• Easy 3-Minute-A-Day Exercises Fix TMJ Disorders and Stop Related Tinnitus
    In Just 7 Days:

    Addressing TMJ (temporomandibular joint) disorders and their associated tinnitus requires a multifaceted approach, as both conditions can significantly affect quality of life. Here are the key steps and treatments based on current best practices:

    A comprehensive evaluation by a healthcare professional, often a dentist or an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, is crucial. This evaluation typically includes a medical history review, a physical examination of the jaw, and possibly imaging tests such as X-rays, CT scans, or MRI to assess the joint's structure and function​.

    Symptoms of TMJ disorders can include jaw pain, clicking or popping sounds, difficulty chewing, and a limited range of motion in the jaw​.

    TMJ disorders can cause tinnitus due to the close proximity and interaction between the jaw and ear structures. Muscle dysfunction, Eustachian tube dysfunction, and nerve pathway interactions are possible mechanisms linking TMJ disorders to tinnitus​.

    Tinnitus related to TMJ is often somatic, meaning it can be influenced by physical movements such as jaw clenching or chewing​.

    Seeking Professional Help:

    Consulting with a board-certified TMJ and Orofacial Pain specialist can provide tailored treatment plans. These specialists have advanced training in diagnosing and treating complex cases of TMJ disorders and associated tinnitus​.

    For further detailed information and personalized advice, visiting a healthcare provider or specialist is recommended. Additionally, resources like the Mayo Clinic, American Tinnitus Association, and specialized TMJ clinics offer comprehensive guides and treatment options​.

    How TMJ Disorders Cause Tinnitus:

    Muscle Dysfunction: TMJ disorders often involve issues with the muscles that control jaw movement. These muscles are located near the ear and can affect auditory functions when not working properly. Muscle tension or imbalance can transmit stress to the auditory system, leading to tinnitus​.

    Eustachian Tube Dysfunction: The Eustachian tubes help maintain pressure balance in the middle ear. TMJ dysfunction can impact these tubes, causing pressure changes or fluid buildup, which might contribute to tinnitus.

    Nerve Pathway Interactions: Nerves connected to the TMJ have links to areas of the brain responsible for hearing. Disruptions in these pathways can result in tinnitus​.


    Take Action to Address TMJ Disorders and Related Tinnitus: https://tinyurl.com/2sapwdc8

    #tmjdisorder, #tinnitus, #oralcare, #maxillofacial , #treatmentplan
    Easy 3-Minute-A-Day Exercises Fix TMJ Disorders and Stop Related Tinnitus In Just 7 Days: Addressing TMJ (temporomandibular joint) disorders and their associated tinnitus requires a multifaceted approach, as both conditions can significantly affect quality of life. Here are the key steps and treatments based on current best practices: A comprehensive evaluation by a healthcare professional, often a dentist or an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, is crucial. This evaluation typically includes a medical history review, a physical examination of the jaw, and possibly imaging tests such as X-rays, CT scans, or MRI to assess the joint's structure and function​. Symptoms of TMJ disorders can include jaw pain, clicking or popping sounds, difficulty chewing, and a limited range of motion in the jaw​. TMJ disorders can cause tinnitus due to the close proximity and interaction between the jaw and ear structures. Muscle dysfunction, Eustachian tube dysfunction, and nerve pathway interactions are possible mechanisms linking TMJ disorders to tinnitus​. Tinnitus related to TMJ is often somatic, meaning it can be influenced by physical movements such as jaw clenching or chewing​. Seeking Professional Help: Consulting with a board-certified TMJ and Orofacial Pain specialist can provide tailored treatment plans. These specialists have advanced training in diagnosing and treating complex cases of TMJ disorders and associated tinnitus​. For further detailed information and personalized advice, visiting a healthcare provider or specialist is recommended. Additionally, resources like the Mayo Clinic, American Tinnitus Association, and specialized TMJ clinics offer comprehensive guides and treatment options​. How TMJ Disorders Cause Tinnitus: Muscle Dysfunction: TMJ disorders often involve issues with the muscles that control jaw movement. These muscles are located near the ear and can affect auditory functions when not working properly. Muscle tension or imbalance can transmit stress to the auditory system, leading to tinnitus​. Eustachian Tube Dysfunction: The Eustachian tubes help maintain pressure balance in the middle ear. TMJ dysfunction can impact these tubes, causing pressure changes or fluid buildup, which might contribute to tinnitus. Nerve Pathway Interactions: Nerves connected to the TMJ have links to areas of the brain responsible for hearing. Disruptions in these pathways can result in tinnitus​. Take Action to Address TMJ Disorders and Related Tinnitus: https://tinyurl.com/2sapwdc8 #tmjdisorder, #tinnitus, #oralcare, #maxillofacial , #treatmentplan
    0 Comments 0 Shares 162 Views
  • Diabetes Freedom is a digital program designed to help individuals manage and potentially reverse type 2 diabetes through natural methods. Created by George Reilly, who himself overcame severe complications of type 2 diabetes, the program focuses on dietary and lifestyle changes to address the root causes of the disease.

    Key Components of the Program:
    Two-Month Nutrition Plan: This plan emphasizes meal timing and specific nutritional strategies aimed at reducing fat deposits around the pancreas, improving insulin sensitivity, and stabilizing blood glucose levels. It includes a detailed guide on what to eat and when to eat, helping users manage their blood sugar more effectively​.

    7 Fat-Boosting Metabolic Rules: These rules are designed to enhance metabolism and increase brown fat levels, which help reduce harmful white fat. The guidelines include practical advice on food choices, exercise, and daily habits to promote better health and diabetes management.​

    Meal-Timing Strategies: The program teaches optimal times to consume various food groups to maintain stable blood sugar levels. This component helps users feel more energized, sleep better, and manage their weight effectively.

    Additional Resources:
    Exercise and Meal Preparation Guides: Diabetes Freedom includes exercise routines and meal preparation guides that offer diabetes-friendly recipes, ingredient lists, and step-by-step instructions for preparing healthy meals​.

    Quick Start Accelerator: This guide provides a fast-track version of the program with an 8-week plan to develop healthy habits, manage blood sugar levels, and incorporate physical activity into daily routines​.

    Bonus Content: The program also comes with various bonuses, such as guides on anti-diabetic drinks, dessert recipes, and tips for improving blood circulation in the feet to prevent common diabetic complications.

    Pros:
    Natural and Non-Invasive: The program relies on natural dietary and lifestyle changes rather than medication, reducing the risk of side effects​.
    Comprehensive Support: Users receive extensive support through detailed manuals, videos, and additional resources, making the program easy to follow.

    Overall, Diabetes Freedom presents a well-rounded approach to managing and potentially reversing type 2 diabetes through scientifically-backed dietary and lifestyle modifications. It offers a promising alternative for those looking to reduce their dependence on medication and embrace a healthier lifestyle.

    Prefer to Read More: https://tinyurl.com/yhanzdr7

    #diabetes, #freedom, #​type2diabetes, #nutritionplan, #healthyhabits
    Diabetes Freedom is a digital program designed to help individuals manage and potentially reverse type 2 diabetes through natural methods. Created by George Reilly, who himself overcame severe complications of type 2 diabetes, the program focuses on dietary and lifestyle changes to address the root causes of the disease. Key Components of the Program: Two-Month Nutrition Plan: This plan emphasizes meal timing and specific nutritional strategies aimed at reducing fat deposits around the pancreas, improving insulin sensitivity, and stabilizing blood glucose levels. It includes a detailed guide on what to eat and when to eat, helping users manage their blood sugar more effectively​. 7 Fat-Boosting Metabolic Rules: These rules are designed to enhance metabolism and increase brown fat levels, which help reduce harmful white fat. The guidelines include practical advice on food choices, exercise, and daily habits to promote better health and diabetes management.​ Meal-Timing Strategies: The program teaches optimal times to consume various food groups to maintain stable blood sugar levels. This component helps users feel more energized, sleep better, and manage their weight effectively. Additional Resources: Exercise and Meal Preparation Guides: Diabetes Freedom includes exercise routines and meal preparation guides that offer diabetes-friendly recipes, ingredient lists, and step-by-step instructions for preparing healthy meals​. Quick Start Accelerator: This guide provides a fast-track version of the program with an 8-week plan to develop healthy habits, manage blood sugar levels, and incorporate physical activity into daily routines​. Bonus Content: The program also comes with various bonuses, such as guides on anti-diabetic drinks, dessert recipes, and tips for improving blood circulation in the feet to prevent common diabetic complications. Pros: Natural and Non-Invasive: The program relies on natural dietary and lifestyle changes rather than medication, reducing the risk of side effects​. Comprehensive Support: Users receive extensive support through detailed manuals, videos, and additional resources, making the program easy to follow. Overall, Diabetes Freedom presents a well-rounded approach to managing and potentially reversing type 2 diabetes through scientifically-backed dietary and lifestyle modifications. It offers a promising alternative for those looking to reduce their dependence on medication and embrace a healthier lifestyle. Prefer to Read More: https://tinyurl.com/yhanzdr7 #diabetes, #freedom, #​type2diabetes, #nutritionplan, #healthyhabits
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4131 Views
  • Blob Opera, play #blobs four voices in cities around the world. Animated, interactive and blobified. They are waiting for you. Click and drag to play music by a fully trained blob who is expert at blobbing, something to do if you have time to spare. There is nothing to read, nothing to learn, no advice given, no bull@_]t, no one claiming to be that which they are not - http://statusl.ink/bloboperaplayblobsfourvoicesinc-1069.htm
    Blob Opera, play #blobs four voices in cities around the world. Animated, interactive and blobified. They are waiting for you. Click and drag to play music by a fully trained blob who is expert at blobbing, something to do if you have time to spare. There is nothing to read, nothing to learn, no advice given, no bull@_]t, no one claiming to be that which they are not - http://statusl.ink/bloboperaplayblobsfourvoicesinc-1069.htm
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2774 Views
  • The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide
    By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read
    The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed.

