CASE 01 - Autopsy proven myocarditis death in AUSTRALIA Barrack Heights NSW, AUSTRALIA - Roberto Garin was only 52 when he ‘died suddenly’ on 28 July 2021. The healthy father of two teenagers began feeling ill 48 hours after his first Pfizer shot and dropped dead in front of his terrified wife Kirsti six days later while she was on the phone to paramedics. Garin’s family immediately suspected the vaccine caused his death. Kirsti was told her husband was the first person to die after a Pfizer shot. In fact, 176 deaths following Pfizer jabs had already been reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), starting in the first week of the vaccine rollout. But when Kirsti shared her concerns with filmmaker Alan Hashem, who released the video together with the accounts of other vaccine injuries and deaths, it unleashed a storm. ‘Misinformation researchers’ published by the ABC dismissed Kirsti’s ‘claims her 52-year-old husband died from “sudden onset myocarditis” after receiving the Pfizer vaccine’ because it didn’t ‘square with official data’. Yet that was exactly what forensic pathologist Bernard l’Ons wrote in a brilliant report on his autopsy stating that the deceased’s heart showed a clear transition to severe giant cell myocarditis that could be ‘histologically dated to the time period of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination’ and it was ‘reasonable to state that the deceased’s previously undiagnosed cardiac sarcoidosis may have transitioned to a fulminating myocarditis as a result of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination’ noting that myocarditis had been reported in reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. L’Ons proposed a mechanism by which the vaccine could trigger fatal myocarditis and advised that a possible therapeutic implication was that sarcoid patients be given an echocardiogram to detect whether their heart was affected in which case alternative vaccination types could be considered. All of this was ignored by the TGA which refuses to admit to this day that any death can be attributed to a Pfizer vaccine and was parroted by the ABC. The TGA did admit that as of 22 August it had received ‘235 reports of suspected myocarditis, (inflammation of the heart muscle) and/or pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following vaccination’ with Pfizer but said, ‘These reports reflect the observations of the people reporting them and have not been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine,’ and that ‘some events may be coincidental and would have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’ This is a particularly misleading statement. Four out of five reports to the TGA are submitted not by random ‘people’, but by highly qualified health professionals and in Garin’s case by a forensic pathologist. Why would the TGA dismiss these reports? That’s a question Associate Professor Michael Nissen could perhaps shed light on. He was appointed to the TGA in February 2021, just as the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, to lead its Signal Investigation Unit which investigates safety issues that arise with vaccines in adverse reports or are raised by international regulators or the medical literature. Prior to his appointment, Nissen was the Director of Scientific Affairs and Public Health at GSK Vaccines from October 2014 to January 2021, a period during which GSK and Pfizer entered into a joint venture. Nissen worked concurrently in hospital-based medical care and academia. He has led over 40 clinical trials and authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications including vaccine studies. In all these areas pharmaceutical companies are a major source of funding. The TGA is sensitive about managing conflicts of interest for advisory committee members but offers no guidance on its website with regard to staff members although presumably the same principles should, at least in theory, apply. It notes that shares, involvement in clinical trials, employment, contracts, consultancies, grants, sponsorships, board memberships and so on, may give rise to a conflict of interest. Robert Clancy, an Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School and a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Covid-19 Expert Database wrote in Quadrant online last week that ‘the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its pervasive influence at every level of political and medical decision-making’ has been underestimated in shaping the pandemic narrative which has been driven by commercial imperatives to such an extent that it has crushed scientific debate. Clancy recounts that his approach to the College of Pathology (of which he was a Senior Fellow, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education) calling for a national study to determine whether Covid vaccination was responsible for the increase in excess mortality in Australia and elsewhere by developing a protocol for post-mortems ‘to answer what is arguably the most important question facing medicine’ met with a rejection and a suggestion to take it instead to the TGA. Nowadays, dying suddenly has become ominously familiar. According to a new film Died Suddenly available as of this week to stream via Twitter, in the last 18 months, the term ‘Died Suddenly’ has risen to the very top of ‘most searched’ Google terms. The film documents the surge in excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries. Dr. Peter McCullough, internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and one of the top five most-published, and most censored, medical researchers in the US, says that sudden death frequently occurs because the heart has been damaged by inflammation caused by Covid vaccines. Papers that Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration tried to hide for 75 years show that Pfizer knew in 2020 that myocarditis and pericarditis could be caused by its vaccine. And in the Pfizer trial in Argentina, a report on a healthy 36-year old  participant – Augusto German Roux – who developed pericarditis immediately after his second Pfizer jab, mysteriously disappeared from the published trial results. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) belatedly published a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis in September this year. It was too late for Garin. Had his doctors known, his life might have been saved. His grieving family have still not received a cent in compensation. But Pfizer has apparently grossed nearly $100 billion from its sales of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. Rebecca Weisser is an independent journalist. ====== https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/mrna-injury-stories-australian-dad?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

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

Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states: No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO, referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to. A rational examination of the texts in question shows that: The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics. The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here. The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty. The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18): require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas. These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9). No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12). Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13). Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19). Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20). The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21). Everyone has the right to work (Article 23). Everyone has the right to education (Article 26). Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28). Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva. The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1), Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A). States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response. As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements. States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42): Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures. Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it. Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty. All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.” It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction. If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span. Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using. The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12): In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers. And Article 20 (1): …provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source. The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b). Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary. In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens. As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18): …and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO. The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended. It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool). Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding? Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates. The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022: We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…, repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration: …an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024, and by the Council of the European Union: A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect. The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain. The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies. If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent. The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign. The Need for Clarification The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs. No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day). So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function. 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/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

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/

AltSignals: Unravelling AI token future as Bitcoin and Nvidia correlation grows AltSignals has attracted investors with its AI application and earnings opportunities. A strong correlation between Bitcoin and NVIDIA has highlighted the influence of AI on crypto. $ASI token has 50x and more potential as the future of AI trading unravels. As Bitcoin (BTC) hit a record above $73,000, analysts have been keen on its relationship with AI stock Nvidia. This is after both assets hit record highs, helped by their respective fundamentals and sector optimism. This happens amid a robust correction that is now the strongest in over a year. Meanwhile, AltSignals, an AI token, has been making strides, riding the rapidly growing crypto and AI sector. Listings at Uniswap and CoinGecko have cemented the token’s future as BTC and Nvidia’s correlation unfolds. Bitcoin’s correlation with Nvidia grows to the strongest The correlation between Bitcoin and Nvidia has been of interest as long as the two asset prices move in tandem. Both assets have cooled off slightly after hitting their respective all-time highs. What has been remarkable is that the 90-day and 52-week correlation between the two assets has crossed 0.80. The strong correlation suggests that Bitcoin and Nvidia move in a similar fashion. Conversely, while Bitcoin price is up more than 60% YTD, Nvidia has gained over 78%. A surging interest in AI has been responsible for the gains in Nvidia stock. Nonetheless, the twist of events, BTC and NVDA correlation, has brought about the “AI narrative” in crypto. This has seen many AI-linked cryptocurrencies surge in value, boosting the entire sector’s market cap. Cryptocurrencies that saw significant pumps included WorldCoin (WLD), Render (RNDR) and Fetch. Ai (FET). These gains started after Nvidia issued its Q4 results and guidance, which excited the markets. As the excitement builds, AltSignals has been keenly watched by investors looking for opportunities in AI. Attention now turns to how AltSignals navigates its core mission in 2024 amid growing optimism. AltSignals: An AI token revolutionising the trading world AltSignals has gained popularity owing to being a key pillar in the trading world. Unlike its AI predecessors, this token powers a community of traders. Launched in 2017, AltSignals has been offering quality trading signals with more than 64% success rates. This has seen the platform amass a huge following, boasting over 50,000 members on Telegram. AltSignals covers various financial instruments such as stocks, forex, CFDs, and cryptocurrencies. The signal service has seen huge success in trading assets such as Binance Futures and Binance Spot assets. In anticipation of the future of AI trading, AltSignals launched an AI-enabled trading service, ActualizeAI. The signal service will be powered by the cryptocurrency, $ASI. The team has fast-tracked the development of the AI platform since its highly-subscribed presale. With AI, AltSignals expects to increase the quality of its signals, increasing the profitability for its members. AltSignals has remained steadfast as expectations build. Big launches in 2024 cement the token’s future amid the AI frenzy. Expected this year include an NFT marketplace and new partnerships to foster growth. Ultimately, the actualisation of the AI project will fuel the demand for $ASI and its price. Is AltSignals a good investment? AltSignals is an investment opportunity that gives token holders access to quality trading signals. This allows investors to earn by participating in the global financial market and learning from the experts. Besides, regular investment products have generated a frenzy within the AltSignals community. For example, its staking program saw more than 28.9 million tokens grabbed from 30 million tokens offered. Investors were attracted to up to 25% returns for staking the token for just three months. Consequently, FOMO has been building from the platform’s passive income opportunities. $ASI investors are also attracted to the token’s potential, with analysts believing in its AI mission. As the popularity of AI grows, $ASI will increase in value, generating returns to its backers. Consequently, the token has been earmarked with a potential 50x gain.

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

