanatics is saintly goodwill, pure greed, corruption – or even a Luciferian conspiracy for that matter – is beside the point: what is essential to understand is how a nasty seasonal respiratory disease season was weaponised to drive one of the greatest policy failures of all time. There does not necessarily need to be a single cartoon villain masterminding events to avoid multiple parties conspiring (“breathing together”) to create a great evil.
With this backdrop one does not even need to ferret around in the weeds to find out more. Last summer’s detailed POLITICO/WELT Special Report sheds plentiful quanta of light on the matter:
Four [supra-national] health organizations, working closely together, spent almost $10 billion on responding to Covid across the world. But they lacked the scrutiny of governments… While nations were still debating the seriousness of the pandemic, the groups identified potential vaccine makers and targeted investments in the development of tests, treatments and shots.
The four organizations had worked together in the past, and three of them shared a common history. The largest and most powerful was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropies in the world. Then there was Gavi, the global vaccine organization that Gates helped to found to inoculate people in low-income nations, and the Wellcome Trust, a British research foundation with a multibillion dollar endowment that had worked with the Gates Foundation in previous years. Finally, there was the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, the international vaccine research and development group that Gates and Wellcome both helped to create in 2017.
… The World Health Organisation (WHO) was crucial to the groups’ rise to power. All had longstanding ties to the global health body. The boards of both CEPI and Gavi have a specially designated WHO representative. There is also a revolving door between employment in the groups and work for the WHO: Former WHO employees now work at the Gates Foundation and CEPI; some, such as Chris Wolff, the deputy director of country partnerships at the Gates Foundation, occupy important positions. Much of the groups’ clout with the WHO stems simply from money.
… “They’re funded by their own capabilities and or endowments and trusts. But when they step into multilateral affairs, then who keeps watch over them?” a former senior U.S. official said. “I don’t know the answer to that. That’s quite provocative”.
Consider this small early 2020 cameo featuring senior executives from one of these four organisations:
“When it first became clear that this disease was appearing, Richard [Hatchett] and I sat down and said, we know what happened with the last swine flu pandemic, where wealthy countries bought up all the doses [of Pandemrix] that were … available for the developing world, we have to try to do something different about that…”.
Most normal people draw entirely different conclusions from the swine flu saga, not least the absolutely devastating tale of Pandemrix, a giant swindle involving misuse of taxpayer funds to purchase these doses in the first place, the substantial human damage that they then caused, a subsequent cover-up and then further cost to the taxpayer compensating those affected.
Contrast this with CEPI’s ‘mission’: “Vaccines are one of our most powerful tools in the fight to outsmart epidemics. The development of vaccines can help save lives, protect societies and restabilise economies”.
There you have it: the ‘saviour vaccine’, a sacred cow extolled with messianic zeal. It seems that one of the world’s greatest policy failures happens to neatly coincide with the stated aims of the Fantabulous Four. Food for thought given that there is no example of a vaccine ever defeating a sudden onset viral epidemic, let alone a ‘pandemic’ (there is also the question of whether viral pandemics are in any way even a hypothetical threat to modern societies — unless, of course, one incorrectly pins the blame for iatrogenic collateral damage on said virus).
Following the money, therefore, it is not that much of a surprise what came next: while — as pointed out above — “nations were still debating the seriousness of the pandemic” (i.e. correctly monitoring the possibility of a slightly-more-serious-than-usual respiratory disease season), the Fantabulous Four were busy setting the scene with targeted investments to create fertile ground to fulfil their aims. Consider then:
This congruency of the categorical trinity — means, motive and opportunity — is difficult to explain away. It is true that much that happened from March 2020 was anarchic, uncontrolled, panicked and unscripted. But there was method to the madness, an ultimate aim to the chaos, namely to make way for a ‘saviour vaccine’ that would only be accepted if the intended recipients had had ‘the pants frightened off them’, i.e. were sufficiently afraid of the alternatives to risk such an unproven medical intervention.
It may conceivably be that many people involved in the Fantabulous Four believe that this collective action was necessary. But collective action – however well meaning – that is dictated by a group and imposed on everyone else is tyranny, pure and simple. It gets worse if authorities are sufficiently captured by this tyranny such that they deploy subversive psychological weaponry on their citizens and suppress any dissent.
These are grave misdeeds that led to great harm, both in terms of bad outcomes and collateral damage from unnecessary non-pharmaceutical interventions, but also from the utterly unnecessary coercion used to foist pharmaceutical interventions on those that did not need them.
Even if we presuppose that there are no evil Blofeld-types standing behind all of this, it is beyond doubt that a fanatical ideology has inspired an evil tyranny. As per the Daily Sceptic :
“This ideology is the enemy, and seeing it for what it is is the first step to defeating it”.
This process has begun.
BY ADAM CROSS | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MARCH 10, 2023
On February 1st this year, the World Health Organisation released the first draft of its much heralded pandemic response treaty. The draft treaty, snappily titled the ‘Convention or Agreement on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response’, is proposed as a solution to what the WHO calls the “catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity” during the “coronavirus pandemic”.