    One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva.

    A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).

    Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella.

    The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant.

    Historical Perspective

    These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing.

    In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others.

    The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat.

    With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations.

    As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context.

    Why May 2024?

    The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place.

    They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years..

    A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions.

    The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations.

    This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO.

    The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva.

    Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent.

    Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different.

    The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm.

    To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below.

    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement.

    REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024

    Preamble

    Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.

    This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm.

    Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

    This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed.

    Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness.

    In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes.

    Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services,

    As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations.

    These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective.

    Chapter I. Introduction

    Article 1. Use of terms

    (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern.

    This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022.

    (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality.

    This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response.

    “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship.

    While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people.

    Article 2. Objective

    This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern.

    Article 3. Principles

    2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation

    The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary.

    3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people.

    This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda).

    Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact.

    5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics

    As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes.

    The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity.

    Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these.

    In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events.

    Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance

    2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate:

    (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential.

    (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.]

    The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations.

    The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work.

    6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article.

    Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs.

    Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?)

    Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new).

    Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery

    2. Each Party commits…[to] :

    (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations

    (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure

    (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies

    (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems

    This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking.

    (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

    This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision.

    Article 7. Health and care workforce

    This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for:

    4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment…

    Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so.

    Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews

    1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system.

    2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels.

    Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries.

    Article 9. Research and development

    Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?).

    Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production

    Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations.

    Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how

    This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc.

    Article 12. Access and benefit sharing

    This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials.

    3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]:

    (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party;

    (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs),

    Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this.

    The article then becomes yet more concerning:

    6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer:

    (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties;

    (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, …

    It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight.

    The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment.

    8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible.

    The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit.

    10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality.

    The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine.

    The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products.

    It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity.

    Article 13. Supply chain and logistics

    The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products.

    Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it).

    For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase.

    Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions

    While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing.

    Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening

    This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort.

    Article 15. Liability and compensation management

    1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms…

    2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations.

    This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does.

    This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm.

    Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk.

    These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak.

    Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation

    A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement.

    Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches

    A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries).

    However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed).

    Article 18. Communication and public awareness

    1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation…

    2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies.

    The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss.

    As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement.

    Article 19. Implementation and support

    3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005).

    As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other.

    Article 20. Sustainable financing

    1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall:

    (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);…

    This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it.

    3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005)

    This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva.

    It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking.

    Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions

    Article 21. Conference of the Parties

    1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established.

    2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation.

    This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion.

    Articles 22 – 37

    These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues.

    Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU).

    The WHO will provide the secretariat.

    Under Article 24 is noted:

    3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.

    These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement.

    As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.”

    Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public.

    Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time.

    Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it.

    Further reading:

    WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website:

    https://inb.who.int/

    International Health Regulations Working Group website:

    https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html

    On background to the WHO texts:

    Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
    An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations
    On urgency and burden of pandemics:

    https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic

    Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy
    Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk
    Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement:

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Authors

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

    View all posts
    Thi Thuy Van Dinh
    Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/

    https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 62532 Views
  • The WHO Wants to Rule the World
    Ramesh Thakur
    The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications.

    The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat.

    The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices.

    From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues.

    The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab.

    Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all.

    The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper

    In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’

    The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later:

    …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness.

    What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments.

    The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority

    The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency.

    Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries.

    The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare.

    With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world.

    Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks.

    The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights.

    Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations.

    Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority.

    US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker.

    At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’

    Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’.

    A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice.

    Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability.

    The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association.

    Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks.

    It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’

    Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden

    In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade.

    The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness.

    Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny.

    Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix.


    The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children.

    Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda.

    Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever.

    Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1).

    According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia.

    If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000.

    Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden.

    A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/
    The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Wants to Rule the World ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 37664 Views
  • FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19
    by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am
    In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

    “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

    This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

    There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.

    New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP

    A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

    The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

    “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

    Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

    U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

    On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

    “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

    Emily Post News reported:

    The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.)

    It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.

    Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

    It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update.

    Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted.

    “After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden.

    Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents


    The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

    “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

    “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

    However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

    Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.

    Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

    “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

    “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

    During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

    “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

    “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

    “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

    “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

    It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

    The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

    Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

    Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

    “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

    “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”


    The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.


    FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19 by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19. “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time. This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals. There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients. New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice. The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden. Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine. U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media. Emily Post News reported: The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.) It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update. Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted. “After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden. Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.” “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued. However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication. Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit. “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote. “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday. During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID. “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold. “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said. “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.” “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said. It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech. The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital. Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug. Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin. “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.” “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.” The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 15805 Views
  • Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin
    The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19.

    vnninfluencersMarch 22, 2024
    This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission.

    Guest post by Jim Hᴏft

    In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

    “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

    This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

    There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.



    A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

    The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

    “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

    Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

    U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

    On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

    “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

    The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today.


    The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

    “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

    “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

    However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

    Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.




    Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

    “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

    “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

    During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

    “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

    “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

    “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

    “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

    It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

    The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

    Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

    Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

    “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

    “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”

    Copyright 2024 The Gateway Pundit


    https://vigilantnews.com/post/lawsuit-drops-bombshell-on-fdas-orwellian-lie-about-ivermectin/
    Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19. vnninfluencersMarch 22, 2024 This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission. Guest post by Jim Hᴏft In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19. “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time. This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals. There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients. A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice. The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden. Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine. U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media. The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today. The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.” “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued. However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication. Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit. “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote. “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday. During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID. “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold. “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said. “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.” “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said. It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech. The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital. Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug. Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin. “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.” “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.” Copyright 2024 The Gateway Pundit https://vigilantnews.com/post/lawsuit-drops-bombshell-on-fdas-orwellian-lie-about-ivermectin/
    VIGILANTNEWS.COM
    Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin
    The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19.
    1 Comments 0 Shares 11885 Views
  • Harvard University Drops COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

    The Harvard University Health Services confirmed this week that the school will no longer require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

    "We strongly recommend that all members of the Harvard community stay up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters if eligible," reads a notice on the University website. "Additionally, we continue to emphasize the benefits of wearing a high-quality face mask in crowded indoor settings and remaining at home if unwell."

    "HUHS considers state and federal guidance, along with advice from the University’s public health experts, in responding to COVID-19. We will continue to monitor public health data and will periodically review requirements," it continued.

    Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns.

    In early 2022, university policies attracted considerable scrutiny in light of mounting evidence that two-dose mRNA vaccination coincided with a high rate of heart inflammation among young adults.

    "Students are the lowest risk population on planet Earth," Johns Hopkins University medical professor Marty Makary at the time. He further described the vaccine mandates as "a kind of martial law."

    Source:
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/harvard-drops-covid-19-vaccine-mandate

    Join @ShankaraChetty
    Harvard University Drops COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 🇺🇸💉The Harvard University Health Services confirmed this week that the school will no longer require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. "We strongly recommend that all members of the Harvard community stay up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters if eligible," reads a notice on the University website. "Additionally, we continue to emphasize the benefits of wearing a high-quality face mask in crowded indoor settings and remaining at home if unwell." "HUHS considers state and federal guidance, along with advice from the University’s public health experts, in responding to COVID-19. We will continue to monitor public health data and will periodically review requirements," it continued. Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns. In early 2022, university policies attracted considerable scrutiny in light of mounting evidence that two-dose mRNA vaccination coincided with a high rate of heart inflammation among young adults. "Students are the lowest risk population on planet Earth," Johns Hopkins University medical professor Marty Makary at the time. He further described the vaccine mandates as "a kind of martial law." Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/harvard-drops-covid-19-vaccine-mandate Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty
    JUSTTHENEWS.COM
    Harvard drops COVID-19 vaccine mandate
    Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3446 Views
  • CMNnews -- Your Credible Medical News Network -- Update 27th February 2024
    From Global sources -- Updated Twice Weekly -- CMNNEWS -- We roam the planet for the best Medical News Stories

    CMNnews
    THE DOCTORS

    MONKEY NOT SEE — MONKEY NOT HEAR — MONKEY NOT SPEAK


    HISTORIC AUSTRALIAN SUPREME COURT DECISION

    STATE GOVERNMENT FOUND “ACTED UNLAWFULLY”

    IN REGARD TO VACCINE MANDATES ON POLICE AND AMBULANCE WORKERS

    Supreme Court bombshell: Queensland’s mandatory Covid vaccine orders ‘unlawful’

    Excerpts: Dozens of police and health workers have won a mammoth legal battle over mandatory Covid vaccination orders.

