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/

SV40, a DNA Altering, Carcinogenic Contaminant, found in Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccines The ExposéMarch 17, 2024 It’s not just the spike protein and the mRNA that are a problem. Both Pfizer and Moderna covid injections also have DNA contamination and Pfizer’s covid injection contains SV40 promoters. Microbiologist Kevin McKernan pioneered research on testing some of the covid vaccine vials and discovered unacceptable levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids floating around. This is DNA contamination. He found the contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vials. During an interview with Peter Sweden, Sasha Latypova said that DNA contamination is “a huge problem because this is replication competent plasmid, it can then invade human cells, it can invade the bacterial cells that live in your gut. So, they go into the bacteria they replicate there, they replicate antibiotic-resistant genes…it can cause sepsis, it can cause cancer, all sorts of issues.” The World Council for Health (“WCH”) stated that a red line has been crossed. “DNA contamination of mRNA ‘vaccines’ poses a risk to everyone on the planet,” WCH said. “Replicable DNA, so-called plasmids, in both the monovalent and bivalent vaccines, which should not be there at all … We can only speculate how it will end, but what needs to happen today after the publication of the paper by McKernan et al (2023) is an immediate stop of the ‘covid-19 vaccine’ program.” In Pfizer’s mRNA injection, McKernan also discovered Simian Virus 40 (“SV40”) promoters which are tied to cancer development in humans. He emphasised that the SV40 found is a viral piece, it is not the whole virus. However, it still presents a risk of driving cancer. SV40 or Simian Virus 40 was the 40th virus found in rhesus monkey kidney cells when these cells were used to make the polio vaccine. This virus contaminated both the inactivated polio vaccine (“IPV”) and the oral or “live” polio vaccine (“OPV”) developed by Dr. Albert Sabin. When it was discovered that SV40 was an animal carcinogen that had found its way into the polio vaccines, a federal law was passed in 1961 that required that no vaccines contain this virus. Kanekoa The Great tweeted two audio/video transcripts. One of a recent interview with McKernan explaining his discoveries and another of a Japanese professor expressing his concerns about these discoveries. We have republished these transcripts below. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… DNA Contamination and SV40 Discovered McKernan joined Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz on Friday to warn that there is no quality control in the manufacturing process of these vaccines. If his findings turn out to be widespread, it could portend an even greater risk for anaphylaxis, blood clotting, developing resistance to antibiotics, gene integration risk, and long-term production of spike protein within the body. You can listen to an audio of the interview on Apple podcasts HERE. During the interview, McKernan said: “It’s in both Moderna and Pfizer. We looked at the bivalent vaccines for both Moderna and Pfizer and only the monovalent vaccines for Pfizer because we didn’t have access to monovalent vaccines for Moderna. In all three cases, the vaccines contain double-stranded DNA contamination. If you sequence that DNA, you’ll find that it matches what looks to be an expression vector that’s used to make the RNA… “Whenever we see DNA contamination, like from plasmids, ending up in any injectable, the first thing people think about is whether there’s any E. coli endotoxin present because that creates anaphylaxis for the injected. And, of course, your viewers and listeners are probably aware there’s a lot of anaphylaxis going on, not only on TV but in the VAERS database. You can see people get injected with this and drop. That could be the background from this E. coli process of manufacturing the DNA… “At least on the Pfizer side of things, it has what’s known as an SV40 promoter. This is an oncogenic virus piece. It’s not the entire virus. However, the small piece is known to drive very aggressive gene expression. And the concern that people, even at the FDA, have noted in the past whenever injecting double-stranded DNA is that these things can then integrate into the genome. If you’re not careful with how you manufacture these things, and you have excess amounts of this DNA, your concern for genome integration goes up… “If you get an SV40 promoter in front of an oncogene, you will end up with a high expression of a gene that can drive cancer, it will be a very rare event, but you don’t need many of these cells to be hit with something like this for it to take off. SV40 actually plagued, granted it was the full viral genome, not just the promoter, but this has plagued previous vaccine programs. The polio vaccine is one of them that they were concerned that this may have contributed to cancer from that vaccine. So, there’s a history of being concerned over SV40. “Having the promoter inside some of these vectors isn’t necessary. It seems to be superfluous oversight they could have eliminated, yet it’s still there because they ran this out the door so quickly, they didn’t really have time to get rid of superfluous parts of the plasmid. So, that piece of DNA is something we really need to pay attention to. We’ve made quantitative PCR assays to hunt for this. So several researchers around the globe are now running these assays to look for how much of this DNA is floating around after people have been vaccinated.” Further reading: Sequencing the Pfizer monovalent mRNA vaccines also reveals dual copy 72-bp SV40 Promoter, Anandamide (Kevin McKernan), 12 April 2023 dsDNA variance in Pfizer Docs, Anandamide (Kevin McKernan), 20 May 2023 McKernan, K., Helbert, Y., Kane, L. T., & McLaughlin, S. (2023, April 10). Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/b9t7m Plasmid DNA is a Known Pfizer Ingredient – NOT a Contaminant, Karen Kingston, 14 April 2023 Japanese Professor Expresses Concern Japanese Professor Murakami of Tokyo University expressed his concerns over the alarming discovery of SV40 promoters McKernan had made. He said: “The Pfizer vaccine has a staggering problem. I have made an amazing finding. This figure is an enlarged view of Pfizer’s vaccine sequence. As you can see, the Pfizer vaccine sequence contains part of the SV40 sequence here. This sequence is known as a promoter. Roughly speaking, the promoter causes increased expression of the gene. The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. “The question is why such a sequence that is derived from a cancer virus is present in Pfizer’s vaccine. There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine. This is not the only problem. If a sequence like this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. “So, it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. This is such an alarming problem. It is essential to remove the sequence. However, Pfizer produced the vaccine without removing the sequence. That is outrageously malicious. This kind of promoter sequence is completely unnecessary for the production of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, SV40 is a promoter of cancer viruses.” https://expose-news.com/2024/03/17/sv40-a-dna-altering-carcinogenic-contaminant-found-in-pfizers-covid-19-vaccines/

Australia challenged on ‘moral failure’ of weapons trade with Israel Regular protests have been taking place outside Australian firms making crucial components for the F-35 fighter jet. Ali MC Protesters sitting outside the HTA factory in the Melbourne suburbs,. There is a large placard reading 'Stop arming Israel" Weekly protests have been taking place for months [Ali MC/Al Jazeera] Melbourne, Australia – Israel’s continued assault on Gaza has highlighted a hidden yet crucial component of the world’s weapons manufacturing industry – suburban Australia. Tucked away in Melbourne’s industrial north, Heat Treatment Australia (HTA) is an Australian company that plays a vital role in the production of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters; the same model that Israel is using to bomb Gaza. Weekly protests of about 200 people have been taking place for months outside the nondescript factory, where heat treatment is applied to strengthen components for the fighter jet a product of US military giant Lockheed Martin. While protesters have sometimes brought production to a halt with their pickets, they remain concerned about what’s going on inside factories like HTA. “We decided to hold the community picket to disrupt workers, and we were successful in stopping work for the day,” Nathalie Farah, protest organiser with local group Hume for Palestine, told Al Jazeera. “We consider this to be a win.” “Australia is absolutely complicit in the genocide that is happening,” said 26-year-old Farah, who is of Syrian and Palestinian origin. “Which is contrary to what the government might have us believe.” More than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its war in Gaza six months ago after Hamas killed more than 1,000 people in a surprise attack on Israel. The war, being investigated as a genocide by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has left hundreds of thousands on the brink of starvation, according to the United Nations. HTA – which did not respond to Al Jazeera for comment – is just one of an increasing number of companies in Australia engaged in the weapons manufacturing industry. Community organiser Nathalie Farah. She's wearing a Palestinian scarf and a black T-shirt saying Australia. Nathalie Farah has been organising regular protests outside HTA’s factory [Ali MC/Al Jazeera] According to Lockheed Martin, “Every F-35 built contains some Australian parts and components,” with more than 70 Australian companies having export contracts valued at a total 4.13 billion Australian dollars ($2.69bn). Protesters have also picketed Rosebank Engineering, in Melbourne’s southeast, the world’s only producer of the F-35’s “uplock actuator system”, a crucial component of the aircraft’s bomb bay doors. Sign up for Al Jazeera Weekly Newsletter protected by reCAPTCHA Defence industry push In recent years, the Australian government has sought to increase defence exports to boost the country’s flagging manufacturing industry. In 2018, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Australia aimed to become one of the world’s top 10 defence exporters within a decade. It is currently 30th in global arms production, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute. It is an aspiration that appears set to continue under the government of Anthony Albanese after it concluded a more than one-billion-Australian-dollar deal with Germany to supply more than 100 Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier vehicles in 2023 – Australia’s single biggest defence industry deal. Since the Gaza war began, the industry and its business relationship with Israel have come increasingly under the spotlight. Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles insisted that there were “no exports of weapons from Australia to Israel and there haven’t been for many, many years”. However, between 2016 and 2023 the Australian government approved some 322 export permits for military and dual-use equipment to Israel. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s own data – available to the public online – shows that Australian exports of “arms and ammunition” to Israel totalled $15.5 million Australian dollars ($10.1m) over the same period of time. Officials now appear to be slowing the export of military equipment to Israel. In a recent interview with Australia’s national broadcaster ABC, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy insisted the country was “not exporting military equipment to Israel” and clarified this meant “military weapons, things like bombs”. However, defence exports from Australia fall into two categories, items specifically for military use – such as Boxer Heavy Weapons vehicles for Germany – and so-called ‘dual use’ products, such as radar or communications systems, that can have both civilian and military uses. Australia’s Department of Defence did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests about whether the halt to defence exports to Israel also included dual-use items. What is certain is that companies such as HTA and Rosebank Engineering are continuing to manufacture components for the F-35, despite the risk of deployment in what South Africa told the International Court of Justice in December amounted to “genocidal acts“. In the Netherlands – where parts for the jet are also manufactured – an appeal court last month ordered the Dutch government to block such exports to Israel citing the risk of breaching international law. The Australian government has also come under scrutiny for its lax “end-use controls” on the weapons and components it exports. As such, while the F-35 components are exported to US parent company Lockheed Martin, their ultimate use is largely outside Australia’s legal purview. Lauren Sanders, senior research fellow on law and the future of war at the University of Queensland, told Al Jazeera that the “on-selling of components and military equipment through third party states is a challenge to global export controls. “Once something is out of a state’s control, it becomes more difficult to trace, and to prevent it being passed on to another country,” she said. Sanders said Australia’s “end use controls” were deficient in comparison with other exporters such as the United States. “The US has hundreds of dedicated staff – with appropriate legal authority to investigate – to chase down potential end-use breaches,” she said. “Australia does not have the same kind of end-use controls in place in its legislation, nor does it have the same enforcement resources that the US does.” A protester carrying a Palestinian flag at a picket outside an Australian arms company. They have wrapped a Palesinian scarf around their face so only their eyes are visible, Other protesters are behind them. They have placards. Some are sitting on the ground. The protesters say they will continue their action until manufacturing of F-35 components is stopped [Ali MC/Al Jazeera] In fact, under legislation passed in November 2023, permits for defence goods are no longer required for exports to the United Kingdom and the US under the AUKUS security agreement. In a statement, the government argued the exemption would “deliver 614 million [Australian dollars; $401m] in value to the Australian economy over 10 years, by reducing costs to local businesses and unlocking investment opportunities with our AUKUS partners”. International law This new legislation may provide more opportunities for Australian weapons manufacturers, such as NIOA, a privately owned munitions company that makes bullets at a factory in Benalla, a small rural town in Australia’s southeast. The largest supplier of munitions to the Australian Defence Force, NIOA – which did not respond to Al Jazeera for comment – also has aspirations to break into the US weapons market. At a recent business conference, CEO Robert Nioa said that “the goal is to establish greater production capabilities in both countries so that Australia can be an alternative source of supply of weapons in times of conflict for the Australian and US militaries”. Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Al Jazeera that the government needed to “publicly and immediately refute the plan to become a top 10 global arms dealer and then to provide full transparency on all Australian arms exports including end users. “While governments in the Netherlands and the UK are facing legal challenges because of their role in the global supply chain, the Australian Labor government just keeps handing over weapons parts as though no genocide was happening,” he said. “It’s an appalling moral failure, and it is almost certainly a gross breach of international law.” The Australian government also recently announced a 917 million Australian dollar ($598m) deal with controversial Israeli company Elbit Systems. A court in the Netherlands hearing a case brought in relation to military exports. The room is wood panelled and there is a portrait on the wall. The Dutch government has faced legal action over the export of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel [File: Piroschka van de Wouw/Reuters] Elbit has come under fire for its sale of defence equipment to the Myanmar military regime, continuing sales even after the military, which seized power in a 2021 coup, was accused of gross human rights violations – including attacks on civilians – by the United Nations and others. Despite a recent joint announcement between the Australian and UK governments for an “immediate cessation of fighting” in Gaza, some say Australia needs to go further and cut defence ties with Israel altogether. “The Australian government must listen to the growing public calls for peace and end Australia’s two-way arms trade with Israel,” Shoebridge said. “The Albanese government is rewarding and financing the Israeli arms industry just at the moment they are arming a genocide.” Protests have continued both at the HTA factory in Melbourne and their premises in Brisbane, with organisers pledging to continue until the company stops manufacturing components for the F-35. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/28/australia-challenged-on-moral-failure-of-weapons-trade-with-israel

COVID Vaccine Gene Could Integrate Into Human Cancer Cells: Researcher What Mr. McKernan and his team have found contradicts the latest arguments from fact-checkers. COVID Vaccine Gene Could Integrate Into Human Cancer Cells: Researcher (CROCOTHERY/Shutterstock) Following his discovery of DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, genomic researcher Kevin McKernan has recently found that the DNA in these vaccines can potentially integrate into human DNA. The COVID-19 vaccine spike sequence was detected in two types of chromosomes in cancer cell lines following exposure to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Mr. McKernan’s findings, which he presents on his Substack blog, haven’t been peer-reviewed. These are expected to be “rare events,” but they can happen, Mr. McKernan told The Epoch Times. DNA Integration Since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify human DNA by combining their sequences with the human genome. Story continues below advertisement “Fact-checkers” refuted this, saying mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA. Ulrike Kämmerer, a professor of human biology at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, conducted earlier stages of this research. Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that about half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating that they had absorbed the vaccines. Mr. McKernan then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells and their descendant cells contained vaccine DNA. Story continues below advertisement After this, he tested to see whether any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells because it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk. However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA integration are less clear. Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines, as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory. Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure that the integration is not a result of misreading or random error, he said. Story continues below advertisement “The integration of ‘vaccine’ genetic information into the genome of cells was not such a surprise for me—more the confirmation of what we had to expect, unfortunately,” he told The Epoch Times. Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was detected on only two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results. The current findings are still preliminary, he said. More tests are also needed to determine whether DNA integration could be passed on to descendant cancer cells and whether this may affect cancer patients. Also, since the test was conducted in cancer cells and not in healthy human cells, it does not suggest the same integration would occur in healthy human cells. Story continues below advertisement However, Hiroshi Arakawa, a researcher at the Institute of Molecular Oncology who has a doctorate in molecular biology and immunology, wrote in his blog that “what happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells” after examining Mr. McKernan’s data. His review of Mr. McKernan’s data also found signs of DNA integration at chromosomes 9 and 12. “A wide variety of abnormalities can occur [in normal cells] depending on the site of genome integration,” Mr. Arakawa said. Not Random Events The two integration events into chromosome 9 occurred at the same place, as did the integration events into chromosome 12. Mr. McKernan said the odds of this occurring are one in 3 billion, highlighting that where the DNA integrates may not be random. Story continues below advertisement “There’s likely hotspots for this,” he told The Epoch Times, highlighting that in the human genome, jumping genes—short segments of DNA sequences—tend to “jump” into highly activated areas of DNA. Highly activated DNA tends to play important roles in the human body. The DNA integration into chromosome 12 occurred within the FAIM2 gene. Once