5 Beautiful Dua for You This Ramadan We thank Allah s.w.t for reuniting us again with Ramadan after a long year of highs and lows. A meeting that the believers desperately need to nourish their faith by receiving the forgiveness of past sins and striving to achieve a higher place in the sight of Allah s.w.t. In a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah r.a: ‏إِذَا دَخَلَ شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ فُتِّحَتْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءِ وَغُلِّقَتْ أَبْوَابُ جَهَنَّمَ وَسُلْسِلَتِ الشَّيَاطِين “When the month of Ramadan enters, the gates of Heaven are opened, and the gates of Hell are closed and the devils are chained.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari & Muslim) In this very month, Allah s.w.t sends down His Mercy that is manifested into His forgiveness, multiplied rewards, acceptance and other blessings to His servants. Fortunate it is for those who strive hard to avoid falling into sins, continuously seek repentance and increase his/her worship. It is, however, a waste if we let this reunion pass by us like any other month. Read: The Spiritual Significance of Ramadan To be able to observe various deeds, one needs to supplicate to Allah s.w.t. for aid and acceptance. Thus, prayers serve as reminders as we seek to connect with the Divine. Here are some supplications that we regularly recite in the month of Ramadan. The translations are provided to guide us to understand, internalise and immerse ourselves in the spiritual experience of this sacred month. 1. Ramadan Dua for the Day and Night There are no specific supplications to be read on the day of Ramadan. However, it does not mean there is no emphasis on supplication. We are encouraged to increase our ibadah (worship) to Allah, and “Supplication is worship” (At-Tirmizi) One of the many supplications that we can recite daily during the day and night throughout Ramadan is: أَشهَدُ أَن لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ الله، أَستَغفِرُ الله، نَسأَلُكَ الجَنَّةَ ونَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ النَّار Ashhadu an la ilaha illAllah, astaghfirullah, nas-alukal-jannata wa na'uzu bika minan-nar "I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah, I seek forgiveness from Allah, we ask you (O Allah) for Paradise and we seek refuge with you from the Hellfire." Our scholars have encouraged us to read the above supplication based on the following Hadith: فاستكثروا فيه من أربع خصال, خصلتين ترضون بهما ربكم ، وخصلتين لا غنى بكم عنهما: فأما الخصلتان اللتان ترضون بهما ربكم: فشهادة أن لا إله إلا الله ، وتستغفرونه ، وأما اللتان لا غنى بكم عنهما : فتسألون الله الجنة ، وتعوذون به من النار "And increase in this month (Ramadan) four matters; two of which shall be to please your Lord, while the other two shall be those of which you cannot make do without. As for the two matters which shall be to please your Lord, are that you should recite the testament of faith Lā ilāha illa Allāh and to seek His forgiveness. And as for the other two matters without which you cannot make do, you should be asking Allāh for paradise and seek refuge with Him from the fire of Jahannam." (Hadith narrated by Ibn Khuzaimah) 2. Dua When Breaking Fast in Ramadan اللَّهُمَّ لَكَ صُمتُ وَعَلَى رِزقِكَ أَفطَرتُ Allahumma laka sumtu wa 'ala rizqika aftartu "O Allah, I have fasted for Your sake and broken the fast upon Your provisions." ذَهَبَ الظَّمأُ، وابْتَلَّتِ العُرُوقُ، وَثَبَتَ الأَجْرُ إِنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ تَعالى Zahabaz-zam-u, wa-btallatil-ʿurūqu, wathabatal-ajru in shā'a Allāhu taʿālā "The thirst is gone, the veins are moistened, and the reward has been earned if Allah wills." (Sunan Abi Dawud) The fasting person will find two kinds of happiness. The first is at the time of breaking the fast; the other is at the time of meeting with his/her Lord. One should be conscious of Allah's presence and that He has promised to send down blessings for the ones observing His fast. We shouldn't be too excited with the feasts lest we forget The One providing these provisions. Be mindful and make heartfelt prayers, for the Prophet s.a.w. mentioned: إِنَّ لِلصَّائِمِ عِنْدَ فِطْرِهِ لَدَعْوَةً مَا تُرَدُّ “Indeed the prayer of the fasting person during his break is not rejected.” (Sunan Ibn Majah) 3. Supplication After Terawih Prayers in Ramadan بِسمِ اللهِ الرَّحمَنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ أَجْمَعِيْن اَللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْناَ بِالْإِيْمَانِ كَامِلِيْنْ، وَلِلْفَرَآئِضِ مُؤَدِّيْنَ، وَلِلصَّلَاةِ حَافِظِيْنَ، وَلِلزَّكَاةِ فَاعِلِيْنَ، وَلِمَا عِنْدَكَ طَالِبِيْنَ، وَلِعَفْوِكَ رَاجِيْنَ، وَبِالْهُدَى مُتَمَسِّكِيْن، وَعَنِ اللَّغْوِ مُعْرِضِيْنَ، وَفِي الدُّنْيَا زَاهِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْأَخِرَةِ رَاغِبِيْنَ، وَبِالْقَضَاءِ رَاضِيْنَ، وَبِالنَّعْمَاءِ شَاكِرِيْنَ، وَعَلَى الْبَلاءِ صَابِرِيْنَ، وَتَحْتَ لِوَاءِ سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ سَائِرِيْنَ، وَإِلَى الْحَوْضِ وَارِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْجَنَّةِ دَاخِلِيْنَ، وَمِنَ النَّارِ نَاجِيْنَ، وَعَلَى سَرِيْرَةِ الْكَرَامَةِ قَاعِدِيْنَ، وَبِحُوْرِ عيْنٍ مُتَزَوِّجِيْنَ، وَمِنْ سُنْدُسٍ وَاِسْتَبْرَقٍ وَدِيْبَاجٍ مُتَلَبِّسِيْنَ، وَمِنْ طَعَامِ الْجَنَّةِ آكِلِيْنَ، وَمِنْ لَبَنٍ وَعَسَلٍ مُصَفًّى شَارِبِيْنَ، بِأَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيْقَ وَكَأْسٍ مِنْ مَعِيْنٍ، مَعَ الَّذِيْنَ أَنعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّين والصِّدِّيقِينَ والشُّهَدَاءِ والصَّالِحِين، وحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا، ذَلِكَ الْفَضْلُ مِنَ اللهِ وَكَفَى بِاللهِ عَلِيْمًا، وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ ___________ Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alameen, was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil-anbiya-i wal-mursaleen, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een. Allahummaj-'alna bil-imani kamilin, wa lil-fara-idhi mu-addin, wa lis-salati hafizhin, wa liz-zakati fa'ilin, wa lima 'indaka talibin, wa li'afwika rajin, wa bil-huda mutamassikin, wa 'anil-laghwi mu'ridin, wa fi'd-dunya zahidin, wa fil-akhirati raghibin, wa bil-qada-i radhin, wa bin-na'ma'i shakirin, wa 'ala al-bala-i sabirin, wa tahta liwa-i sayyidina Muhammadin sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallama yawmal qiyamati sa-irin, wa ilal-hawdhi waridin, wa fil-jannati dakhalin, wa minan-nari najin, wa 'alas-sariratil-karamati qa'idin, wa bihurin 'aynin mutazawwijin, wa min sundusin wa-istabraqin wa diybajin mutalabbisin, wa min ta'amil-jannati akilin, wa min labanin wa 'asalin musaffan sharibin, bi-akwabin wa abariqa wa ka'-sin min ma'in, ma'al-lazina an'amta 'alayhim minan-nabiyyina was-siddiqina wash-shuhada-i was-saliheen, wa hasuna ula-iqa rafiqa, zalikal-fadhlu minAllahi wa kafa bi-llahi 'aleeman, wal-hamdu lillahi Rabbil 'alameen. ___________ In the name of Allah, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds. Prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader, Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions. O Allah make us from those who have complete faith, perform all obligations, guard their prayers, give zakat, seek that which is due from You, hope for Your forgiveness, hold on firmly to guidance, turn away from futile acts, show no excessive interest for worldly pleasures, devote for the hereafter, are pleased with the divine decree, are grateful for Your blessings, are patient during trials, would walk under the flag of our leader (sayyidina) Muhammad s.a.w. on the Day of Judgement, would arrive to the Prophet’s well (in the hereafter), would enter the Paradise, would be saved from the hellfire, would sit on the honoured mattresses (of paradise), would be married to the companions of Paradise, would be adorned with garments (of paradise) from Silk and Brocade, would eat from the food of Paradise, would drink from the milk and pure honey in the cups and goblets from the fountain of clear water, in the company of those You bestow blessings upon them from amongst the Prophets, the righteous, the martyrs and the pious and what a great company do they make. Such is Allah’s favour, and it is sufficient that Allah is All-Knowing. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds. ___________ Read: How to Perform Solat Terawih: Step-by-Step Guide 4. Supplication After Witr Prayers in Ramadan After ending the Witr prayer, the Prophet s.a.w. would recite three times: سُبْحَانَ الْمَلِكِ الْقُدُّوسِ "Glory be to the Sovereign, the Most Holy" (Sunan An-Nasa'i) Afterwards, we may also pray the following dua which is usually read in mosques after praying together in congregation. Ponder upon the meaning of this long and beautiful dua: بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحبِهِ أَجمَعِين. إِلَهَنَا قَد تَعَرَّضَ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ المُتَعَرِّضُون، وَقَصَدَكَ القَاصِدُون، وَرَغِبَ في جُودِكَ وَمَعرُوفِكَ الطَّالِبُون، وَلَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلِّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهرِ رَمَضَان نَفَحَاتٍ وَجَوَائِزَ وَمَوَاهِبَ وَعَطَايَا تَجُودُ بِهَا عَلَى مَنْ تَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِك، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِمَّنْ سَبَقَتْ لَهُ مِنْكَ العِنَايَة، هَا نَحْنُ نَدْعُوكَ كَمَا أَمَرْتَنَا، فَاستَجِبْ مِنَّا كَمَا وَعَدْتَنَا، إِنَّكَ لاَ تُخْلِفُ المِيْعَاد، يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمَّ يَا فَارِقَ الفُرقَانِ وَمُنزِلَ القُرآنِ بِالحِكمَةِ وَالبَيَان 3x بَارِكِ اللَّهُمَّ لَنَا فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان وَأَعِدْهُ اللَّهُمَّ عَلَينَا سِنِيناً بَعْدَ سِنِين وَأَعوَامًا بَعدَ أَعوَامٍ عَلَى مَا تُحِبُّهُ وتَرْضَاهُ يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمّ إِنَّ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلُّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان عُتَقَاءَ مِنَ النَّار، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِنْ عُتَقَائِكَ مِنَ النَّار 3x اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنَا مِنَ النَّارِ سَالِمِين وَأَدْخِلْنَا الجَنَّةَ آمِنِين، وَأَلحِقنَا باِلصَّالِحِين، ومَتِّعنَا بِالنَّظَرِ إِلَى وَجهِكَ الكَرِيم، يَا رَبَّ العَالَمِين 3x اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّا اللَّهُمَّ تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا صَلاتَنَا وَصِيَامَنَا وَقِيَامَنَا وَرُكُوعَنَا وَسُجُودَنَا وَتَخَشُّعَنَا وَتَضَرُّعَنَا وَتَعَبُّدَنَا وَتَمِّم تَقْصِيْرَنَا يَا الله يَا أَرحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. وَصَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى الِهِ وَصَحبِهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ ___________ Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin. Was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil 'anbiya-i wal-mursalin, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een. Ilahana qad ta'arrada laka fi hazihil-laylatil-muta'arridun, wa qasadakal-qasidun, wa raghiba fi judika wa ma'rufikat-talibun, wa laka fi hazihil-laylati wa kulli laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, nafahatin wa jawa-iza wa mawahiba wa 'ataya tajudu biha 'ala man tasha-u min 'ibadik, faj'alna-Allahumma min man sabaqat lahu minkal 'inayah, ha nahnu nad'uka kama amartana, fa-stajib minna kama wa'adtana, innaka la tukhliful mi'ad, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma ya Fariqal-furqan wa Munzilal-qur-an, bil-hikmati wal-bayan. Barikillahumma lana fi shahri Ramadan (3x) Wa a'idhu-llahuma 'alayna sininan ba'da sinin, wa a'waman ba'da a'wam 'ala ma tuhibbuhu wa tardahu, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma innaka fi hazihil-laylati, wa kullu laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, 'utuqa-a minan-nar, faj'alnAllahumma min 'utuqa-ika minan-nar Allahumma ajirna minan-nar salimeen (3x) Wa-adkhilnal-jannata amineen, wa-alhiqna bissaliheen, wa-mati'na binnazari ila wajhikal-kareem, ya Rabbal-‘alameen Allahumma innaka 'afuwwun tuhibbul-'afwa fa'fu ‘anna (3x) Allahumma taqabbal minna salatana, wa siyamana, wa qiyamana, wa ruku'ana, wa sujudana, wa takhashu'ana, wa tadharru'ana, wa ta'abbudana, wa tammim taqseerana, ya Allah ya Arhamar-Rahimeen. Wa sallAllahu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam, walhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin. ___________ In the name of Allah the Most Gracious and Most Merciful. Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds, prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions. O our Lord, the seekers have presented before You in this very night, intending to reach You, desiring for Your bounties and grace. And You bestow in this night just as any other nights in the month of Ramadan, Your hidden bounties, provisions, presents and gifts upon whoever from Your servants as You please. Therefore, make us amongst those You mentioned to receive Your providence. And here we are praying to You as how You have commanded us. So accept our prayers as how You have promised us, for indeed You never break Your promise. O Most Merciful. O Allah, O Divider of truth from falsehood, and Bestower of the Quran with wisdom and clarity, O Allah bless us in the month of Ramadan 3x Unite us again with Ramadan year after year in a way that You love and pleases You O Most Merciful. O Allah you free in this night just as on any other nights in the month of Ramadan Your servants from the hellfire O Allah save us from the hellfire 3x Enter us into Paradise safely, enjoin us with the company of the pious, grant us to look upon Your Honourable Grace, O Lord of the worlds O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive us 3x O Allah, accept our Solat, our fast, our night worships (Qiyam), our bow (Ruku’), our prostrations, our submission, our invocation, our devotion and complete our shortcomings, O Allah, O Most Merciful. And prayers and salutations be upon our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad and upon his family and companions, and praise be to Allah the Lord of all the worlds ___________ Read: How To Pray Tahajjud and Perform Qiyamullail 5. Supplication in Seeking Laylatul Qadr (Night of Power) in Ramadan In a hadith, the Prophet s.a.w encouraged his wife Aisyah r.a. to read the following supplication if one were to meet Laylatul Qadr, the night that is better than a thousand months: اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّي Allahumma innaKa 'Afuwwun, tuhibbul 'afwa, fa'fu 'anni "O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive me." (Sunan At-Tirmizi) Although scholars have opinions regarding the exact date of the night of Laylatul Qadr such as it is in the last ten nights, the exact time, by the wisdom of Allah s.w.t remains to be His secret. Hence, it is encouraged for every believer to recite the above supplication repeatedly every night on the nights of Ramadan. Read: 4 Beautiful Significance of Laylatul Qadr Beyond reciting this supplication upon