    Vanda Carson court reporter Courier Mail Newspaper Queensland, Australia

    2 min read

    In a 115-page decision handed down by Justice Glenn Martin on Tuesday he declared police commissioner Katarina Carroll’s direction for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination issued in December 2021 was unlawful under the Human Rights Act and banned her from taking any steps to enforce the direction.

    He also ruled that a similar order by John Wakefield, the director general of Queensland Health’s equivalent vaccination policy “is of no effect” and Mr Wakefield be blocked from forcing paramedics to have the injection.

    The workers did not have to be vaccinated while their legal fight was underway.

    Ms Carroll and Mr Wakefield are also banned from disciplining any of the paramedics and police officers.

    “I am not satisfied that the (police) Commissioner has demonstrated that she gave proper consideration to the human rights that might have been affected by her decisions,” Justice Martin said in relation to the police staff.

    “I do not accept that the Commissioner had … considered whether the decision would be compatible with human rights,” he noted in his 115-page decision.

    “By failing to give proper consideration, the making of each of those decisions was unlawful.

    “Despite the revocation of the QPS Directions, a finding of unlawfulness is still available.”

    Link: https://www.couriermail.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-qld/supreme-court-bombshell-qlds-mandatory-covid-vaccine-orders-unlawful/news-story/4dcc6ca18dae261249fd7988642192fb

    Share CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network

    Update Article: Supreme Court bombshell: Qld’s mandatory Covid vaccine orders ‘unlawful’

    Excerpts: Dozens of police and health workers including paramedics have won a mammoth legal battle over mandatory ­vaccination orders after the Supreme Court declared they were unlawful.

    A spokeswoman for the Nurses’ Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ) said the Supreme Court ruling “ highlighted how Queensland Health has violated thousands of healthcare workers’ rights”.

    The association highlighted that during a workforce crisis there were members who were stood due to the vaccine mandate who are dying to return to work.

    “We have nurses and midwives sitting at home during a workforce crisis and the healthcare system’s unlawful decisions are directly to blame,” the spokeswoman said.

    “NPAQ is currently liaising with our legal team to explore legal avenues for our members in light of today’s Supreme Court outcome.”

    https://www.couriermail.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-qld/supreme-court-bombshell-qlds-mandatory-covid-vaccine-orders-unlawful/news-story/4dcc6ca18dae261249fd7988642192fb

    COVID-19 vaccine mandates 'unlawful' for emergency services, court finds

    The court on Tuesday delivered its judgments in three lawsuits brought by 86 parties against Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service for their directions to workers issued in 2021 and 2022.

    The court found Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll failed to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision to issue the vaccine mandate.

    “The court also found the directions limited the human rights of workers because they were required to undergo a medical procedure without full consent ….”

    Australian Senate finally acknowledge excess deaths are concerning : Letter from Australian Senator Ralph Babet

    SENATOR RALPH BABET — IS THIS THE GREATEST SENATE DECISION IN HISTORY? TWO MINUTE VIDEO



    JIM FERGUSON – “THIS IS GENOCIDE – MURDER OF MILLIONS AND POSSIBLY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE” – “THE PRIME MINISTER COULD BE INVOLVED” -- “THESE ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”

    “Explosive allegations against top Government officials in the UK Government update. As Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen prepares to present evidence of potential criminal conduct involving Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his cabinet to London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, we explore the mindset of others who might be implicated in alleged widespread wrongdoing, including potential mass genocide and profiteering. Will they now do the right thing and blow the lid on whats really been going on! If the gatekeepers in our Security Services and Police are compromised or complicit in what is arguably the greatest potential crime against humanity of all time then all bets are off as to what happens next.”

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1761505188056072263

    DR DAVID MARTIN EXPLAINS WHO THEY ARE AND HOW THEY ARE DOING THIS TO US


    “THEY WERE CONVICTED OF ANTI-TRUST CRIMES”

    “THIS IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY”

    “WHO IS MOVING THE STICK – WELLCOME, GATES AND ROCKEFELLER”

    “THIS IS A VIOLATION OF SWISS LAW”

    Dr. David Martin Reveals Who Is Pulling the Strings Behind the World Health Organization

    Who are “THEY”? “We have to name the names” in the worst miscarriage of medical science in history. Is it the World Health Organization? Dr. David Martin says Tedros is just a puppet with a “giant stick up his ass, which is what’s making his mouth move…

    18 days ago · 446 likes · 136 comments · The Vigilant Fox

    BILL GATES DONATION TO WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION


    JIM FERGUSON INTERVIEWS ANDREW BRIDGEN --

    “Exclusive Breaking News: Evidence to be presented that criminal activity has been committed by the very top of Government in the UK. Rishi Sunak British Prime Minister may face a criminal investigation and face potential criminal charges of the most egregious kind. British MP Andrew Bridgen has written to Mark Rowley Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the most senior of Police officers to have a three hour meeting where experts and whistle blowers will lay out the evidence where potential criminal activity has been conducted by the very top of Government and the civil service in the UK Parliament has been deliberately misled over the vaccine contracts. This matter may be taken to Parliamentary standards in addition to the presentation of evidence to the Police and the Security services. "heads of governments around the world and others below them have engaged in what is tantamount to treason against the public" Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures on Excess Deaths are being covered up. "there is a huge coverup going on" In August 2019 a member of the security services stated that there was a pandemic coming and not to take any of the vaccines. Bill gates and Rishi Sunak invested heavily into the Pharma companies like Pfizer and Moderna prior to the pandemic. Did they have insider knowledge about what was being planned in a coming pandemic! 75% of congressmen and woman in the United States have investments in Big Pharma. A Pfizer executive stated that a senator could be bought for $10,000. The journalists are complicit in the cover up. Main Stream Media are bought and paid for. A court case has been launched against the former health secretary Matt Hancock for defamation against Andrew Bridgen and this will take place in the Royal Court of Justice.”

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1761393940874293335

    THESE EVIL PEOPLE ARE COMING AFTER OUR PETS – YOUR DOGS AND CATS – A SECURITY CHIEF WARNED “DO NOT TAKE THE VACCINE” – “THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK, RISHI SUNAK, INVESTED HALF A BILLION DOLLARS INTO MODERNA TWO TO THREE YEARS BEFORE COVID OCCURRED” – “HE MUST HAVE HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE”

    https://rumble.com/v4ew676-these-evil-monsters-are-coming-after-our-pets.html


    JIM FERGUSON ON TWITTER

    @JimFergusonUK

    “British PM and #WEF2030Agenda devotee #Sunak invested $500 million of his private funds into Moderna through a company called Thelema Partners in a notorious tax haven in the Caymen Islands. Afterwards he stated in parliament that the vaccine was "safe and effective" while then going on to roll out further permissions for Moderna to set up further vaccine producing interests within the UK. Did he use his position as Prime Minister to make massive personal profits while knowingly or even unknowingly causing harm to the British people and has he broken the National Security Act which states "if you're working in secret for a foreign power to use or abuse your knowledge in a way that causes harm to our citizens you will be a criminal." Former Head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger.”

    2024 Is the Last Year of Free Speech and Democracy in the Western World

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/02/19/2024-is-the-last-year-of-free-speech-and-democracy-in-the-western-world/


    To Understand The Globalists We Must Understand Their Psychopathic Religion

    https://alt-market.us/to-understand-the-globalists-we-must-understand-their-psychopathic-religion/

    TWO BRAVE AND COURAGEOUS DOCTORS

    #141 - Dr Charles Hoffe, A Persecuted Ethical Doctor Or Dangerous Misinformation Spreader?