activated, this gene creates a protein involved in programmed cell death. Since cancer cells evade cell death, the integration at chromosome 12 may be a survival-driven change. Vaccine DNA Is Active in the Cells Mr. McKernan said he believes that vaccine DNA is highly active in cancer cells. His sequencing machine detected the DNA of cancer cells 30 times but detected spike DNA 3,000 times. Not only did he detect much higher levels of vaccine DNA, but he also detected new variants in certain segments of the vaccine DNA. Story continues below advertisement These new DNA variations were not observed in unvaccinated cancer cells nor in the vaccine not exposed to the cancer cells. Mr. McKernan said he believes that these new gene variants likely occurred because the cancer cell made copies of the vaccine DNA and created small errors. What he and his team have found contradicts the latest arguments from fact-checkers claiming that the DNA from the mRNA vaccines cannot get into the cell, nor can it be active, he said. DNA Contamination From mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing DNA is present in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines because of the manufacturing process. This has been verified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and the European Medicines Agency. The mRNA vaccines are made from DNA; some of this DNA persists in the final product because of insufficient clearance. Initially, Pfizer reported that it would use a PCR machine to produce the DNA for its mRNA vaccine. The PCR machine first makes many copies of DNA, which is then sequenced into RNA. However, because this process wouldn’t be fast enough to meet demands, the vaccine manufacturers switched to using bacteria to mass-produce DNA as the template for the mRNA vaccine. In this process, vaccine manufacturers introduce bacterial DNA containing the vaccine spike sequences. The bacteria make many copies of this spike DNA as they divide. This spike DNA is then harvested and transcribed into mRNA in a machine. The mRNA is then packaged into lipid nanoparticles for use in vaccination. However, some bacterial DNA containing spike protein and other sequences could be packaged into lipid nanoparticles during the process, which would then be transported into cells during vaccination. Mr. McKernan’s earlier works have demonstrated this. Works by molecular virologist David Speicher have shown that the amount of DNA in the mRNA vaccine vials is higher than the FDA’s allowable threshold of 10 nanograms per vaccine dose. Mr. McKernan highlighted that compared with previous vaccines, mainly composed of naked DNA that had difficulty entering the cells, the DNA carried in the mRNA vaccines presents greater health risks, as it is packed into lipid nanoparticles and delivered straight into the cells. https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-vaccine-gene-could-integrate-into-human-cancer-cells-researcher-5604184

The Shedding Disease What's going on and what to do about it Dr. Syed Haider Back in the 1300s during the Black Death plague outbreak in Europe, people were dropping like flies from this mystery illness. No one knew how it spread or how to protect themselves. Imagine their shock when some folks started getting sick without ever coming into direct contact with a plague victim! Turns out, the plague was spreading through fleas hitching a ride on rats. Even if you never touched a sick person, a plague-carrying flea could jump off a rat and bite you, infecting you with the deadly disease. Image Huge rat > truly gigantic flea > normal or tiny (?) peasant Crazy, right? Fast forward to today, and as most of you already know we might be facing a somewhat similar situation with the clot shots. For the FOBs (Fresh off the Boat from normie land), hear me out… So there's been a ton of stories popping up lately about unvaxxed people, mostly women, having all sorts of weird health issues after being around recently vaccinated folks. We're talking things like wacky periods, miscarriages, crazy autoimmune flares, cancers, strokes, etc, all in people who never got the jab themselves. At first it seemed like coincidence, but the reports kept piling up. It got many doctors scratching their heads (others like me didn’t scratch, we just knew) and wondering, could there be something to this? Image Man scratches head, Not me. Could vaccinated people be "shedding" something that's making unvaccinated people sick? There's a few theories flying around. One is that the spike proteins made by the vaccines are hitching a ride in tiny bubbles called exosomes that are released in breath, sweat, and other bodily fluids. So an unvaxxed person breathes in these exosomes and boom(!), the toxic spike proteins get into their body and start wreaking havoc. Some people seem super sensitive and react to even tiny amounts. Image Exosomes are just little bits of our cells membranes that bud off, and can carry anything inside them. In a way viruses are just a class of exosomes, but carrying genetic material that originated outside us (and then multiplied inside us). Another idea is that the vaccines are turning people into stealthy virus super-spreaders without them even knowing it. They might feel fine, but they could be carrying and shedding high amounts of virus to everyone around them. So it's not really something in the shot that's being shed, its that they catch COVID, have no symptoms and then just go around spreading COVID everywhere and it’s the COVID that causes the problem (sounds like Big Pharma cope to me, kind of like: it's all in their heads! So yeah, I’m not buying it either). Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share There's even studies showing the vaccines contain DNA junk from the manufacturing process that might be messing with our microbiome and turning vaxxed people into walking bio-hazards (this is more like it). Some theories are farther out there, like it’s some kind of energetic imbalance, or it’s graphene oxide, or even some kind of nanotech (all your cells are belong to us! not very convincing imo). Image This is not real! My take on the "flashing lights" in the nanotech videos: spinning particulate crystals dispersing incident light from the microscope? The apparently self-assembling structures: chemical gardens? The broadcasted MAC addresses? Put that sample in a Faraday cage and check it again. Anyway, regardless of the mechanism there’s something strange going on. The science is still new (there's not much of a career in studying this stuff), but evidence is beginning to stack up suggesting that this "vaccine shedding" stuff might be legit. Researchers are finding vaccine cooties like mRNA, spike proteins, and weird DNA bits in saliva, vaginal secretions, sperm, breast milk, even the air around vaxxed people. Image For the love of God don’t vax the kiddos. So what to do? Figure out your personal risk level. Some folks seem to be more sensitive than others, especially if you already have health issues (or had spike toxicity before). Might be smart to take extra precautions. Rain check: avoid swapping saliva or other Fun Time Activities with vaxxed people if you can, at least for a few weeks to months after they get the shot. Feed your body the good stuff to beef up your natural defenses. We're talking clean eats, plenty of Zzz's, and immune-boosting supps like the sunshine vitamin (I mean actual sunshine), as well as actual supplements like C, D, zinc, and quercetin. Consider adding some anti-shedding supplements to your arsenal, like DETOX [spike buster] to bust up clots or ivermectin to nuke those spike proteins. Work with a dialed in doc (i.e. me) to find the right combo for you. If you got mega-dosed with someone's shed, you might need to pull out the big detox guns like plasma donation (which is better tho the paid, or more expensive, less available therapeutic plasmapheresis), ozone therapy, ultraviolet blood irradiation, low-dose naltrexone, microbiome restoration (i.e. stool transplants, probably somewhere in South America or maybe Australia), or IV exosomes. We can help with a custom detox plan at mygotodoc.com (that's me). Don't forget to clean your space! Some have reported you can detoxify a room where shedding occurred using hypochlorous acid (Danolyte) or Chlorine Dioxide. UV light systems may also be able to zap any shed cooties floating around (plus they kills normal COVID too, bonus!) Share Bottom line, we need way more research on this shedding stuff ASAP. But until we know for sure it's not a thing, better safe than shedding or shed upon. We all have the right to choose what goes in our bodies, and that includes not getting stealth dosed with someone else's vaccine gunk. The health bigwigs need to step up and take this seriously stat (yea right - someone needs to take them to the woodshed, or just shed on them). Until then (forever?), keep your eyes open, trust your gut, and do what you gotta do to stay safe out there! And if you think you got shed upon, speak up and find a doc who will actually listen (again: moi). Shedding is no joke, but together we'll get through this and come out stronger on the other side. Drop a comment below and let me know if you’ve been shed upon, what you know works and what else we should do (Nuremberg 2.0, anyone?). https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/the-shedding-disease https://telegra.ph/The-Shedding-Disease-03-20