seeking the Night of Qadr, Muslims also make it a practice to recite this dua from the beginning of Ramadan regularly. Generally, mosques in Singapore recite this supplication after the daily congregational prayers. In addition to the list of dua provided above, it is also a common practice for our mosques in Singapore to recite the following: يَا تَوَّاب تُب عَلَينَا * وَارحَمنَا وَانظُر إِلَينَا قَد كَفَانِي عِلمُ رَبِّي * مِن سُؤَالِي وَاختِيَارِي فَدُعَائِي وَابتِهَالِي * شَاهِدٌ لِي بِافتِقَارِي أَنَا عَبدٌ صَارَ فَاخرِي * ضِمنَ فَقرِي وَاضطِرَارِي Yaa Tawwab tubb 'alayna * War-hamna wa-nzur ilaina Qad kafani 'ilmu Rabbi * min su-ali wa-khtiyari Fa-du'a'i wa-btihali * Shahidun li biftiqaria Ana 'abdun saara fakhiri * Dhimna faqri wa-dhtirari "O Most Receiving Of Repentance, accept our repentance – And bestow Your mercy upon us and turn to us The Knowledge of my Lord suffices me – From asking and deciding For my prayer and invocation – Is a witness to my state of destitute I am a servant and my pride lies – In my state of need and desperation.” As we increase our supplications to Allah s.w.t, it is important for us to observe the etiquettes of supplication. We start by seeking forgiveness first before anything else (repentance) to invoke upon Allah s.w.t. with humility, demonstrating deprivation and an utter sense of in-need. Allah s.w.t. mentions in the Quran: وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُوا بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ "When My servants ask you (O Prophet) about Me: (tell them that) I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided (to the right path)" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:186) Some scholars have opined that since this verse is placed between verses about Ramadan and the laws of fasting, it indicates the merits of supplication in the blessed month of Ramadan. May this list of supplications benefit you and your loved ones. As we seek to attain the spiritual gems in this blessed month, we pray that Allah s.w.t helps us to clean our hearts and make us sincere in our worship. Indeed, He is closer to us than anything or anyone else. May Allah s.w.t. accept our acts of worship in this blessed month of Ramadan. May Allah s.w.t. allow us to be better Muslims and servants who serve Him through our service to humanity. https://muslim.sg/articles/5-beautiful-dua-for-you-this-ramadan https://telegra.ph/5-Beautiful-Dua-for-You-This-Ramadan-03-11

Weight Loss Journey: The Best Diet Plan for Your Health Experience a transformation with the ultimate weight loss solution! Our carefully curated diet plan offers a holistic approach to shedding those extra pounds while promoting overall well-being. Packed with nutritious meals, personalized guidance, and expert support, embark on a journey to achieve your dream physique and optimal health. Don't wait any longer – invest in your health and buy now to kickstart your weight loss journey today! #weightloss #health #weightlosstips #weightlosssolution https://41ad9twjcs4yew8d-gmz08re6j.hop.clickbank.net

Absolute Yoga Mastery Review Superior Complete Yoga Expertise. With just 30 minutes a day, this incredible guide will help you achieve optimal health, mindfulness, and spiritual enlightenment. You will be able to maintain your strength, vitality, and health every day of your life with this excellent guidance. PLUS... Unrestricted Use Rights to Everything! Check Here For More >> https://dilip-review.com/absolute-yoga-mastery-review/# #HowtoMakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #AbsoluteYogaMasterybyIbrahimTijani #MakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #HowDoesAbsoluteYogaMasteryWork #AbsoluteYogaMasteryHonestReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScamorLegit #HowtoAbsoluteYogaMasteryTraffic #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLiveDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDownload #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpgrades #AbsoluteYogaMasterySoftware #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonuses #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReviews #AbsoluteYogaMasteryPreview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpsells #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonus #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScam #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLegit #AbsoluteYogaMasteryOTO #AbsoluteYogaMasteryApp

Medical Assistant Programs Los Angeles: Seeking top-tier Medical Assistant Programs in Los Angeles? Look no further than NIU College! Our comprehensive Medical Assisting Program in Los Angeles equips students with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in the healthcare industry. Join us to receive hands-on training, expert guidance, and embark on a rewarding career in healthcare. Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website for more: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-assisting-program

WEF Orders U.S. Electors To Not Certify Trump’s 2024 Election Win Sean Adl-Tabatabai Fact checked WEF orders electors to decertify election if Trump wins The World Economic Forum has instructed electors in the U.S. to not certify the upcoming presidential election if Trump wins. According to the WEF-funded publication The Atlantic, Democrats must prepare to refuse to certifiy the 2024 election in November. BYPASS THE CENSORS Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox. You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use The WEF mouthpiece put out an article Friday titled, “How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t“, outlining a strategy for Democrats to defy the election results if they don’t get their way. Infowars.com reports: The editorial lamented the Supreme Court’s recent hearing on the 14th Amendment over Colorado’s unprecedented ruling to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, and claimed Democrats may have to find another way to stop Trump outside the democratic process. From The Atlantic: Without clear guidance from the Court, House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6. Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray, said that if the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the question of Trump’s eligibility, “it could come back with a vengeance”—after the election, when Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College. Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office. In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress. The Atlantic piece was roundly criticized on social media over the left’s hypocrisy of prosecuting hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters contesting the results of the 2020 election while now scheming to halt the certification of the 2024 election. This is just the latest example of Democrats projecting their intention to defy the will of the voters if Trump wins the 2024 election. Last month, NBC News reported that “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers” are preparing to “foil any efforts” for Trump to use the military to carry out his political agenda if he becomes Commander-in-Chief once again. JOIN THE FIGHT: BECOME A CITIZEN JOURNALIST TODAY! Democrats should expect to go to prison in D.C. for 22 years for trying to overturn the election since they’ve set the precedent by jailing nonviolent J6 protesters for speaking out against the rigged 2020 election. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-orders-u-s-electors-to-not-certify-trumps-2024-election-win/