    FREEDOM - LIBERTY - HAPPINESS SUPPORT DOC MALIK About this conversation - Dr Charles Hoffe is a family doctor who lives and works in British Columbia, Canada. He has worked in general practice and emer…

    14 days ago · 34 likes · 5 comments · Doc Malik

    New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023)

    VIDEO - New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023)

    VIDEO - New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023…

    14 days ago · 122 likes · 57 comments · Dr. William Makis MD

    LIST OF LAWYERS NOW AVAILABLE FOR LAWSUITS ON COVID VACCINE INJURY

    https://deeprootsathome.com/list-of-attorneys-worldwide-now-available-for-lawsuits/


    Kaboom! — Renowned Neurologist and Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Centre Lead Prof. Dr. Thiravat Hemachudha Exposes Vaccine-Linked White Clots on Thailand's Popular TV3

    "We've just seen this in the last 2 years... but we didn’t see this before the vaccines. The doctor noticed this between two years to one year ago, in about 50% of the patients,"

    Kaboom! Renowned Neurologist and Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Centre Lead Prof. Dr. Thiravat Hemachudha Exposes Vaccine-Linked White Clots on Thailand's Popular TV3

    It’s taking a long time folks, but the worms are crawling out of the cans, and corrupt institutions and politicians are scrambling to seal them back in! Perhaps due to a significant decrease in mRNA vaccine sales influencing pharmaceutical companies…

    18 days ago · 103 likes · 30 comments · Aussie17

    mRNA VACCINE SHEDDING OF SPIKE PROTEIN

    As Dr. Kory points out, “COVID “vaccines” are gene therapy products as defined in the FDA’s 2015 document on Gene Product Shedding Studies and all other gene therapy products on the market list shedding as a risk in their [package] insert (Luxterna, Roctavian, Zolgensma) and shed from 7 days to 6 months.”

    phillip.altman’s Substack

    mRNA VACCINE SHEDDING OF SPIKE PROTEIN There has been considerable concern about the potential for the vaccinated to shed Spike Protein to the unvaccinated. See Dr. Piere Kory’s Substack of 20 Feb. CLICK HERE to view. As Dr. Kory points out, “COVID “vaccines” are gene therapy products as defined in the FDA’s…

    Read more

    18 days ago · 64 likes · 9 comments · phillip.altman

    WORLDWIDE CENSORSHIP IS UNDER WAY –

    “Google Isn’t Just Trying to Rewrite History. It’s at the Centre of a Worldwide Web of Censorship”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/25/google-isnt-just-trying-to-rewrite-history-its-at-the-centre-of-a-worldwide-web-of-censorship/


    TUCKER CARLSON INTERVIEW – JUST 6 MINUTES

    Steve Kirsch Tags the COVID Jab as the ‘Most Dangerous Vaccine of All Time’ The VAERS system has identified 770 safety signals related to the COVID-19 vaccine.

    “That is mind-blowing. That is not a three-alarm fire. That is a 770-alarm fire.” So, what did the CDC do? “They said nothing.”

    https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1761369027685793810

    FOREIGN DNA SHOULD NOT BE IN THE VACCINES – IT CAN ENTER THE DNA IN THE NUCLEUS OF EACH CELL

    Kevin McKernan testifies about how the FDA and Regulators, funded by those who profit from the deception in a great conflict of interest, put the human genome at risk by downplaying the risk of DNA integration.

    Crimes Against Humanity Case Phase 1 Starts At The Same Time We Learn That Covid "Vaccine" DNA Integration Into Ovaries Chromosomes 19 & 12 Is Now Confirmed! Lying Health Ministers, CDC, W.H.O. OH MY!

    This video needs to go viral! SHARE! IoJ is filing an injunction to stop the shots pronto based on the evidence in this Substack article. Our Donation Drive is now open!!! We can win this! Everyone’s going down dammit. This is just unacceptable. The human genome, heritage of humanity is at risk from the WHO and regulators cow towing to Big Pharma’s covi…

    Read more

    13 days ago · 84 likes · 34 comments · Interest of Justice

    MICROPLASTICS – WHAT ARE THEY?

    Humanity United Now - Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD

    Microplastics - aka Nanotechnological Self Assembly Polymers - Are Everywhere - Poisoning Our Biosphere, Food Supply And Humans

    The use of the word microplastics is once again to normalize the self assembly polymers that have been sprayed via illegal Geoengineering and bioengineering operations to transform our biosphere according to the transhumanist agenda. This is literally killing our planet, killing all life and humanity. This microplastics cover story is to explain why the…

    Read more

    5 months ago · 141 likes · 53 comments · Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD

    TRICKS AND TREATS FOR A COVID JAB IN NEW ZEALAND

    VIDEO - New Zealand Vax Propaganda & subsequent Sudden Deaths "Get the jab, get the treats" (Oct.16, 2021 Super Saturday Vaxathon)

    VIDEO - New Zealand Vax Propaganda & Sudden Deaths "Get the jab, get the treats" (Source: Coronavirus Plushie) Get the jab, get the treats . . . Incentivizing Kiwis to get jabbed by offering them cash prizes, food, free tickets for the rugby, and other kinds of 'treats', was a big part of the 16 Oct, 2021 'Super Saturday Vaxathon…

    19 days ago · 101 likes · 65 comments · Dr. William Makis MD

    99 million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!?!? We respectfully disagree.

    A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals concludes that the benefits of COVID outweigh the risks. My colleagues and I disagree.

    99 million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!?!? We respectfully disagree.

    Executive summary A new study of over 99 million vaccinated people has been highly promoted in the press with headlines like “Covid Vaccines Linked To Small Increase In Heart And Brain Disorders, Study Finds—But Risk From Infection Is Far Higher.” I’m going to convince you that this is bullshit…

    Read more

    18 days ago · 525 likes · 334 comments · Steve Kirsch

    “All of the harms from the COVID-19 injectable products were predictable, and preventable”

    There are no 'desired proteins' with regard to the modified spike mRNA

    “All of the harms from the COVID-19 injectable products were predictable, and preventable.” Jessica Rose, PhD A Nature publication by Mulroney et al. entitled N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting was published on December 6, 2023. The authors showed that N1-methylpseudouridine affects the fidelity of mRNA translation via ri…

    Read more

    3 months ago · 272 likes · 67 comments · Jessica Rose

    Health Canada Hid Their Concerns About Impurities In COVID-19 Shots From Canadians

    COVID Chronicles

    Health Canada Hid Their Concerns About Impurities In COVID-19 Shots From Canadians

    The Epoch Times, a media outlet that is not state-funded, released an article yesterday that was updated today. Everyone around the world should read it. You can find it here. The journalist, Noé Chartier, did an excellent job writing a well-balanced, objective, and factual account. I do not have much to add…

    Read more

    15 days ago · 370 likes · 104 comments · Dr. Byram W. Bridle

    Subscribe to CMNNews - The Credible Medical News Network

    News From Around the Globe -- Updated Twice Weekly

    Disclaimer: All content is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The contents simply reflect current newsworthy items that are freely available. It is subject to error and change without notice.The presence of a link to a website does not indicate approval or endorsement of that web site or any services, products, or opinions that may be offered by them.

    Neither CMNnews nor any of its principals or contributors are under any obligation to update or keep current the information contained herein.

    Although the information contained is derived from sources which are believed to be reliable, they cannot be guaranteed.

    Disclosure: We accept no advertising or compensation, and have no material connection to any products, brands, topics or companies mentioned anywhere on the site.

    Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of social significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

    Share CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network

    Thank you for reading CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    https://open.substack.com/pub/cmnnews/p/cmnnews-your-credible-medical-news-a60?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