Sending This Notice of Liability To Your Doctors May Wake Them Up And Stop Them Causing More Harm Feel free to adapt this letter template as you see fit Dr Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​ This is just a quick post to share a letter that we have drafted with the help of a valued solicitor as a first notice of liability to your doctor or vaccinating health practitioner. We felt it was best to keep to a page so that it will be read! This text for this full Letter Template to Doctors and Health Practitioners administering, promoting or facilitating Covid-19 injections can be found and copied below Feel free to copy, paste and adapt as you see fit. If you want to add links, for example to the DNA contamination independent expert hearing, please share suggestions to others in the comments below. Let us know what your doctor’s response too! Sharing with paid subscribers today and all for free tomorrow! Thank you so much for supporting our work. We could not do it without you. I hope this template inspires you to get active! We are not helpless. There are many things one can do. Your actions today will help others. Share [Enter Address] [Enter Date] Dear Sir/Madam/Doctor Re: Administration of SARS CoV2 vaccines: I write to put you on notice that your practice/NHS Trust/clinic may be liable for gross negligence in administering the SARS CoV2 vaccine. A clinician has to obtain free and informed consent before carrying out any medical procedure. A failure to obtain free and informed consent can be both a breach of the duty of care as well as a battery. To obtain a patient’s consent a clinician has to advise the patient of the material risks of the procedure. Material risks will vary from person to person. A doctor is under a legal obligation to inform patients of material risks so that patients can then decide autonomously whether they wish to run those material risks. The reason why the practice is at risk is that in relation to the mRNA vaccines, patients have not been advised of the following: The long term material risks of SARS CoV2 vaccines are unknown. The mRNA platform is a gene therapy where material risks are identified over a period up to 15 years. Patients have not been advised that the vaccine is a gene therapy. Follow up studies are awaited on medium term material risks. The Pfizer vaccine that is being rolled out uses a different manufacturing process, process two, to the vaccine that was authorised which was developed via process one. There has been no large RCT of process two vaccines and material risks are only being identified during the roll out. SV40 plasmids have been found in Pfizer SARS CoV2 vaccines. At least two regulators have now acknowledged the presence of SV40. SV40 inhibits cancer suppressing cells and promotes cancer forming cells. In the circumstances I would be grateful if you would confirm in writing that patients are being advised by your clinicians about the known material risks, including plasmid contamination, and the fact that there are unknown material risks relating to gene therapies and that such material risks are identified over time. Yours sincerely [insert name] Thanks for your collaboration to make a better world! Value Exchange If you find value in these Substack articles and videos, please recommend it to others. All proceeds from paid subscriptions go to the work of the World Council for Health. You can also make a one-off donation or become a regular monthly donor in 2024 to support our expanding WCH team and humanitarian work. Share A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie WCH Notice of Liability to Covid Vaccinators The World Council for Health have put together a useful template Notice of Liability for the public to use to educate and serve on those healthcare professionals who are still vaccinating people with the Covid-19 jabs. "This text for this full Letter Template to Doctors and Health Practitioners administering, promoting or facilitating Covid-19 injections can be found and copied below. Feel free to copy, paste and adapt as you see fit. If you want to add links" https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/this-notice-of-liability-to-your

Tobias Mann - Intel inches closer to $3.5B contract to build secret fabs for Uncle Sam: https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/07/intel_3b_military/ #Intel #USCHIPSAct #Subsidy #MadeInUSA #Semiconductors #Fabrication #Manufacturing #Engineering

12 Israeli sensor technologies that will rock your world No more canaries in mines: Today’s sensors provide key information on everything from digital health to airport safety. By Brian Blum Sensors translate physical phenomena to a measurable signal. Photo courtesy of Consumer Physics/SCiO Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health. “A sensor is anything that translates a physical phenomenon to a measurable signal or other information. For example, in the past they used canaries as sensors for poisonous gas in mines,” explains Amichai Yifrach, an Israeli expert in military and civilian sensor development and currently the CTO of ag-tech startup Flux. “Using that definition, Israel is on the cutting edge of technology in all aspects of sensors,” he tells ISRAEL21c. “A lot of it is related to our capabilities in sensing things that others cannot, especially in relation to border security and airport control.” Historically, Israel’s edge in sensor technology comes from defense needs and much of the sector is still focused on military applications, with companies such as Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Seraphim Optronics in the lead. YOU CAN GET ISRAEL21c NEWS DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX. But as in many other fields, knowhow from the military gave a huge boost to Israel’s civilian sensor industry. “On the consumer side, we’re strong in image processing and algorithms. We have very good chemists, too,” says Yifrach. “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar,” Yifrach predicts. “Processes that follow chemical or physical properties need sensing to deduct valuable information for future quality or efficiency of the process. It all comes down to monitoring and controlling processes for quality.” ISRAEL21c chose a dozen Israeli sensor pioneers to illustrate the country’s strength in this powerful sector. Sensifree Sensifree specializes in low-power, contact-free, electromagnetic sensors that accurately collect a range of continuous biometric data without the need to touch the human body. Its first product, a contactless heartrate sensor for wearable devices such as watches, fitness trackers and smart clothing, will be followed by a cuff-free blood-pressure sensor. Based in California with R&D in Petah Tikva, Sensifree recently won $5 million in Series A financing, bringing its total funding since launching its revolutionary RF-based biometric sensor technology to $7 million. MS Technologies Based in Herzliya Pituah, MS Tech designs and manufactures nanotechnology detection and diagnostic sensors. Major airlines use its hand-held, non-radioactive explosives and narcotics detectors for carry-on baggage inspection, air-cargo screening and passenger security checks in several airports. Other industries that use MS Tech sensor technologies include food safety and product inspection, biomedical diagnostics, fire and smoke detection, water and air monitoring and aerospace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4Q4SIYmRs ContinUse Biometrics ContinUse of Tel Aviv received a strategic investment from the multinational corporation Tyco to develop nanotechnology sensors that will be embedded into a range of construction and smart-home solutions. ContinUse Biometrics’ biometric no-contact sensor — based on technology developed over a decade by Bar-Ilan and Valencia universities — can detect heartbeat, blood pressure, breathing pace, glucose level, oxygen saturation and alcohol levels in the blood of a fully dressed person without touching the person. This data can be used to authenticate identity and manage access for security and smart-home applications, workplaces and sensitive facilities. Vayyar Vayyar sensors could make every cellphone or tablet a full 3D imaging system. Based in Yehud, Vayyar uses low-power radio transmissions to scan objects in a fraction of a second and create an enhanced imaging experience. One of the applications is better detection of irregularities in an object being examined, for example to detect tumors on mammograms or bacteria in milk bottling. The company recently won the Fast Pitch Contest sponsored by the Global Electronics Industry Association in Tel Aviv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjUK-teB8o Elfi-Tech Elfi-Tech of Rehovot has introduced several sensor products for noninvasive measurements of physiological and blood parameters for use in fitness, wellness and first-line diagnostics apps. Its proprietary mDLS sensor module was integrated into Samsung’s Simband wearable open platform, and now the company is collaborating with pharma and medical-device industry to integrate mDLS into patient-monitoring devices. Elfi-Tech also is working with companies in the big-data analytics space on its new Data Logger device, which collects and analyzes mass amounts of cardiovascular health data from a single wearable. Accurate Sensors Technologies Started in 1994 as 3T, Accurate Sensors Technologies manufactures no-contact temperature-measurement solutions for extreme conditions, such as digital infrared thermometers. Headquartered in Misgav, the company also makes plug-and-play pyrometers — instruments for measuring high temperatures in furnaces and kilns – for the aluminum industry. Neteera Technologies Founded in January 2015 in partnership with Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Neteera is developing novel Terahertz imaging and sensing devices, of unprecedented resolution, size, cost-effectiveness and reliability. Neteera’s technology is revolutionary as it allows for multiple applications such as all-weather and night imaging for automotive and surveillance applications; weapons, explosives and contraband detection; medical imaging; manufacturing and quality control; monitoring of human physiological and biometric indicators and more. Occipital Occipital’s Structure Sensor is touted as the world’s first 3D sensor for mobile devices, adding 3D scanning, large-scale reconstruction and augmented-reality (AR) capabilities to new or existing iOS devices. Named a Popular Science “Best of What’s New” gadget for 2013, and recognized with a 2014 CES Innovations award, the Structure Sensor hardware platform gives developers the ability to easily create applications such as 3D mapping of indoor spaces, AR games, body scanning for fitness tracking and virtual clothes fitting, and 3D object scanning for easy 3D content creation. Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy Consumer Physics Consumer Physics’ soon-to-be-released SCiO device uses optical sensors to read the chemical makeup of just about anything without touching it: for example, the fat in a piece of cake, the ripeness of fruit, the ingredients in medicines, the properties of cosmetics and precious stones. Nexense Ramat Gan-based Nexense makes a sensor system worn as a chest strap or wristwatch to monitor various physical parameters during sleep for the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea. The product, already approved in Europe and Israel, counts GE Healthcare among its investors and is expected to go public in 2017. EarlySense EarlySense uses an under-bed sensor system for continuous monitoring of patient vital signs and movement in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Without ever touching the patient, EarlySense helps the clinical team manage early detection of patient deterioration, fall prevention and prevention of bedsores. EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy Saturas Saturas, founded in 2013 in the Trendlines incubator program, has developed a system of miniature implanted sensors and wireless transponders for determining the water status of fruit trees easily and inexpensively. According to CEO Anat Halgoa Solomon, the system (to be available in 2018) could save farmers up to 20 percent on water usage. Among many other sensor-based ag-tech companies in Israel are Phytech, AutoAgronom, CropX, GreenIQ and Flux. ISRAEL'S CIVILIAN BIOSENSOR INDUSTRY "Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health." “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar" https://www.israel21c.org/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that-will-rock-your-world/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that.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