Medical Billing and Coding Schools Los Angeles: Unlock your future in healthcare administration with NIU College's premier Medical Billing and Coding Schools in Los Angeles. Our comprehensive program offers hands-on training and industry-relevant coursework, preparing you for success in this rapidly growing field. Discover a rewarding career path in medical billing and coding with NIU College's expert guidance and state-of-the-art education. Enroll today to start your journey toward a fulfilling healthcare profession in Los Angeles! Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website to find out more about our programs: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-billing-coding

CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html

How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza Thursday, 01 February 2024 7:54 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 01 February 2024 8:33 AM ] By David Miller The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so-called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces. The Association for Israel’s Soldiers is based in occupied Palestine and claims to be the sole avenue through which donations can be made directly to IDF soldiers and IDF units. These donations come from Zionists in Palestine as well as from the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France and the UK. The UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel Soldiers (AWIS) is a registered charity that is obliged by law to show public benefit. Its charitable objects include relief of need and suffering, advancement of education and provision of facilities for recreation of the occupation forces. It does this by providing Mobile Synagogues, recreational facilities for injured genocidaires, free holidays, free student scholarships, mobile Gym and rest and recreation facilities. Among the benefits are swimming pools including the one promoted in a video on Facebook in May last year. In the video, AWIS says they “created a swimming pool in the heart of the desert for the training base of the artillery corps.” Meanwhile, drinking water for Gaza has been cut off for more than three months. Each year, AWIS also puts on an “enlistment festival” for 30,000 recruits to the genocidal occupation forces. Guidance published by the Charity Commission states that it is a legal requirement that “any detriment or harm that results from [charitable purposes] must not outweigh the benefit.” Perhaps supporting genocide outweighs those purposes? Among the Trustees of the charity is Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British soldier said to have hateful views on Islam and Muslims. In December, the BBC was criticized for interviewing Kemp without reference to his role as a UK-AWIS trustee. In one recent interview with a pro-Israel blog, Kemp was quoted as describing the killing of civilians in Gaza as “necessary”. Another trustee is Josh Swidler, who is in the financial industry at a firm called Teamshares. Emphasizing the link between Zionists and Islamophobia, it turns out that Swidler was formerly one of the two directors of Henry Jackson Society Inc., the US fundraising arm of the Islamophobic British think tank. Research for Palestine Declassified, where I am the producer, has traced around twenty British charities that have donated to UK AWIS over the last twenty years. When we examined them we found that they tend to donate to a variety of Zionist causes. In particular, we looked to see which of the recipients directly supported the occupation forces, the so-called “Israel Defense Forces”, illegal settlements, Jewish supremacist sects, or Islamophobic think tanks. These four categories are a sort of Zionist funding bingo. Our research is presented in a table on our investigative Wiki database Powerbase under the title: “UK AWIS - supporters”. The data points there also link to profiles of each of the charities on the Powerbase website as well as the principal individuals involved and how they made their money. The list of charities is as follows: A. M. Charitable Trust C H (1980) Charitable Trust David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust Denise Cohen Charitable Trust G. R. P. Charitable Trust Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation Jack Goldhill Charitable Trust Lawson Beckman Charitable Trust Loftus Charitable Trust Family Foundations Trust R and S Cohen Foundation Rosenblatt Family Charitable Trust Stanley and Zea Lewis Family Foundation The J E Joseph Charitable Trust The Locker Foundation The Maurice Hatter Foundation The Peltz Trust (Dissolved June 2023) The Phillips and Rubens Charitable Trust The Phillips Family Charitable Trust Wigoder Family Foundation Of the twenty charities we have named which donate to AWIS, five in total have a “full house” sending money to at least one of each of the four categories of funding. We discuss these here at greater length. Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation which was created by Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster who runs Rontec, a company that operates over 250 BP and Esso service stations in the UK. These should be an urgent target for the BDS movement. Ronson also set up the Community Security Trust that runs point of the Zionist regime in the UK, spies on anti-Zionist Jews and deliberately confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in line with the policies of the Zionist regime. Ronson has collaborated with Mossad for decades, through the CST (created in 1994) and before that its predecessor, the Group Relations Educational Trust. One of the charitable objects of the CST is that it will ‘promote research’ and ‘promote public education about’ extremism. In practice, however, Ronson promotes extremism via his family foundation. Among recipients of funding, in addition to AWIS, are: The extreme Chabad sect, which Ronson has been supporting for over 40 years. The Jewish National Fund and the Jerusalem Foundation, both of which are engaged in supporting ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement activity in Palestine. Islamophobic think tanks Civitas and Policy Exchange. These donations are further evidence that Ronson in practice supports extremism and genocide, rather than opposing them. Loftus Charitable Trust, set up by the Loftus family, which made its money from the watchmaking firm Accurist. The family sold the firm to Sekonda in 2014. As well as AWIS, it also funds the extremist Zionist sect Chabad Lubavitch and the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society. An interesting sign of the small and connected world of the Zionist business class is that the owner of Time Products, the parent of Sekonda to which the Loftus family sold Accurist, is one Marcus Margulies. His family foundation also funds illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation, to which it gave £2.25 million in 2021. The Loftus Trust also gives to a long list of genocidal Zionist groups including the Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Mitzvah Day, Stand With Us, UK Friends of IDC (the only private university in ‘Israel’), UKLFI Charitable Trust (which supports the lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel), Union of Jewish Students, United Jewish Israel Appeal, Zionist Federation David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, set up by the Lewis family which owns the River Island clothing chain. The charity also funds Islamophobic think tank, Policy Exchange and illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jewish National Fund. In addition, the trust funds a range of extremist Zionist groups including Campaign Against Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Palestinian Media Watch, One Voice Europe, and United Jewish Israel Appeal. The Family Foundations Trust, set up by the UK property investor Richard Mintz. The charity has funded UK AWIS and another charity supporting the IDF – Beit Halochem, which we will discuss below. It has also funded the extremist sect Chabad-Lubavitch, the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society, and the Community Security Trust. Richard’s son and charity trustee Joshua co-founded the website Friend-a-Soldier, an online platform where soldiers can become ‘digital ambassadors’ for the occupation forces. Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust, set up in 1969 by the accountant Michael Phillips and his wife Ruth. Phillips was at that time a partner in the accountancy firm Hacker, Rubens, Phillips & Young, which he ran with the late Stuart Young. Stuart Young would later be appointed chairman of the BBC by Margaret Thatcher, and was the brother of David (later Lord) Young who at one time chaired the board of trustees of The Peter Cruddas Foundation, which has funded the anti-Muslim think tank Policy Exchange. Lord Young and Michael Phillips were also both trustees of the Stuart Young Foundation along with the solicitor Martin Paisner, who is also a trustee of the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and a large number of other Zionist and/or conservative foundations. The charity has donated to the occupation forces via AWIS from as early as 2009. It has also donated to British ORT, an “education” grouping that trains staff both in Israeli arms firms and in the occupation forces in “Israel”. It supports illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) via the Jerusalem Foundation and Yad Sarah, and supports the Jewish supremacist Lubavitch Foundation and the following Islamophobic think tanks: Centre for Social Cohesion, Civitas, Henry Jackson Society. Naturally, it also supports a range of (Zionist) Synagogues (e.g. United Synagogue) and lobby groups including the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students. UK AWIS is already under investigation by the UK charity regulator the Charity Commission. The investigation should widen to include the nexus of genocide-supporting charities revealed here. They should be shut down by the Charity Commission. In addition to AWIS, Zionist occupation forces are provided with millions in funding every year by other charities. These charities are almost wholly unknown. Palestine Declassified has unearthed new details on one of these charities called Beit Halochem. It is dedicated to raising money for what it calls ‘our’ heroes who have ‘fought’ to ‘protect the state of Israel’ – meaning members of the genocidal occupation forces currently engaged in mass killings in Gaza and throughout Palestine. Charitable objectives of the charity include the relief of ‘Adverse physical and mental effects suffered by individuals in Israel’. It doesn’t say so, explicitly, but it’s clear that the individuals noted do not include Palestinian civilians. As Beit Halochem says, its name ‘literally means “House of Warriors”.’ This racism in the application of its ‘public benefit’ is one reason why this charity should be shut down by the UK Charity Commission. Another is that it violates the harm principle – the harm of supporting genocide clearly outweighs the benefit of rehabilitation of injured genocidaires. The Chairman of the charity is Andrew Wolfson, of the hugely wealthy Wolfson family. The family is best known for its ownership of the Next retail empire. Here is a picture of him with the genocidal president of ‘Israel’, Isaac Herzog, and the extremist advocate of the settler movement, the ambassador to London Tzipi Hotevely. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust is named after his grandfather who died in 1970. Other trustees include his brother (Lord) Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of Next plc, and (Lord) Jon Mendelsohn, a key Israel lobby actor. The charity has donated over £600,000 to Beit Halochem since 2018. The charity also helps to encourage racism against Muslims by funding Islamophobic think tanks such as Civitas and Policy Exchange. It also funds the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly engaged in settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Al-Quds. Research for Palestine Declassified reveals that Beit Halochem receives funds and support from a range of other Zionist family foundations including the aforementioned Denise Cohen Charitable Trust, Family Foundations Trust, Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation, Loftus Charitable Trust, and The Locker Foundation, all of which also fund UK AWIS. Other charities involved include The Pears Family Charitable Foundation, Exilarch’s Foundation and Bluston Charitable Settlement. Here are some details on each of these three charities: The Pears Family Charitable Foundation is run by the Pears brothers once voted the worst landlord in the UK by viewers of a BBC consumer program. Their charity also funds Islamophobic think tank Civitas and Policy Exchange, the Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students, the United Jewish Israel Appeal, and normalizing charities including Mitzvah Day UK, Solutions Not Sides, The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has also funded the extreme ultra-Zionist Chabad sect, recently in the news for the illegally dug tunnels underneath their global HQ in New York. The Exilarch’s Foundation is run by David Dangoor, the property magnate who runs property firm Monopro which registered £121.9m assets in 2017-18. His foundation also funds the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds, via the Jerusalem Foundation as well as the Community Security Trust, the Faith and Belief Forum, the Tony Blair Institute, the Union of Jewish Students, the pro-Israel Jewish Leadership Council and the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the largest Zionist charity in the country. Bluston Charitable Settlement is run by Anna Josse, who co-runs private equity firm Regent Capital having established and run the Zionist foundation the New Israel Fund UK in the 1990s. She also helps to run Prism the Gift Fund which is a charity that operates and acts for a range of Zionist and other charities. Josse is a Manchester University graduate (after a stunt at a seminary in Israel) and former JSoc chair. She also worked at the Social Market Foundation think-tank. In addition to funding genocide via Beit Halochem, Bluston funds ethnic cleansing via the Jerusalem Foundation in occupied al-Quds and the Jewish National Fund. Among the testimonials on the Beit Halochem UK website is one from Ian Austin, the extreme Zionist and former Labour MP who has displayed a profile picture on X referring to Gaza with the words “Let Israel finish the job”. There are also tributes from the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi and even Israel’s settler-supporting genocidal ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotevely. Overall, Beit Halochem is devoted to supporting the genocidal Israel occupation forces in Gaza in what appears to be breaches of UK charity law. We will pass the evidence we have unearthed to the UK Charity Commission. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/01/719268/How-British-charities-aiding-Israeli-genocide-Gaza https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-british-charities-are-aiding.html