    https://telegra.ph/CMNnews----Your-Credible-Medical-News-Network----Update-27th-February-2024-03-11
    CMNnews -- Your Credible Medical News Network -- Update 27th February 2024 From Global sources -- Updated Twice Weekly -- CMNNEWS -- We roam the planet for the best Medical News Stories CMNnews THE DOCTORS MONKEY NOT SEE — MONKEY NOT HEAR — MONKEY NOT SPEAK HISTORIC AUSTRALIAN SUPREME COURT DECISION STATE GOVERNMENT FOUND “ACTED UNLAWFULLY” IN REGARD TO VACCINE MANDATES ON POLICE AND AMBULANCE WORKERS Supreme Court bombshell: Queensland’s mandatory Covid vaccine orders ‘unlawful’ Excerpts: Dozens of police and health workers have won a mammoth legal battle over mandatory Covid vaccination orders. Vanda Carson court reporter Courier Mail Newspaper Queensland, Australia 2 min read In a 115-page decision handed down by Justice Glenn Martin on Tuesday he declared police commissioner Katarina Carroll’s direction for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination issued in December 2021 was unlawful under the Human Rights Act and banned her from taking any steps to enforce the direction. He also ruled that a similar order by John Wakefield, the director general of Queensland Health’s equivalent vaccination policy “is of no effect” and Mr Wakefield be blocked from forcing paramedics to have the injection. The workers did not have to be vaccinated while their legal fight was underway. Ms Carroll and Mr Wakefield are also banned from disciplining any of the paramedics and police officers. “I am not satisfied that the (police) Commissioner has demonstrated that she gave proper consideration to the human rights that might have been affected by her decisions,” Justice Martin said in relation to the police staff. “I do not accept that the Commissioner had … considered whether the decision would be compatible with human rights,” he noted in his 115-page decision. “By failing to give proper consideration, the making of each of those decisions was unlawful. “Despite the revocation of the QPS Directions, a finding of unlawfulness is still available.” Link: https://www.couriermail.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-qld/supreme-court-bombshell-qlds-mandatory-covid-vaccine-orders-unlawful/news-story/4dcc6ca18dae261249fd7988642192fb Share CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network Update Article: Supreme Court bombshell: Qld’s mandatory Covid vaccine orders ‘unlawful’ Excerpts: Dozens of police and health workers including paramedics have won a mammoth legal battle over mandatory ­vaccination orders after the Supreme Court declared they were unlawful. A spokeswoman for the Nurses’ Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ) said the Supreme Court ruling “ highlighted how Queensland Health has violated thousands of healthcare workers’ rights”. The association highlighted that during a workforce crisis there were members who were stood due to the vaccine mandate who are dying to return to work. “We have nurses and midwives sitting at home during a workforce crisis and the healthcare system’s unlawful decisions are directly to blame,” the spokeswoman said. “NPAQ is currently liaising with our legal team to explore legal avenues for our members in light of today’s Supreme Court outcome.” https://www.couriermail.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-qld/supreme-court-bombshell-qlds-mandatory-covid-vaccine-orders-unlawful/news-story/4dcc6ca18dae261249fd7988642192fb COVID-19 vaccine mandates 'unlawful' for emergency services, court finds The court on Tuesday delivered its judgments in three lawsuits brought by 86 parties against Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service for their directions to workers issued in 2021 and 2022. The court found Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll failed to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision to issue the vaccine mandate. “The court also found the directions limited the human rights of workers because they were required to undergo a medical procedure without full consent ….” Australian Senate finally acknowledge excess deaths are concerning : Letter from Australian Senator Ralph Babet SENATOR RALPH BABET — IS THIS THE GREATEST SENATE DECISION IN HISTORY? TWO MINUTE VIDEO JIM FERGUSON – “THIS IS GENOCIDE – MURDER OF MILLIONS AND POSSIBLY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE” – “THE PRIME MINISTER COULD BE INVOLVED” -- “THESE ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” “Explosive allegations against top Government officials in the UK Government update. As Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen prepares to present evidence of potential criminal conduct involving Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his cabinet to London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, we explore the mindset of others who might be implicated in alleged widespread wrongdoing, including potential mass genocide and profiteering. Will they now do the right thing and blow the lid on whats really been going on! If the gatekeepers in our Security Services and Police are compromised or complicit in what is arguably the greatest potential crime against humanity of all time then all bets are off as to what happens next.” https://twitter.com/i/status/1761505188056072263 DR DAVID MARTIN EXPLAINS WHO THEY ARE AND HOW THEY ARE DOING THIS TO US “THEY WERE CONVICTED OF ANTI-TRUST CRIMES” “THIS IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY” “WHO IS MOVING THE STICK – WELLCOME, GATES AND ROCKEFELLER” “THIS IS A VIOLATION OF SWISS LAW” Dr. David Martin Reveals Who Is Pulling the Strings Behind the World Health Organization Who are “THEY”? “We have to name the names” in the worst miscarriage of medical science in history. Is it the World Health Organization? Dr. David Martin says Tedros is just a puppet with a “giant stick up his ass, which is what’s making his mouth move… 18 days ago · 446 likes · 136 comments · The Vigilant Fox BILL GATES DONATION TO WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION JIM FERGUSON INTERVIEWS ANDREW BRIDGEN -- “Exclusive Breaking News: Evidence to be presented that criminal activity has been committed by the very top of Government in the UK. Rishi Sunak British Prime Minister may face a criminal investigation and face potential criminal charges of the most egregious kind. British MP Andrew Bridgen has written to Mark Rowley Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the most senior of Police officers to have a three hour meeting where experts and whistle blowers will lay out the evidence where potential criminal activity has been conducted by the very top of Government and the civil service in the UK Parliament has been deliberately misled over the vaccine contracts. This matter may be taken to Parliamentary standards in addition to the presentation of evidence to the Police and the Security services. "heads of governments around the world and others below them have engaged in what is tantamount to treason against the public" Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures on Excess Deaths are being covered up. "there is a huge coverup going on" In August 2019 a member of the security services stated that there was a pandemic coming and not to take any of the vaccines. Bill gates and Rishi Sunak invested heavily into the Pharma companies like Pfizer and Moderna prior to the pandemic. Did they have insider knowledge about what was being planned in a coming pandemic! 75% of congressmen and woman in the United States have investments in Big Pharma. A Pfizer executive stated that a senator could be bought for $10,000. The journalists are complicit in the cover up. Main Stream Media are bought and paid for. A court case has been launched against the former health secretary Matt Hancock for defamation against Andrew Bridgen and this will take place in the Royal Court of Justice.” https://twitter.com/i/status/1761393940874293335 THESE EVIL PEOPLE ARE COMING AFTER OUR PETS – YOUR DOGS AND CATS – A SECURITY CHIEF WARNED “DO NOT TAKE THE VACCINE” – “THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK, RISHI SUNAK, INVESTED HALF A BILLION DOLLARS INTO MODERNA TWO TO THREE YEARS BEFORE COVID OCCURRED” – “HE MUST HAVE HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE” https://rumble.com/v4ew676-these-evil-monsters-are-coming-after-our-pets.html JIM FERGUSON ON TWITTER @JimFergusonUK “British PM and #WEF2030Agenda devotee #Sunak invested $500 million of his private funds into Moderna through a company called Thelema Partners in a notorious tax haven in the Caymen Islands. Afterwards he stated in parliament that the vaccine was "safe and effective" while then going on to roll out further permissions for Moderna to set up further vaccine producing interests within the UK. Did he use his position as Prime Minister to make massive personal profits while knowingly or even unknowingly causing harm to the British people and has he broken the National Security Act which states "if you're working in secret for a foreign power to use or abuse your knowledge in a way that causes harm to our citizens you will be a criminal." Former Head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger.” 2024 Is the Last Year of Free Speech and Democracy in the Western World https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/02/19/2024-is-the-last-year-of-free-speech-and-democracy-in-the-western-world/ To Understand The Globalists We Must Understand Their Psychopathic Religion https://alt-market.us/to-understand-the-globalists-we-must-understand-their-psychopathic-religion/ TWO BRAVE AND COURAGEOUS DOCTORS #141 - Dr Charles Hoffe, A Persecuted Ethical Doctor Or Dangerous Misinformation Spreader? FREEDOM - LIBERTY - HAPPINESS SUPPORT DOC MALIK About this conversation - Dr Charles Hoffe is a family doctor who lives and works in British Columbia, Canada. He has worked in general practice and emer… 14 days ago · 34 likes · 5 comments · Doc Malik New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023) VIDEO - New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023) VIDEO - New Zealand COVID-19 Vaccine Victims Documentary: "Silent No More" (June 2023… 14 days ago · 122 likes · 57 comments · Dr. William Makis MD LIST OF LAWYERS NOW AVAILABLE FOR LAWSUITS ON COVID VACCINE INJURY https://deeprootsathome.com/list-of-attorneys-worldwide-now-available-for-lawsuits/ Kaboom! — Renowned Neurologist and Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Centre Lead Prof. Dr. Thiravat Hemachudha Exposes Vaccine-Linked White Clots on Thailand's Popular TV3 "We've just seen this in the last 2 years... but we didn’t see this before the vaccines. The doctor noticed this between two years to one year ago, in about 50% of the patients," Kaboom! Renowned Neurologist and Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Centre Lead Prof. Dr. Thiravat Hemachudha Exposes Vaccine-Linked White Clots on Thailand's Popular TV3 It’s taking a long time folks, but the worms are crawling out of the cans, and corrupt institutions and politicians are scrambling to seal them back in! Perhaps due to a significant decrease in mRNA vaccine sales influencing pharmaceutical companies… 18 days ago · 103 likes · 30 comments · Aussie17 mRNA VACCINE SHEDDING OF SPIKE PROTEIN As Dr. Kory points out, “COVID “vaccines” are gene therapy products as defined in the FDA’s 2015 document on Gene Product Shedding Studies and all other gene therapy products on the market list shedding as a risk in their [package] insert (Luxterna, Roctavian, Zolgensma) and shed from 7 days to 6 months.” phillip.altman’s Substack mRNA VACCINE SHEDDING OF SPIKE PROTEIN There has been considerable concern about the potential for the vaccinated to shed Spike Protein to the unvaccinated. See Dr. Piere Kory’s Substack of 20 Feb. CLICK HERE to view. As Dr. Kory points out, “COVID “vaccines” are gene therapy products as defined in the FDA’s… Read more 18 days ago · 64 likes · 9 comments · phillip.altman WORLDWIDE CENSORSHIP IS UNDER WAY – “Google Isn’t Just Trying to Rewrite History. It’s at the Centre of a Worldwide Web of Censorship” https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/25/google-isnt-just-trying-to-rewrite-history-its-at-the-centre-of-a-worldwide-web-of-censorship/ TUCKER CARLSON INTERVIEW – JUST 6 MINUTES Steve Kirsch Tags the COVID Jab as the ‘Most Dangerous Vaccine of All Time’ The VAERS system has identified 770 safety signals related to the COVID-19 vaccine. “That is mind-blowing. That is not a three-alarm fire. That is a 770-alarm fire.” So, what did the CDC do? “They said nothing.” https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1761369027685793810 FOREIGN DNA SHOULD NOT BE IN THE VACCINES – IT CAN ENTER THE DNA IN THE NUCLEUS OF EACH CELL Kevin McKernan testifies about how the FDA and Regulators, funded by those who profit from the deception in a great conflict of interest, put the human genome at risk by downplaying the risk of DNA integration. Crimes Against Humanity Case Phase 1 Starts At The Same Time We Learn That Covid "Vaccine" DNA Integration Into Ovaries Chromosomes 19 & 12 Is Now Confirmed! Lying Health Ministers, CDC, W.H.O. OH MY! This video needs to go viral! SHARE! IoJ is filing an injunction to stop the shots pronto based on the evidence in this Substack article. Our Donation Drive is now open!!! We can win this! Everyone’s going down dammit. This is just unacceptable. The human genome, heritage of humanity is at risk from the WHO and regulators cow towing to Big Pharma’s covi… Read more 13 days ago · 84 likes · 34 comments · Interest of Justice MICROPLASTICS – WHAT ARE THEY? Humanity United Now - Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD Microplastics - aka Nanotechnological Self Assembly Polymers - Are Everywhere - Poisoning Our Biosphere, Food Supply And Humans The use of the word microplastics is once again to normalize the self assembly polymers that have been sprayed via illegal Geoengineering and bioengineering operations to transform our biosphere according to the transhumanist agenda. This is literally killing our planet, killing all life and humanity. This microplastics cover story is to explain why the… Read more 5 months ago · 141 likes · 53 comments · Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD TRICKS AND TREATS FOR A COVID JAB IN NEW ZEALAND VIDEO - New Zealand Vax Propaganda & subsequent Sudden Deaths "Get the jab, get the treats" (Oct.16, 2021 Super Saturday Vaxathon) VIDEO - New Zealand Vax Propaganda & Sudden Deaths "Get the jab, get the treats" (Source: Coronavirus Plushie) Get the jab, get the treats . . . Incentivizing Kiwis to get jabbed by offering them cash prizes, food, free tickets for the rugby, and other kinds of 'treats', was a big part of the 16 Oct, 2021 'Super Saturday Vaxathon… 19 days ago · 101 likes · 65 comments · Dr. William Makis MD 99 million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!?!? We respectfully disagree. A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals concludes that the benefits of COVID outweigh the risks. My colleagues and I disagree. 99 million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!?!? We respectfully disagree. Executive summary A new study of over 99 million vaccinated people has been highly promoted in the press with headlines like “Covid Vaccines Linked To Small Increase In Heart And Brain Disorders, Study Finds—But Risk From Infection Is Far Higher.” I’m going to convince you that this is bullshit… Read more 18 days ago · 525 likes · 334 comments · Steve Kirsch “All of the harms from the COVID-19 injectable products were predictable, and preventable” There are no 'desired proteins' with regard to the modified spike mRNA “All of the harms from the COVID-19 injectable products were predictable, and preventable.” Jessica Rose, PhD A Nature publication by Mulroney et al. entitled N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting was published on December 6, 2023. The authors showed that N1-methylpseudouridine affects the fidelity of mRNA translation via ri… Read more 3 months ago · 272 likes · 67 comments · Jessica Rose Health Canada Hid Their Concerns About Impurities In COVID-19 Shots From Canadians COVID Chronicles Health Canada Hid Their Concerns About Impurities In COVID-19 Shots From Canadians The Epoch Times, a media outlet that is not state-funded, released an article yesterday that was updated today. Everyone around the world should read it. You can find it here. The journalist, Noé Chartier, did an excellent job writing a well-balanced, objective, and factual account. I do not have much to add… Read more 15 days ago · 370 likes · 104 comments · Dr. Byram W. Bridle Subscribe to CMNNews - The Credible Medical News Network News From Around the Globe -- Updated Twice Weekly Disclaimer: All content is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The contents simply reflect current newsworthy items that are freely available. It is subject to error and change without notice.The presence of a link to a website does not indicate approval or endorsement of that web site or any services, products, or opinions that may be offered by them. Neither CMNnews nor any of its principals or contributors are under any obligation to update or keep current the information contained herein. Although the information contained is derived from sources which are believed to be reliable, they cannot be guaranteed. Disclosure: We accept no advertising or compensation, and have no material connection to any products, brands, topics or companies mentioned anywhere on the site. Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of social significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Share CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network Thank you for reading CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share https://open.substack.com/pub/cmnnews/p/cmnnews-your-credible-medical-news-a60?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios https://telegra.ph/CMNnews----Your-Credible-Medical-News-Network----Update-27th-February-2024-03-11
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    CMNnews -- Your Credible Medical News Network -- Update 27th February 2024
    From Global sources -- Updated Twice Weekly -- CMNNEWS -- We roam the planet for the best Medical News Stories
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 24147 Views
  • SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines
    The ExposéAugust 29, 2021
    A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise…