The COVID-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX Dr. Ariyana Love By Dr. Ariyana Love Covid-19 vaccines use self-replicating, programmable nanotechnology and synthetic, modified RNA (modRNA) otherwise known as Spike Protein. We are told that a vaccine antigen is used in the Covid-19 technology to “evoke an immune response” but what if the Covid-19 vaccine antigen is ANTHRAX? “…hardly any natural pathogens are really well suited to being biowarfare agents from a military point of view. Such a bioweapon must fulfill a variety of demands: it needs to be produced in large amounts, it must act fast, it must be environmentally robust, and the disease must be treatable… only a minority of natural pathogens are suitable for military purposes. “Anthrax is of course the first choice because the causative agent, B. anthracis, fulfills nearly all of these specifications.” Anthrax was developed by Russia in 1950. According to the NIH, the USSR’s ‘invisible anthrax’ was created by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly deadly Bacillus Anthracis bacteria. This means that Cross-Species-Genomics capability was acquired by governments before 1950. A lethal bacterium and an alien gene were genetically altered and blended together to produce the deadly bioweapon known as Anthrax. Russia’s Anthrax could be treated with antibiotics even several days after exposure, and thus it met the requirements under the Biological Weapons Convention. A bioweapon of choice, Anthony Fauci decided to increase Anthrax lethality and the NIH began genetic attenuation before 2006. Through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function the NIH produced a more drastic and deadly Anthrax that’s resistant to antibiotics and more. According to a University of Minnesota publication, the United States D.O.D smuggled shipments of live B anthracis spores from the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, to other labs in the United States and abroad (Source: USA Today). The U.S. Army sent shipments of live samples of Anthrax to 86 labs outside the U.S. over a period of 10 years (Source: The Daily Beast). Transfers of samples of live B anthracis and the H5N1 influenza bioweapon were sent from CDC labs to other labs. CDC correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that labs studying bioterror pathogens “have failed over and over to comply with important safety and security regulations.” The D.O.D. tried to cover for the CDC, claiming “system failure” was to blame for the lab leaks, but we already know that the D.O.D spearheaded this “Covid-19 vaccine” roll-out. Please see: Aerosolized inoculation of Anthrax – Aerosolized Intratracheal Inoculation of Recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) Vaccine Provides In 2007, Anthony Fauci created the H7N9 bioweapon, otherwise known as the “influenza vaccine.” The NIH, CCP and the Israeli state collaborated through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function to produce the H7N9 “flu vaccine” and the new and improved “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine”. Ofir Israeli from the Israel Institute of Biological Research, sequenced the Bacillus anthracis V770-NP1-R Strain in 2014, creating a synthetic chemical bioweapon. The Israeli state oversaw the animal trials for the Anthrax “vaccine” and told us it was safe and effective. Meanwhile, the Israeli company called Sanofi Pasteur developed the first H7N9 “vaccine” and trialed it for the NIH in 2014. Also in 2014, the NIH developed the H7N9 “influenza vaccine” to be droplet transmissible. Simultaneously, in 2014 China achieved a 99% transmissibility of the H7N9 “flu vaccine”. China also trialed the first aerosolized intratracheal Anthrax “vaccine” on mice. The study revealed severe side effects. PLEASE SEE: NIH Using DEAD CORPSES To Make “Virus”; Gain Of Function Weaponized Dead Corpses The Israeli state, NIH and China turned their new and improved Anthrax bioweapon into an attenuated antigen to be used in vaccines under the guise of “evoking an immune response” and “vaccine immunity.” The nations have been intentionally poisoned with biowarfare. In March 2022, the Russian military discovered that the Covid-19 bioweapons are being developed in U.S. biolabs in Ukraine. This includes the plague, Ebola, Filoviruses’, Anthrax and more. Anthrax causes hemorrhaging. So does Ebola and Marburg. Ebola is used in the J&J and Sinovax jabs, while Filovirus is used in Moderna. Ebola and Marburg are both Anthrax. H7N9 is used in all “flu vaccines” while Anthrax is being used as a “vaccine adjuvant” in all Covid-19 jabs and swabs. Through Loss-Of-Function, genetic deletions were performed inside the B. anthracis bacteria to improve replication of the bacteria in vivo. This ensured hospital protocols would not work to stop the Anthrax from replicating inside the human body after inoculation due to it being antibiotic resistant. The B. anthracis bacteria was also genetically modified to survive in insect hosts so as not to sporulate before it’s injected into the human host by a Bill Gates GMO mosquito which is part of DARPA’s weaponized insect project called The Sentinels. Incidentally, the CDC owns the Anthrax isolate patent that was funded by the U.S. Government. This is treason. The CDC also says that a bioterrorist attack would most likely be Anthrax. Please see: Malaria Parasites In “Vaccines” Target Placenta, Kill Babies In Utero SPIKE PROTEIN IS AEROSOLIZED ANTHRAX There are 232 B. anthracis genomes that are currently available in the GenBank database. There’s an Anthrax “vaccine” for cattle and two strains are licensed for use in humans. There exist two patents for an “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine.” The first Anthrax “vaccine” patent for humans is partly owned by the U.S. Government. The second is a “Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine”. “The spores of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis STI-1 strain and the cell-free PA-based “vaccines” consisting of aluminum hydroxide-adsorbed supernatant material from cultures of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R or alum-precipitated culture filtrate from the Sterne strain. Each of these Anthrax toxins are being used for “cellular entry in humans“. The LF is a metalloprotease recently shown to cleave the amino termini of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinases 1 and 2, which results in their inactivation.” The above quote from the Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine patent reveals that the poisonous Anthrax “antigen” is being used to genetically modify the genome of humans (cellular entry into humans). By cleaving to the amino termini, protein kinases 1 and 2 are inactivated. This is accomplished by genetic deletions. The molecular basis of Anthrax “vaccines” includes “spores and DNA plasmids” that are entering human cells. The following quote about the Anthrax “protective antigen” is particularly revealing: “PA (protective antigen) is the common receptor binding domain of the toxins and can interact with the two different effector domains, EF and LF, to mediate their entry into target cells (14).” Anthrax is being used to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains”. Pharma has essentially found a way to encode any synthetic proteins into the human genome from any species they want, including bacteria. The “Aerosolized Anthrax Antigen” is being encoded into target cells to make those cells produce the chemical drug called Anthrax. This is how the Anthrax “vaccine” is aerosolized. Once a person is inoculated with the Covid-19 bioweapon through subcutaneous injection or nasopharyngeal delivery with contaminated PCR swabs, the weapon system will begin genetic deletions and encoding the genome of target cells with the Anthrax spike protein. A person begins producing the toxic spike protein and shedding Anthrax into the air, exposing everyone to Inhalation Anthrax. It’s a weapon system that is intentionally aerosolized. This study admits that the Anthrax spores from B. anthracis STI-1 strain and B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R used in the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccines” are toxigenic. The Sterne strain which is used to inoculate our food supply (animals) is also genotoxic. This NIH study explains how a “replicon” of the Bacillus anthracis bacteria was cloned into an Escherichia coli (E. coli) “vector” using cross-species-genomics. These two bacteria were synthetically fused together to enhance lethality. ALHYDROGEL According to the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccine” patents, the so-called “vaccine adjuvant” used is a DARPA weapon system called Alhydrogel. Hydrogel technology was developed over many years during a collaboration between DARPA and Profusa, a private biotech company specializing in the development of tissue-integrated biosensors. In 2018, DARPA published a video revealing their intention to use this biosensing technology for both military and public health. In the Alhydrogel invention, Anthrax was fused together into a nanogel called Alhydrogel, consisting of fibrous nanoparticles (Nanofibers) that are “antigen specific to CD4+ T cells”. In layman’s terms, the nanorobots are intentionally programmed to target and alter the genome of CD4-T cells, inducing cell death. This essential part of our immune system (T-cells) stop foreign invaders from entering our cells. Destroying our T-cells enables the government’s operating system to take root in the body and quicken death. Alhydrogel is infused with 750 μg of aluminum, making it magnetic. Nanofibers are used for self-assembly and electrospinning, for tissue engineering and delivery of drugs and chemicals into the brain. Being magnetic and nanotech based, the Alhydrogel can replicate everywhere in the body and wire a new neural network. Astonishingly, Alhydrogel is already the most widely used vaccine adjuvant! There are many Alhydrogel patents that contain toxic cocktails that will overwhelm anyone’s immune system. This Alhydrogel patent demonstrates it’s use of the B anthracis