🚨 Moderna is Planning Another COVID Campaign Starting April 2025 💉The COVID-19 vaccine industry is in trouble, with Big Pharma players such as Pfizer and Moderna undergoing significant turbulence. The departure of key sales executives further exacerbates the challenges faced by these companies. Endpoints News reports: "[Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion." "Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion." "However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025," revealed Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years experience in various roles. Her clients included Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and more. Full story: 👇 https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/future-outlook-moderna-is-planning Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025. Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards. Sasha Latypova According to Endpoints News, covid vax business is in trouble - both Pfizer and Moderna are tanking, and heads of sales have departed: [Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion. Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion. However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025. Review of Moderna’s publicly available full of shit R&D pipeline indicates that indeed, there are 4-5 different mRNA vaxxes for flu in late stages of development, another one for RSV, then different combos of flu-Covid+RSV, etc. Also, looks like gene therapies have been renamed into “intracellular therapeutics”. Gosh, all that attention to gene hacking is not great for PR! They still sport old failures like the CMV and zika vaxxes, on their pipeline, including the gene therapy (ahem, intracellular therapeutic) for Crigler-Najar syndrome which conclusively failed around 2012, that’s eons ago! They are claiming they gave it away for free to something called The Institute for Life Changing Medicines. It’s life changing, for sure… the founder of this Institute, Tachi Yamada “passed away unexpectedly” in August 2021. I wonder what was the cause of death? He looked not old and quite healthy… Maybe he partook in the intracellular miracles? More from my secret Moderna source: There is an email today asking for employees to donate blood to develop assays that will be used to generate key data in their clinical trials. They are offering $75 gift cards. Starting April of 2025 the covid campaign [is expected to] kick off, [therefore] by April of 2024 they will be in full covid vax production. I find it odd this year [2023] there was no covid vax production, boosters etc were basically left over from the original product runs. I am going to speculate here about this interesting timing: 2024 is an election year! Biden (or a suitable puppet substitute) needs to be installed/reinstalled, and therefore the government’s covid boot should be off our necks since it is associated too much with the current regime. The authorized “freedom” narrative goes like this: Mistakes were made, dolts botched shit, replace those dolts with some other dolts, do some listening sessions to pretend public pushback had some impact. Do some bombshell interviews on Tucker Carlson’s show, where literal truth bombs like “Pfizer lied!!” “FDA didn’t do its job!” and “WHO bad!” are allowed to be dropped. Blame Pfizer for everything! (don’t mention Moderna too often, best - not at all). Even allow somebody to sue Pfizer! Blame the corporate greed, the greedy capitalists, corporations and stuff. Note: the federal government is not at fault, they are saintly incompetent people prone to making many mistakes. They are sincerely stupid, and just can’t see the data! Ask them to look at the VAERS data one more time… There is non-zero probability that Pfizer production may be shut down at some point: maybe FDA will “find” manufacturing violations, or maybe AG Paxton will miraculously prevail in his lawsuit in TX for false advertising, maybe investigation by Ron DeSantis will miraculously turn out not to be a fake political stunt - there are several potential scenarios how this will unfold. Note, this post was written and scheduled several weeks ago. Late breaking news: Ron DeSantis’s grand jury is a political stunt and a total joke. In any case, Moderna might become the “exclusive” manufacturer of Poison-19, just like Emergent Biosolutions is exclusive for the anthrax poisoning-of-the-troops elixir. Hence, planning ramped up volumes in 2025. Since Moderna is a DOD/DARPA/CDC/CIA company, this should tell us that the government are planning another bunch of false flags, fear mongering and generation of “sentinel cases” (cruise ships, Navy ships, subways, large events, other crowded places) for some “new mutated covid variant” in 2025. Or they are simply expecting the VAIDS to ramp up by 2025. Or all/combinations of the above. It should be noted that Moderna doesn’t really make their product, it is made for them by the DOD/CIA’s baby Resilience - a biomanufacturing behemoth, funded and controlled by the federal government. Resilience goes by several names (aka Nanotherapeutics, Ology and a few others), and has many strong links to the CIA and Inqtel (CIA’s “venture fund”). Here is a well made 7 min analysis, click on the link: https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1735421884395860246 Here is my prediction for the dominant narratives in regard to this for the elections year - R vs D affiliations do not matter. Only the candidates that are beholden to the Pandemic Preparedness Cult (here, here, here) will be allowed to proceed to the actual ticket. So that the DOD/CIA control them no matter what the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the DOD/CIA to continue making poison, pumping poison and profit from it. Thus, be prepared for your favorite candidate to endorse the idea of pandemics and outbreaks of dangerous pathogens, the idea that the government must “protect” us from these dangers, the stories of dolts botching shit, pointing of fingers at their opponent who was “pro-lockdown and masking”, promises to replace dolts with some other better dolts, even promises to get Pfizer and their corporate greed “brought to justice”, sort of. But do not expect any of your favorite candidates to point at the root cause of the millions of dead and injured - the federal government and its goon agents who built the illegal-legal cage where genocide is completely legal, or at a minimum, impossible to prosecute. That’s because the goal of your favorite political candidate is to align with the interests of that awesome federal government power pyramid in order to be hired as its next sock puppet, not to upset or reform it. Art for today: Hydrangea and Sake Bottle, oil on panel, 14x18 in. https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/moderna-is-planning-another-covid.html