    However, an investigation (which is entirely factual) into the shocking ties between Mr Bill Gates, Moderna, and the U.K. Medicine Regulator has now been published with explosive revelations into the real reason the Moderna injection has been given emergency authorisation for use in children. Please read it here and share it widely.

    INVESTIGATION – Bill Gates has an agreement with Moderna that grants him a license to their Covid-19 Vaccine; a vaccine that was produced weeks before the emergence of Covid-19
    Thank you

    Note – The following satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles

    In a shocking announcement, Bill Gates, billionaire Microsoft co-founder and the major force behind the COVID-19 vaccines, called for all the COVID-19 genetic-based vaccines to be taken off the market immediately.

    In an often anguished 19-minute televised speech, Gates said: “We made a terrible mistake. We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined.”

    “These vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca—they’re killing people left and right—and they’re injuring some people very badly,” Gates continued, waving his hands in the air at times for dramatic effect.

    “The government’s own data shows us this is what’s happening. The CDC’s reporting system is showing, what?…around 13,000 deaths so far in the U.S. and over half a million adverse events. Well, we all know the reporting system is a sham.

    “We know that VAERS [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] captures only around one percent of what’s going on. So we’re talking over a million deaths from these Covid vaccines, and more than 60 million people with bad side effects.”

    “This is not what we wanted. This is not acceptable,” Mr. Gates asserted.

    Wall Street shares of all the major Covid vaccine companies plummeted by 20% to 30% as Mr. Gates announced that he was joining the urgent Citizen Petition filed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense organization calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to immediately withdraw all the COVID vaccines from the market.

    Gates continued: “Too many people who take these vaccines drop dead…one day, two days, five days after getting the shot. Other people suffer paralysis, blindness, convulsions, heart attacks, immune system collapse, blood clots, brain inflammation, lung or kidney damage, miscarriages, autoimmune disease, multiple organ system failure, permanent profound fatigue, and many other horrible problems.

    “Of course, our Media Mouthpieces—I mean the mainstream news media, dismiss all these tragedies as ‘just a coincidence.'”

    “The reason they say that,” Gates explained, “is because of what I did at Event 201, a Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation held in New York in October 2019 just a few weeks before we announced the actual pandemic. I got all the major newspapers, TV channels, and radio stations to agree to stick with the Official Narrative—‘the vaccines are safe and effective’—and to censor anybody who questions this line of BS.

    “So the public never got to hear the evidence from hundreds of distinguished doctors and medical researchers who warned that the vaccines are dangerous and often lethal.”

    “That was a huge mistake on my part,” Gates maintained, looking weary and at times teary-eyed. “We never should have done that. People have every right to be well-informed, to get all the facts so they can make a rational decision.”

    Changing the topic as if to elicit sympathy, Mr. Gates confided: “I’ve been going through a rough time and doing a lot of soul-searching since Melinda dumped me. This divorce has caused me to take a good hard look at myself. I don’t want to be remembered as a monster who killed millions of people through deadly vaccines. I am not a monster. I am not a mass murderer. I don’t want to be remembered as a mass murderer by my family, my friends, and my company.

    “Some people have called me a sociopath or even a psychopath because of my visionary schemes to help humanity—like reducing global warming by spraying dust into the upper atmosphere, or releasing millions of genetically-modified mosquitoes to combat dengue and Zika virus.”

    “Melinda didn’t understand my dreams. She didn’t understand my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… It was purely a casual friendship and had nothing to do with having sex with underage girls. Jeff ran a blackmail ring for Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, and I would never be so dumb as to risk putting myself in a compromising position.”

    “But getting back to these vaccines,” Mr. Gates shifted gears as he regained his composure, “These products quite frankly do not meet the legal or scientific definition of a vaccine. They’re highly experimental injections which genetically instruct a person’s body to manufacture zillions of spike proteins. The injected material travels everywhere through the bloodstream, and soon your whole body is making these damn spike proteins.