bacteria, E. coli, N. gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia, Staphylococcus, TB and more. It also contains the H5N1 influenza bioweapon, RNA, DNA synthesis and Polysorbate 80 for Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) permeability. This begs the question, where do venereal diseases come from? This Nature article reveals that 2% Alhydrogel is used in all Covid-19 “vaccines”. Previously, aluminum salts were the only adjuvants licensed for vaccine use in humans in the U.S. In recent decades, nanoparticle adjuvants in hydrated gels were introduced. The article continues by saying that the “influenza vaccine” was the first to use Alhydrogel. “Aluminum salt-based adjuvants such as alhydrogel have been a mainstay of vaccines for decades” boasts Christopher B. Fox and colleagues at the Infectious Disease Research Institute in Seattle, USA. Both nanoparticles and Anthrax have been used in vaccines for decades already, without the Informed Consent of the public. Alhydrogel was improved and transformed into the Nanoalum adjuvant. Here, we introduce a top-down manufacturing process—high-pressure microfluidization—to generate aluminum oxyhydroxide nanoparticles, hereupon referred to as nanoalum, using the clinically approved Alhydrogel adjuvant as the precursor. Alhydrogel is also carried in the lipid coating of nanoparticles. The “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccines” also contain SEQ ID NO: 1 which is owned by the Pirbright Institute (Bill & Melinda Gates). SEQ ID NO: 1 contains the world’s most deadly genetically modified parasites. Please see: MEGA BOMBS! GMO Parasites Are The mRNA Vector! ANTHRAX SYMPTOMS AND TREATMENT Anthrax has been deployed on the population by three methods; injection, inhalation and skin penetration. The mortality rate for Anthrax varies depending on the method of exposure. It’s approximately 20% fatality for cutaneous Anthrax and 25–75% for Gastrointestinal Anthrax. Inhalation Anthrax is by far the worst with a fatality rate that is 80% or higher. Inhalation Anthrax is what we’re all being exposed to from the Covid-19 jabs and contaminated PCR swabs. Antibiotics constitute the mainstay of treatment against Anthrax, despite the fact that they won’t work to stop its replication due to the NIH, China and Israel’s GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function enhancements (antibiotic resistance). Pharmaceutical experimental genotoxic drugs such as Oblitoxaximab and Raxibacumab are being touted as Anthrax treatments but these are monoclonal antibodies. We know from the monoclonal antibody patents that they’re also the “mRNA vaccine” weapon system. Anytime you inject recombinant proteins or modRNA into humans, it’s extremely toxic and will be rejected by our immune system 100% of the time. Please read: Monoclonal Antibodies Is mRNA Gene Knockdown Tech, Encoding HIV – Patent Review Pharma wants us to believe that the only known effective “prevention” against Anthrax is the Anthrax “vaccine”. However, the Anthrax “vaccine” inoculation given to U.S. military troops was a horrific disaster. U.S. Army statistics that were never published, show the Anthrax “vaccine” induces turbo cancers. The toxicological harms of Anthrax are many. It causes severe heart issues. Could this be a contributing factor to Myocarditis and Pericarditis? Anthrax also coagulates the blood. “Pathophysiological changes associated with anthrax lethal toxin included loss of plasma proteins, decreased platelet count, slower clotting times, fibrin deposits in tissue sections, and gross and histopathological evidence of hemorrhage. These findings suggest that blood vessel leakage and hemorrhage lead to disseminating intravascular coagulation and/or circulatory shock as an underlying pathophysiological mechanism.” Read more here and here. Anthrax induces hemorrhaging. So this explains all the excessive bleeding people have experienced over the last 4 years, following Covid-19 inoculation and from aerosolized exposure, otherwise known as the “shedding” phenomenon. This is a result of Inhalation Anthrax. It becomes clear that the newly dubbed “White Lung Syndrome” and the Chinese ‘pneumonia’ outbreak is none other than Inhalation Anthrax. Mycoplasma pneumonia is on the rise, and it’s listed on Pfizer’s internal documentation as a known Adverse Effect of the Covid-19 inoculation. This study reveals that Mycoplasma Pneumonia is aerosolized. WHO also confirms this phenomenon is Mycoplasma Pneumonia. All naturally occurring bacterium have cell walls. Mycoplasmas are spherical to filamentous cells with no cell walls. It’s genetically manipulated in a laboratory by GAIN-of-Function for the purpose of enhancing replication inside the human body, making it more lethal. Mice “treated” with anthrax lethal toxin (LT) exhibit hemorrhage and liver damage. Monocyte procoagulant responses to anthrax peptidoglycan are reinforced by proinflammatory cytokine signaling and histological lesions in the spleen. Anthrax has already been tested on the public. According to the NIH, Anthrax spores were intentionally released into “some environments” in NYC during 9/11. According to the NIH, the FBI launched an investigation called “Amerithrax”. It was “one of the largest and most complex (investigation) in the history of law enforcement”, according to the FBI. Heroine users in Europe have been tested with Injection Anthrax. Our skies are sprayed with smart dust and chemicals daily. Our governments have launched an all-out war against their constituents. We are being poisoned in a myriad of ways, so please keep this in mind: “Anthrax is easy to produce in large quantities, highly lethal, relatively easy to develop as a weapon, easily spread over a large area, easily stored and dangerous for a long time. Given appropriate weather and wind conditions, 50 kilograms of aerosolised anthrax spores released from an aircraft along a 2 kilometer line could create a lethal cloud of anthrax spores that would extend beyond 20 kilometers downwind. The aerosol cloud would be colorless, odorless and invisible following its release. Given the small size of the spores, people indoors would receive the same amount of exposure as on the street. There are currently no atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores. The first sign of a bioterrorist attack would most likely be patients presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax. A 1970 analysis by World Health Organization concluded that the release of aerosolized anthrax upwind to a population of 5,000,000 could lead to an estimated 250,000 casualties, of whom as many as 100,000 could be expected to die. A later analysis, by the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress estimated that 130,000 to 3 million deaths could occur following the release of 100 kilograms of aerosolized anthrax over Washington D.C., making such an attack as lethal as a hydrogen bomb.” TREATMENT If you have been inoculated with Covid-19 or PCR swabbed, and you are suffering from heart pain, unusual bleeding, skin rashes and abrasions, it could be Injection Anthrax. If you are “unvaccinated” and hemorrhaging from being around “vaccinated”, then you may have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax. Many doctors, including myself, have documented persistent bleeding rectally, violent bleeding vaginally, nasally and in the eyes. Since October 4th, I have received many reports of a red eye syndrome where the entire eye is blood-red. This makes sense because eye tissue is more sensitive. If you have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax, you may feel hot and severely flushed, and you may break out in big, red splotches on your skin, followed by a completely red eye in the morning. Although they don’t get much attention, “anti-toxins have long been considered an essential ‘adjunctive’ therapy, and remain so”, according to the NIH. Anti-toxins are the natural medicines that detox poisons. In other words, you need an effective natural medicine detox protocol. I have been successfully detoxing people from the Covid-19 bioweapons for three years. Since I began treating people presenting with Anthrax poisoning with strong antibacterials, my clients are experiencing quicker detox results. If you would like to schedule a consultation with me, please do so through my online booking system. Please follow me on Telegram @drloveariyana and X @drloveariyana. If you would like to donate to my research, please do so here. UPDATE: My Anthrax article is now fully edited and published on Substack. Please review and SHARE. The Covid-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX Read more: https://open.substack.com/pub/drloveariyana/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax?r=2juwfo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax.html

😱😱😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😡😡😡😡😡😡👿👿👿👿👿👿⚠️🥷🥷🥷🥷🥷🥷Eight different bovine ingredients (derived from cows) in vaccines: - Bovine casein (milk protein) - Bovine extract - Bovine cassation acids - Bovine serum albumen - Bovine calf serum - Bovine formula fed calf serum - Bovine calf serum protein - Fetal bovine serum (FBS) ----- Why are cow parts used for cell cultures and to make vaccines? According to the FDA, "simply because cows are very large animals, commonly used for food, and thus much material is available." ----- Fetal bovine serum (FBS) is the most widely used, the most difficult to obtain and the most expensive cell culture promoter used in drug manufacturing. ------ Here's how the bovine fetal blood is harvested. Cows are occasionally sent to slaughter because they are crippled or to simply thin a herd. If a cow is found to be pregnant during the removal of its internal organs, the uterus is quickly moved to a specialized extraction area so the fetal blood can be harvested within 30 minutes of the mother’s demise. This is done by inserting a sterile vacuum collection apparatus directly into the heart. The fetus must be at least 3 months of age or the heart is too small for puncture. A 3-month fetus yields about 150 ccs of serum while a near-term fetus (9 months) can yield up to 550 ccs. The heart must be beating to ensure the blood remains uncoagulated and all blood can be extracted from the fetus; therefore, it is presumed that the fetus is alive at the time of the extraction. After the blood is removed, the remains of the fetus are processed for animal feed. Approximately 500,000 liters (132,000 gallons) of FBS are sold per year, which means at least 1,000,000 unborn calf fetuses are subjected to the brutal harvesting procedure each year. ('The Disgusting Cow Stuff in Vaccines' by Sherry Tenpenny, 03 September 2023) https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/the-disgusting-cow-stuff-in-vaccines.