A supposed lack of solidarity amongst national governments will not be the “catastrophic failure” uppermost of many readers’ minds when thinking back on Government health policy over the last three years. Despite this, the WHO’s draft treaty proposes preventing a recurrence of this alleged failure by substantially enhancing the powers of the WHO relative to those of national health authorities.
It does this despite initially affirming “the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters” in its opening recital, and despite recognising the principle of state sovereignty as one of the guiding principles of the treaty in article 4. Yet notwithstanding these reassuring nods to the notion of state sovereignty, the WHO’s real attitude towards state autonomy can be gauged by a quick glance at the rest of the recitals and provisions in the agreement.
In setting out the WHO’s interpretation of the factual background to this draft agreement, many of the other recitals focus on the purported practical inability of individual sovereign states to respond adequately to the unique health challenges of the modern world. Hence other recitals note that “a pandemic situation is extraordinary in nature, requiring States Parties to prioritise effective and enhanced cooperation”; that “the international spread of disease is a global threat with serious consequences… that calls for the widest possible international cooperation”; and that “the threat of pandemics is a reality and that pandemics have catastrophic health, social, economic and political consequences”. These recitals strongly imply that state sovereignty can be of limited importance in the face of such extraordinarily grave threats.
Similarly, while recognition of state sovereignty is given as one of the guiding principles of the agreement, it is somewhat overshadowed by the raft of other guiding principles, which include abstract things like “equity”, “solidarity” and the “right to health”. Indeed, article 4 goes on to ominously assert that “previous pandemics have demonstrated that no one is safe until everyone is safe”, strongly suggesting that adherence to the principle of national sovereignty during a pandemic is not just an outdated approach to take, but a positively selfish one.
The draft agreement therefore goes on to assign considerable power to the WHO to influence and shape the responses of national health authorities to any future pandemic. The breadth of ambition of the agreement is made clear in article 5, which applies the agreement in a far-reaching way to “pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery at national, regional and international levels”.
Subsequent articles go on to prescribe the policies to be followed by States Parties to the agreement in each of these areas. As examples of what is intended, articles 6 and 7 set out steps to be followed to improve logistics and the workings of the global supply chain for quicker dispersal of what are euphemistically termed “pandemic-related products” (read pharmaceuticals), after which article 8 of the agreement addresses “regulatory strengthening”. Sadly, the regulatory strengthening envisaged in this agreement is not the strengthening of the accountability of national health regulators to the public, but rather the strengthening of those regulators’ accountability to the inter-governmental blob. Article 8 therefore requires signatory states to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonisation of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level”. In layman’s terms, more funding and powers for the regulators, yet concurrently less independent decision-making from them as well.
Subsequent articles further limit the discretion of national health authorities in responding to future WHO designated pandemics. Article 11 requires signatory states to “adopt policies and strategies… consistent with… the International Health Regulations” (themselves the target of amendment by the WHO), while article 15 stresses “the need to coordinate, collaborate and cooperate, in the spirit of international solidarity” with the various bodies active in the international healthcare space in the formulation of policies and guidelines. There are references to “establishing appropriate governance arrangements”, presumably well away from potentially meddlesome interference by elected representatives. These governance arrangements are to be complete with “mechanisms that ensure global, regional and national policy decisions are science and evidence-based”. Think blanket mask and vaccine mandates.
Signatory states will also have to take part in “multi-country or regional tabletop exercises every two years” to prepare them for the next pandemic, presumably to ensure that all health authorities remain fully briefed on the acceptable line to take in the event of any such new pandemic being declared, and to deter any of the signatory states from being tempted to go off-script as Sweden did in 2020.
Last but not least, a plethora of comfortable sinecures will be created for the international administrative class, by way of the creation of a governing body for the agreement under article 20, a consultative body for input into decision making by amorphous inter-governmental stakeholders under article 21, and a secretariat under article 24.
Conspicuously lacking in the agreement is any reference to democracy, elected legislatures, or the necessity of regulators and health authorities being accountable to national electorates. Instead, the treaty represents a brazen attempt to further move health policy away from regional or national governments and into the hands of a rarefied class of globalist administrators.
It should be stressed that the current text is only a draft, and that it may be subject to amendments following discussion between the WHO and member states. Further, even if the U.K. does sign this agreement, it will likely require ratification by Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and will also require implementation via domestic legislation before it will have any domestic legal effect in the U.K. Sustained pressure now on ministers and MPs might just influence any U.K. Government proposals to amend the treaty at draft stage, or alternatively such pressure might conceivably prevent the U.K. Government from signing an unacceptably worded agreement in the first place. Either way, now is the time for action to prevent the crystallisation at international level of the very policies and approaches many of us have railed against at national level for the last three years.
Adam Cross (a pseudonym) is a U.K. qualified barrister specialising in international trade law, with both public and private sector experience.
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.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