    “Now, the whistleblowers were telling us for over a year that the spike protein is a pathogen—it’s toxic and it also creates blood clots and damages multiple organs. Well, it turns out they were absolutely correct. And there’s other cutting-edge science in these vaccines that also turned out to be harmful, like a magnetic ingredient which turns people into human transmitters/receivers, but I am not at liberty to discuss these issues today, under the advice of legal counsel.”

    “We thought we were doing some really cool things with these Covid vaccines—‘actually hacking the software of life,’ as my good friend Tal Zaks, Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, once boasted. But we went too far. We blew it,” Gates confessed in a rare admission of defeat.

    “Basically,” the Microsoft mogul conceded, “we tricked people into taking these vaccines. There was no need for them at all, since the COVID-19 respiratory virus is less deadly than the seasonal flu—and 99.9-plus percent of people recover spontaneously from infection with this virus within a few days.

    “I supported the German research group which convinced the World Health Organization to accept the PCR diagnostic test as the ‘gold standard’—when any college student knows you can’t use the PCR test to diagnose for any disease. But we ramped up the test to 35 or 40 cycles so that 95 percent of the people would get false-positives. I don’t know why I did that. Mea culpa,” Gates shrugged as he drank a glass of water.

    “To sum up,” Mr. Gates said, waving his fingers in the air, “The vaccines do NOT confer immunity, they do NOT prevent transmission of the virus. They only claim to reduce mild symptoms in infected people, and they don’t do a good job of that either, despite the inflated statistics. Countless people who get the shot are later diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Plus, there are many inexpensive, effective remedies that are widely used around the world to defeat COVID-19. There was no need for lockdowns or masks.”

    “The whole thing is a farce, and I’m very, very, truly sorry,” Mr. Gates concluded as he dashed off the set without taking questions.

    Shortly after his speech, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it is setting up a special $50 billion fund in tandem with the vaccine manufacturers to provide fair and just compensation for Covid vaccine victims and their families. The Gates Foundation also announced it has set up a separate $50 billion fund to provide free ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, Vitamins D, C, and B, zinc, pine needle tea, N-acetyl cysteine, and other remedies to anyone who requests these treatments.

    Hydroxychloroquine is known to be very effective in fighting COVID-19, but in order for the FDA to grant “Emergency Use Authorization” to the risky “vaccines” which failed all previous clinical trials, there had to be no other effective treatments available. So the prestigious Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine published bogus research papers to discredit hydroxychloroquine. The articles, which used fabricated data, were later retracted, but by then they had accomplished their purpose and the fake vaccines were rolled out by President Donald Trump on an unsuspecting, badly informed public.

    The Biden administration, which is relentlessly pushing for all Americans to get the dangerous injections, had no immediate reaction to Gates’s bombshell speech. President Biden was reportedly asleep in the basement of his private home.

    Note: The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles

    https://expose-news.com/2021/08/29/bill-gates-calls-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-covid-19-vaccines/


    https://telegra.ph/SATIRE--In-an-alternative-universe-Bill-Gates-has-called-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-Covid-19-Vaccines-03-11
    SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines The ExposéAugust 29, 2021 A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise… However, an investigation (which is entirely factual) into the shocking ties between Mr Bill Gates, Moderna, and the U.K. Medicine Regulator has now been published with explosive revelations into the real reason the Moderna injection has been given emergency authorisation for use in children. Please read it here and share it widely. INVESTIGATION – Bill Gates has an agreement with Moderna that grants him a license to their Covid-19 Vaccine; a vaccine that was produced weeks before the emergence of Covid-19 Thank you Note – The following satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles In a shocking announcement, Bill Gates, billionaire Microsoft co-founder and the major force behind the COVID-19 vaccines, called for all the COVID-19 genetic-based vaccines to be taken off the market immediately. In an often anguished 19-minute televised speech, Gates said: “We made a terrible mistake. We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined.” “These vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca—they’re killing people left and right—and they’re injuring some people very badly,” Gates continued, waving his hands in the air at times for dramatic effect. “The government’s own data shows us this is what’s happening. The CDC’s reporting system is showing, what?…around 13,000 deaths so far in the U.S. and over half a million adverse events. Well, we all know the reporting system is a sham. “We know that VAERS [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] captures only around one percent of what’s going on. So we’re talking over a million deaths from these Covid vaccines, and more than 60 million people with bad side effects.” “This is not what we wanted. This is not acceptable,” Mr. Gates asserted. Wall Street shares of all the major Covid vaccine companies plummeted by 20% to 30% as Mr. Gates announced that he was joining the urgent Citizen Petition filed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense organization calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to immediately withdraw all the COVID vaccines from the market. Gates continued: “Too many people who take these vaccines drop dead…one day, two days, five days after getting the shot. Other people suffer paralysis, blindness, convulsions, heart attacks, immune system collapse, blood clots, brain inflammation, lung or kidney damage, miscarriages, autoimmune disease, multiple organ system failure, permanent profound fatigue, and many other horrible problems. “Of course, our Media Mouthpieces—I mean the mainstream news media, dismiss all these tragedies as ‘just a coincidence.'” “The reason they say that,” Gates explained, “is because of what I did at Event 201, a Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation held in New York in October 2019 just a few weeks before we announced the actual pandemic. I got all the major newspapers, TV channels, and radio stations to agree to stick with the Official Narrative—‘the vaccines are safe and effective’—and to censor anybody who questions this line of BS. “So the public never got to hear the evidence from hundreds of distinguished doctors and medical researchers who warned that the vaccines are dangerous and often lethal.” “That was a huge mistake on my part,” Gates maintained, looking weary and at times teary-eyed. “We never should have done that. People have every right to be well-informed, to get all the facts so they can make a rational decision.” Changing the topic as if to elicit sympathy, Mr. Gates confided: “I’ve been going through a rough time and doing a lot of soul-searching since Melinda dumped me. This divorce has caused me to take a good hard look at myself. I don’t want to be remembered as a monster who killed millions of people through deadly vaccines. I am not a monster. I am not a mass murderer. I don’t want to be remembered as a mass murderer by my family, my friends, and my company. “Some people have called me a sociopath or even a psychopath because of my visionary schemes to help humanity—like reducing global warming by spraying dust into the upper atmosphere, or releasing millions of genetically-modified mosquitoes to combat dengue and Zika virus.” “Melinda didn’t understand my dreams. She didn’t understand my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… It was purely a casual friendship and had nothing to do with having sex with underage girls. Jeff ran a blackmail ring for Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, and I would never be so dumb as to risk putting myself in a compromising position.” “But getting back to these vaccines,” Mr. Gates shifted gears as he regained his composure, “These products quite frankly do not meet the legal or scientific definition of a vaccine. They’re highly experimental injections which genetically instruct a person’s body to manufacture zillions of spike proteins. The injected material travels everywhere through the bloodstream, and soon your whole body is making these damn spike proteins. “Now, the whistleblowers were telling us for over a year that the spike protein is a pathogen—it’s toxic and it also creates blood clots and damages multiple organs. Well, it turns out they were absolutely correct. And there’s other cutting-edge science in these vaccines that also turned out to be harmful, like a magnetic ingredient which turns people into human transmitters/receivers, but I am not at liberty to discuss these issues today, under the advice of legal counsel.” “We thought we were doing some really cool things with these Covid vaccines—‘actually hacking the software of life,’ as my good friend Tal Zaks, Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, once boasted. But we went too far. We blew it,” Gates confessed in a rare admission of defeat. “Basically,” the Microsoft mogul conceded, “we tricked people into taking these vaccines. There was no need for them at all, since the COVID-19 respiratory virus is less deadly than the seasonal flu—and 99.9-plus percent of people recover spontaneously from infection with this virus within a few days. “I supported the German research group which convinced the World Health Organization to accept the PCR diagnostic test as the ‘gold standard’—when any college student knows you can’t use the PCR test to diagnose for any disease. But we ramped up the test to 35 or 40 cycles so that 95 percent of the people would get false-positives. I don’t know why I did that. Mea culpa,” Gates shrugged as he drank a glass of water. “To sum up,” Mr. Gates said, waving his fingers in the air, “The vaccines do NOT confer immunity, they do NOT prevent transmission of the virus. They only claim to reduce mild symptoms in infected people, and they don’t do a good job of that either, despite the inflated statistics. Countless people who get the shot are later diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Plus, there are many inexpensive, effective remedies that are widely used around the world to defeat COVID-19. There was no need for lockdowns or masks.” “The whole thing is a farce, and I’m very, very, truly sorry,” Mr. Gates concluded as he dashed off the set without taking questions. Shortly after his speech, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it is setting up a special $50 billion fund in tandem with the vaccine manufacturers to provide fair and just compensation for Covid vaccine victims and their families. The Gates Foundation also announced it has set up a separate $50 billion fund to provide free ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, Vitamins D, C, and B, zinc, pine needle tea, N-acetyl cysteine, and other remedies to anyone who requests these treatments. Hydroxychloroquine is known to be very effective in fighting COVID-19, but in order for the FDA to grant “Emergency Use Authorization” to the risky “vaccines” which failed all previous clinical trials, there had to be no other effective treatments available. So the prestigious Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine published bogus research papers to discredit hydroxychloroquine. The articles, which used fabricated data, were later retracted, but by then they had accomplished their purpose and the fake vaccines were rolled out by President Donald Trump on an unsuspecting, badly informed public. The Biden administration, which is relentlessly pushing for all Americans to get the dangerous injections, had no immediate reaction to Gates’s bombshell speech. President Biden was reportedly asleep in the basement of his private home. Note: The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles https://expose-news.com/2021/08/29/bill-gates-calls-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-covid-19-vaccines/ https://telegra.ph/SATIRE--In-an-alternative-universe-Bill-Gates-has-called-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-Covid-19-Vaccines-03-11
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines
    A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise… How…
    Like
    Love
    2
    1 Comments 0 Shares 14235 Views
  • New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.