Vaccines Could Affect Mortality and Risks of Other Diseases: Study A recent review found non-live vaccines tend to increase a person’s risks of all-cause mortality, as well. Vaccines Could Affect Mortality and Risks of Other Diseases: Study (OSORIOartist/Shutterstock) Apart from potentially preventing a particular disease, vaccines may cause persistent nonspecific effects that can affect a person’s lifetime survival. In a review published on Dec. 26, 2023, in Vaccine, researchers found that non-live vaccines such as influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis B, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) tend to cause adverse nonspecific effects (NSE), increasing a person’s risks of all-cause mortality and infections from other diseases. A live vaccine contains a weakened form of the pathogen, which is less virulent but capable of replicating in the body, thus mimicking the actual disease progression. Non-live vaccines use inactivated viruses, fragments, or genes of the pathogen to trigger an immune response without pathogen replication. Live vaccines elicit a much stronger immune defense, typically requiring only one shot, while non-live vaccines result in a weaker response, often necessitating multiple shots. So far, research has identified several non-live vaccines that cause adverse NSEs, namely DTaP and Tdap, influenza H1N1, malaria, hepatitis B, inactivated polio, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The Vaccine study singled out DTaP, influenza, malaria, hepatitis B, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. On the other hand, live vaccines such as the oral live polio vaccine, the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine for tuberculosis, and the smallpox vaccines all have beneficial NSEs, according to the study. “Live vaccines ... elicit epigenetic alterations that train the innate immune system and increase immunity to unrelated infections. In opposition, non‐live vaccines may promote ‘tolerance’ that increases susceptibility to unrelated illnesses,” the authors suggested. The study was primarily based on decades of work from Danish researchers Dr. Christine Stabell Benn and Peter Aaby. “Our work is a tribute to their great scientific work that has not been recognized,” biologist Alberto Rubio-Casillas, one of the study’s authors, told The Epoch Times. Non-Live Vaccines Are Like ‘Ill-Prepared’ Army “Historically, we’ve thought about the innate immune system as the first line of defense,” Dr. Benn told The Epoch Times. It was thought that innate immunity couldn’t store memory. To use war as an analogy, the innate immune system’s “army” couldn’t learn from previous battles with pathogens. Adaptive immunity, on the other hand, could learn and be trained, forming antibodies to fight against the infection. Therefore, for a long time, vaccines were evaluated based on their effects on the adaptive immune system, and antibodies were measured following vaccination. However, researchers in the Netherlands have since shown that the innate immune system can be trained. After vaccinating people with the BCG vaccines and harvesting some of the patients’ innate immune cells, researchers found that after vaccination, the innate cells exhibited a more robust immune response and demonstrated improved clearance of tuberculosis, as well as other bacteria and fungi, when compared to patients’ prevaccination status. However, the opposite was shown for non-live vaccines. Thus, the innate immune system actually does learn something from its previous battles. This is called trained innate immunity. Live vaccines, which mimic an actual disease, enhance the effectiveness of the innate immune system in defending against infections. Non-live vaccines, on the other hand, weaken the immune system’s ability to fend off infections. In a TED talk, Dr. Benn compared infections to a competitive tennis match and live vaccines to a tennis coach. The tennis coach may change tactics and strategies, training the body to have “a wide variety of tricks” against the pathogen. Non-live vaccines, however, are like tennis ball machines that shoot out balls at a specific speed and spot. If a person only trains with a tennis ball machine, he or she will be less prepared for an actual match. “So you may be ill-prepared and even worse off when a real opponent enters the court, and the balls start coming and hitting elsewhere than what you trained for,” Dr. Benn said. Nonspecific Effects Some vaccines result in positive NSEs, but others may result in overall adverse NSEs. The order in which vaccines are administered also factors in. While non-live vaccines cause negative NSEs, administering a live vaccine after a non-live one neutralizes negative NSEs, Dr. Benn said. This has been shown in studies evaluating the safety of measles vaccines, which are often given at about the same time as DTP, a non-live vaccine. Studies have found that if the measles vaccine is given after the DTP vaccine, there is an overall positive effect, whereas if this order is reversed, then there is a negative effect. “It seems that effects are strongest as long as the vaccine is the most recent vaccine,” Dr. Benn said. Dr. Benn added that the BCG vaccine has long-term beneficial NSEs “in spite of other vaccines being given afterward.” The DTaP vaccine has arguably the most evidence of adverse NSEs. Girls who took the DTaP vaccine had a 50 percent higher risk of dying than boys who took it. Compared to girls who were DTaP-unvaccinated, vaccinated girls’ risk of dying was more than 2.5 times higher. Dr. Benn’s studies have generally shown that girls are at a greater risk of developing adverse NSEs after being administered non-live vaccines. Live Vaccines Replaced With Non-Live Vaccines Non-live vaccines are increasingly replacing live vaccines. For example, live oral polio vaccines are no longer available on the U.S. market, and a non-live version is administered instead. This substitution of live vaccines with non-live can pose potential health risks to the general immunity of the population, as the immune systems become less trained and potentially “lazy,” Dr. Benn said. However, the main reason non-live vaccines are preferred over live vaccines is that they’re believed to be safer for people with depleted immune systems. Since a live vaccine causes mild disease in the body, people with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome can develop a disease from the injection and may die since their bodies are unable to clear infections. Conversely, non-live vaccines comprise only disease components, so they can’t induce disease. In this aspect, the “risk of getting the real disease with the live vaccines has been seen as a bigger threat than I think it deserves,” Dr. Benn said. Research suggests that people with weaker immune constitutions because of age or chronic disease may sometimes benefit from having their immune systems trained using live vaccines. In one study involving hospitalized older patients randomized to get the BCG vaccine or a placebo, the incidence of disease among those who took the BCG vaccine was about half the incidence of disease in the placebo group. Health Authorities Still Skeptical Despite the evidence suggesting the potential superiority of live vaccines, Dr. Benn’s research has been largely unacknowledged by the mainstays of academia. “In my interpretation, whereas most researchers now acknowledge nonspecific effects, the major health organizations are reluctant to accept our findings because [the findings] imply the possibility that some vaccines may sometimes be harmful. So it is easier just to dismiss the whole thing,” she said. “The vaccine skeptics, on the other side, may find that our observations on non-live vaccines confirm their worst fears—vaccines can be harmful—but they may be more reluctant to accept the beneficial effects. And their focus on the negative effects may make the vaccine supporters take an even more rigid stance.” Immunologists now largely agree that some vaccines cause NSEs, but how these effects should be quantified remains controversial. This is because the NSEs of vaccines are dependent on context, whereas a vaccine’s specific effects are generally considered context-independent. For example, females may make more antibodies than males, and younger people more than older, but most people still get some form of immunity. “In contrast, because the nonspecific effects act on the broader innate and general immune system, they are dependent on other factors going on in the immune system ... like other health interventions that can alter and modify the nonspecific effects,” Dr. Benn said, noting that not everybody will have the same benefit. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies may be more reluctant to produce live vaccines because they’re harder to culture and manufacture. “If you have ever tried to bake with sourdough, it’s a little bit like live vaccines; they are very dependent on the temperature of the room, the water used to culture it, and so on,” Dr. Benn said. “But basically, all the live vaccines I’m talking about—they have no patents anymore, they’re super cheap to produce, and it’s some of the cheapest vaccines we have to make.” Vaccine Safety: NSEs Versus Adverse Events Though live vaccines tend to cause positive NSEs, that isn’t to say they can’t potentially cause adverse events. NSEs are considered a separate entity from adverse events, Dr. Benn said. According to her, in rare cases, live vaccines may induce the actual disease in some recipients, such as people born with gross defects in their immune systems or who have severe immunodeficiencies, such as fulminant AIDS. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, live vaccines were likely not considered due to concerns about the formation of recombinant viruses when a vaccinated person comes into contact with the circulating viral strain. However, despite their potential beneficial NSEs, the COVID-19 vaccines may still be associated with adverse events because of the presence of highly toxic spike proteins, which studies now link to long COVID and vaccine injuries. In the medical textbook “The Immune Response,” the authors wrote that in isolated cases, live viral strains administered to individuals can regain virulence, causing disease in recipients. There’s also a risk of contamination with other viral strains during manufacturing. https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/vaccines-can-impact-long-term-survival-from-other-diseases-study-5559895

We deserve the truth about what happened on October 7 Stories of atrocity on October 7 have been used to justify the ongoing assault on Gaza. But several of these high-profile claims have been found to be based on unreliable witnesses or even fabricated entirely. We deserve to know the truth. Nick BurbankFebruary 1, 2024 Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office) Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office) In the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attacks by Hamas, narratives of atrocity dominated the news cycle. It is only now, four months later, that the events of that day are being clarified. The New York Times has reportedly pulled a high-profile podcast on the “weaponization” of rape in response to concerns of “major discrepancies.” Journalists are challenging state spokespeople, and researchers cross-referencing claims against the list of terror victims maintained by Israel’s own Social Security Administration have shown that several horrifying stories first responders and IDF members initially told reporters do not reflect actual people or deaths. The IDF itself has said it cannot confirm some of its own reporting. Nevertheless, these stories spread widely. The founder of Oct7FactCheck.com saw how they impacted his friends and family. People who had previously protested Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government were now insisting that “these people,” Palestinians in Gaza, were irredeemable. They cited the atrocities in the news as evidence. And yet, it has become apparent that many of the stories used to justify ongoing violence in Gaza are just that: stories. Advertisement Subscribe to the Mondoweiss YouTube Channel! Oct7FactCheck.com is a six-member research group known collectively as “Nick Burbank.” The group, comprising an Ivy League law student, a policy graduate student, two intelligence analysts, a U.S. armed services veteran, and a tech entrepreneur, began fact-checking these claims in November. Their goal was to identify where a given claim originated, who propagated it, and whether the evidence confirmed or refuted the claim. Their findings are shared in a living document that’s updated as new information comes to light. Thus far, the team has come to conclusions on 12 different claims and identified major discrepancies in another: claims of weaponized rape that were reported on but are now being re-investigated by the New York Times. To be clear: There were no babies hung on clotheslines. There were no babies beheaded or put in ovens, no pregnant women with their stomachs cut open. The sources responsible for those fabrications are cited in articles recounting the weaponized “mass rape” of Israeli women by Hamas fighters. Several stories shared by multiple outlets use these sources, raising open questions about the strength of this reporting. One January 19 Guardian article repeats the exact same language as an article published more than a month earlier on a different site. The New York Times article drew pushback on its reporting from the family of the victim they profiled, who argued she was not the victim of sexual violence; some of those family members have given new statements to the NYT. Over the last four months, claims about October 7 have influenced the public narrative. Stories of atrocity, sometimes cobbled together from unreliable eyewitnesses, sometimes fabricated entirely, have made their way to heads of state and been used to justify Israel’s military violence. As a result, 85% of Gaza is displaced. More than 26,000 Palestinians (including over 10,000 children have been killed), and nearly three times as many people have been injured. 