    Steve Kirsch
    Executive summary

    New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials.

    I analyze the results in this article.

    Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected.

    In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak.

    Are you surprised?

    The data

    You can download the source data from the public link.

    I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder:

    data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths
    Their analysis of the data released under OIA

    I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective.

    Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!!

    This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have.

    It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data.

    You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well.

    But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff.

    Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue!

    The analysis

    Here’s a plot of the data they provided:


    Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph:

    Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention.

    The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

    But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups.

    So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter.

    Age 81 to 100 analysis

    Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise.

    Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100.


    All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100.
    Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand:


    Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx)
    So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us:

    If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.”

    If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated.

    One little problem: it’s not!

    Here is the calculation:


    So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID.

    The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk.

    It was a simple sign error!

    There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed.

    This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data.

    You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself.

    The gaslighting attempts

    They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling.

    Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up.

    Summary

    The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID.

    So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data.

    That’s how science works!

    Share

    https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them. Steve Kirsch Executive summary New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials. I analyze the results in this article. Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected. In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak. Are you surprised? The data You can download the source data from the public link. I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder: data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths Their analysis of the data released under OIA I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective. Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!! This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have. It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data. You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well. But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff. Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue! The analysis Here’s a plot of the data they provided: Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph: Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention. The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups. So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter. Age 81 to 100 analysis Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise. Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100. All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100. Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand: Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx) So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us: If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.” If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated. One little problem: it’s not! Here is the calculation: So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID. The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk. It was a simple sign error! There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed. This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data. You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself. The gaslighting attempts They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling. Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up. Summary The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID. So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data. That’s how science works! Share https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    KIRSCHSUBSTACK.COM
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11690 Views
  • AVALANCHE (AVAX) CRASH INCOMING? | AVALANCHE (AVAX)$400M Token Unlock This Week | AVAX Crypto News | #AVAXUnlock #InvestingTips #FinancialAdvice #CryptoNews #CryptoMashNews https://youtu.be/qDK94Xz3NJA
    AVALANCHE (AVAX) CRASH INCOMING? | AVALANCHE (AVAX)$400M Token Unlock This Week | AVAX Crypto News | #AVAXUnlock #InvestingTips #FinancialAdvice #CryptoNews #CryptoMashNews https://youtu.be/qDK94Xz3NJA
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4531 Views
  • I'm jmiller and I'm 23 years old. I am an aspiring model who is at least 18 years old join private room free signup here
    http://gg.gg/DebraMorris
    adult dating,dating,adult dating site,adult dating sites,dating apps,online dating tips,online dating,dating advice,adult dating sim,adult dating app, adult dating ,dating sites,online dating expert,best dating sites for adults,adult,dating site,best dating apps,dating coach,free dating sites,most popular dating apps,online dating quiz,online dating guide,vr dating,secret dating,dating sim,dating app,adult chat,dating tips, sex,sex tips,sex tape,sex scene,sex video,sex videos,sex stories,how to have sex,sex life,safe sex,real sex,sex drive,safer sex,sex noise,sex jokes,sex story,first sex,how to sex,stick sex,sex y love,video sex,sex appeal,sex orgasm,my sex doll,sex sounds,sex comedy,cost of sex,sex advice,having sex,my crazy sex,sex madness,college sex,sex college,how to do sex,sex and love,airplane sex,sex on a plane,sex tape 2014
    I'm jmiller and I'm 23 years old. I am an aspiring model who is at least 18 years old join private room free signup here http://gg.gg/DebraMorris adult dating,dating,adult dating site,adult dating sites,dating apps,online dating tips,online dating,dating advice,adult dating sim,adult dating app,💑 adult dating 💕,dating sites,online dating expert,best dating sites for adults,adult,dating site,best dating apps,dating coach,free dating sites,most popular dating apps,online dating quiz,online dating guide,vr dating,secret dating,dating sim,dating app,adult chat,dating tips, sex,sex tips,sex tape,sex scene,sex video,sex videos,sex stories,how to have sex,sex life,safe sex,real sex,sex drive,safer sex,sex noise,sex jokes,sex story,first sex,how to sex,stick sex,sex y love,video sex,sex appeal,sex orgasm,my sex doll,sex sounds,sex comedy,cost of sex,sex advice,having sex,my crazy sex,sex madness,college sex,sex college,how to do sex,sex and love,airplane sex,sex on a plane,sex tape 2014
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4778 Views
  • Best Free Dating Site: http://tinyurl.com/42v6ny6b

    #dating #love #relationships #onlinedating #relationshipgoals #datingadvice #single #relationship #marriage #romance #datingapp #datingtips #tinder #relationshipadvice #couples #couplegoals #datinglife #datingcoach #singles #datingapps #instagood #couple #follow #datingmemes #date #lovequotes #bhfyp #singlelife #relationshipquotes #life
    Best Free Dating Site: http://tinyurl.com/42v6ny6b #dating #love #relationships #onlinedating #relationshipgoals #datingadvice #single #relationship #marriage #romance #datingapp #datingtips #tinder #relationshipadvice #couples #couplegoals #datinglife #datingcoach #singles #datingapps #instagood #couple #follow #datingmemes #date #lovequotes #bhfyp #singlelife #relationshipquotes #life
    Love
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 9312 Views
  • Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way”

    Michel Chossudovsky
    [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.]

    Introduction

    WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide.

    There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.

    It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022:

    “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates.

    “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC).

    “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

    How could he know this in advance?

    “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat

    In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data.

    Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”.

    Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense.

    “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.”

    According to Forbes:

    Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″

    300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.”

    A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

    Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic.

    Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux


    Click here to watch the interview.

    “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis

    In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”.

    “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.”

    The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017:

    “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential.

    But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years.

    In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added)

    It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”.

    Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time.

    “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee.

    “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests.

    “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph)

    The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019.

    The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”.

    The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation

    The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201)

    An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation:

    On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions.

    Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.”

    “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme.

    Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added)



    Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X”


    Click here to watch the video.

    Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions

    In a factual nutshell:

    WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

    There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency.

    On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China.

    The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases.

    All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus.

    In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people.

    In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people.

    In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people.

    The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis.

    The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

    There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences.

    The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank.

    All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment.

    The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system.

    According to David Skripac:

    “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”

    Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as:

    “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

    Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen”

    Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”.

    A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023.

    “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.

    Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.”

    She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective.

    “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” …

    “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.”

    (The Guardian, emphasis added)

    The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus

    “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE).

    Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in:

    The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.

    The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board.

    What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024).

    We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.”

    Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that

    “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”.

    Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic.


    https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud

    It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world.

    When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never.

    Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one.

    Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen.

    So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense!

    Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic.

    Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before?

    You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever.

    I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives!

    Best wishes
    Mike

    https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic” “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way” Michel Chossudovsky [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.] Introduction WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide. There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation. It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022: “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates. “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC). “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said. How could he know this in advance? “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”. Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.” According to Forbes: Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″ 300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.” A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”. Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic. Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux Click here to watch the interview. “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”. “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017: “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years. In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added) It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time. “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee. “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests. “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph) The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019. The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X” A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”. The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X” “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201) An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions. Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.” “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme. Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added) Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X” Click here to watch the video. Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions In a factual nutshell: WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases. All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people. In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people. The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis. The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank. All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system. According to David Skripac: “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as: “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).” Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen” Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”. A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023. “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen. Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.” She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective. “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” … “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.” (The Guardian, emphasis added) The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE). Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in: The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons. The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board. What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024). We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.” Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic. https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world. When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never. Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one. Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen. So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense! Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic. Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before? You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever. I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives! Best wishes Mike 👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    A “vaccine” for a non-existent hypothetical “Disease X” is slated to to be developed at one of UK Ministry of Defense's most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 27257 Views
More Results