70% of Gazan homes are flattened. Over 100 journalists have been killed. Every university in Gaza is now destroyed. One of the claims determined to be definitively true is that IDF friendly fire on October 7 resulted in Israeli civilian deaths. In the early hours of October 7, a deadly lack of communication made it difficult for Apache pilots and drone operators to distinguish targets, leading them to deputize civilians in the kibbutzim for target identification. But by noon on October 7, the Israeli military had issued a version of the “Hannibal Directive” (as reported to YNet, the second largest Israeli newspaper by readership, and translated by the Electronic Intifada). The Hannibal Directive is an order that allows Israeli forces to stop kidnappings at all costs, up to and including the death of the hostage if all else fails. The order resulted in mass civilian deaths. Two personal accounts from civilians taken hostage on October 7 describe the IDF firing upon them while they were being kidnapped. In both instances, this resulted in the wounding or deaths of people they had been taken captive with, including one woman whose mother was killed. A similar report from YNet records the deployment of the Israeli Air Force to intercept 70 vehicles driven by Hamas militants as they returned to Gaza. The cars, some containing hostages, were destroyed before they could reach the border. An IDF military source reported that Israeli special forces were sent in the week after October 7 to recover bodies in this area. The number of Israeli dead found in these vehicles is currently not known. One of the most chilling descriptions of friendly fire occurred in Be’eri, a kibbutz heavily damaged by the events of October 7. There, IDF forces killed up to 13 hostages in a single incident when they decided to fire two tank shells into a house controlled by militants, fully aware that there were still living civilians held captive inside. The IDF fired on the house during an active hostage negotiation. There were only two survivors, one woman who miraculously survived the shelling and Yasmin Porat, who had been released during the negotiations prior to the tank shells being fired. The shelling killed her husband, who remained under the control of the militants. The aftermath of tank shelling looks very different from arson and small arms fire – there is more rubble, and less soot. In Be’eri, where fighting between IDF and militants was fiercest, homes were completely destroyed. Ha’aretz has reported that “half the damage” in Be’eri came from “munitions impacts,” the other half from “arson.” As a result, more than half of the 200 Israeli homes slated for demolition after the October 7 attack are located in Be’eri. In Nir Oz, where militants were not confronted by the IDF, houses were damaged mostly from arson. Families of the victims are now calling for an investigation into the military and police units who were present and into whether or not the shelling of the house was an implementation of the Hannibal Directive. But initially, the commander responsible for firing a tank into a house full of hostages, General Barak Hiram, was hailed as a hero. Under the heading “A General’s Dilemma,” The New York Times describes Hiram as “a rising star” before quoting him as ending an active hostage negotiation by saying, “Break in, even at the cost of civilian casualties.” Months later, additional reporting by the Times underscores the impact of the intentional use of IDF munitions by Hiram. This incident alone is responsible for 12% of the civilian casualties in Be’eri.1 It’s no secret that Israel invests heavily in “public diplomacy,” known commonly as hasbara. The incredible violence of their military offensive relies on the willingness of nations to prioritize Israeli narratives over Palestinian lives and, in the case of the Hannibal directive, Israeli lives as well. Stories of irredeemable atrocity – regardless of their truth – are essential to manufacturing the acceptability of harming civilians and building support for the Netayahu-led destruction of Gaza. The small-t truth of these stories, the facts of what happened, is less important than the capital-T Truth these stories gesture to. In one example, a YouTube advertisement created by Israel’s Foreign Affair Minister begins with the words “We know that your child cannot read this” while rainbows and unicorns frolic to a lullaby. As the music grinds to a halt, the unicorns disappear and “Forty infants were murdered in Israel by the Hamas terrorists (ISIS),” flashes onto the screen” before urging parents, “Now hug your baby and stand with us.” Business Insider reported on the way this ad and others were being used to justify Israel’s offensive in Gaza as early as October 17. That video is unlisted now, but the claim continues to be repeated. On January 2024, yet another video recycling the claims of ‘beheaded babies,’ this one propagated by the online antisemitism watchdog CyberWell, gasps in horror at the idea of Israeli atrocity propaganda being corrected. A person, scrolling online past a video debunking this same story of beheaded babies says “What? How can they even say that?” This video does not defend the claim that babies were beheaded. It can’t. Social security records make this an impossibility. Instead, it appeals to the viewer’s sense of horror and outrage. While this specific instance may not be true, this advertisement gives the viewer permission to believe a broader, truthier accusation: that Israel’s enemy is so depraved that such a thing could have happened then and may happen again in the future. There were very real atrocities that happened on October 7, including the killing of civilians in their homes and at a music festival and the taking of hostages, some of them children. But somehow, the clearest crimes committed have been crowded out of the narrative in favor of obscene, attention-grabbing lies. This re-telling of the day is disrespectful to victims and survivors alike and only increases suspicion as to what really happened. It is a narrative that only serves those in power and those seeking to justify the genocidal assault on Gaza, not those rightfully seeking answers. Notes 1. There are varying accounts of the number of those killed in Be’eri across different sources: 97 per the New York Times, 86 per Ha’aretz, 77 according to Social Security Administration records (but this may exclude captives later killed), and 98 per Oct7map.com. 12% represents the lower bound of the percentage of those killed attributable to the shelling of hostages. BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/we-deserve-the-truth-about-what-happened-on-october-7/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/we-deserve-truth-about-what-happened-on.html

Japanese professor files lawsuit against Ministry of Health regarding vaccine safety and efficacy! John Smith Masanori Fukushima (福島雅典), professor emeritus at Kyoto University in Japan, has filed a lawsuit against the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW).[i] https://twitter.com/ShortShort_News/status/1622224704064098304 - Click image to watch a clip of the conference The lawsuit seeks the following: The disclosure of all safety and efficacy data of the covid-19 vaccines, submitted by Pfizer and Moderna to the MHLW and the PMDA (Japanese pharmaceutical and medical device regulation agency similar to the FDA) Full disclosure of the contracts between Japan and the pharmaceutical companies (i.e., Pfizer, Moderna, etc.) Compensation for those injured by the covid-19 vaccines Professor Fukushima has over 25 years of experience as an oncologist, and is also the Director and Chairman of the Translational Research Informatics Center in Japan, which is the first academic center in Japan dedicated to transforming basic medical research into clinical practices. He also became involved in pharmacoepidemiology (the study of interactions between drugs and human populations) since 2000. Professor Fukushima in a recent Japanese interview https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm41745638 Professor Fukushima is director of the TRI https://advances.tri-kobe.org/en/feature/11/from-lab-to-clinic.html In November 2022, Professor Fukushima had previously hosted a discussion with other doctors and professors where he condemned the Japanese MHLW for ignoring the dangers of the covid-19 vaccines. Professor Fukushima had demanded investigations into all covid-19 vaccine injuries in a thorough case by case evaluation of medical records. He also warned of the indefinite production of spike proteins via the covid-19 vaccines, as well as the side effects due to lipid nanoparticles. https://rumble.com/v1yofle-japanese-professor-rebukes-ministry-of-health-dissolve-vaccine-committiee-i.html Then in December 2022, Professor Fukushima had stated in an interview his intention to sue the Japanese government because its refusal to disclose vital information regarding the efficacy of the covid-19 vaccines. Which brings us to the current situation where on February 2nd 2023, Professor Fukushima held the press conference for his lawsuit at the Tokyo District Court. In addition to the lawsuit demands previously mentioned, he also warned that additional lawsuits may be filed if the Japanese MHLW does not acknowledge a causal link between the vaccine and their associated deaths. Professor Fukushima skeptically questions the actual result of the 90 trillion yen spent by the government on the covid-19 vaccines. Speaking not only as a doctor and scientist, but also as a citizen and taxpayer, he sees it as part of his duty on behalf of the nation to understand the real effect of the vaccines. He believes surprising information will be revealed from the disclosure of the documents from the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. He is also studying the pathological mechanisms of the vaccines with other experts as well as medical guidelines for the treatment of vaccine injuries.[ii] Japanese law already stipulates compensation for the vaccine injured, so Professor Fukushima argues that it should be applied now. The Japanese vaccination law outlines the scope of benefits as follows (computer translation from their website): https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=323AC0000000068 Below is a transcript of a clip of the February 2023 lawsuit press conference: Professor Fukushima: We have already started to study vaccine harms, basically in cooperation with various experts. This is the first topic. So, we will find out later on what happens after vaccination as a mechanism, i.e., as a pathological and cytological process. Around April last year, the pathology and forensic societies have already issued statements that, in the future, autopsies should be done on people who have died after vaccination. In the future, we need to urgently establish guidelines on what kind of medical treatment should be provided for victims injured by vaccines, and we need to develop diagnostic techniques. Given the situation, we will carry out these tasks. One more thing. Pathological autopsies have already been conducted on people who died after receiving the vaccine. However, the Health Ministry is still unwilling to acknowledge the causal link between the vaccine and the deaths. If the Health Ministry maintains this unjustified position, we intend to file additional lawsuits in consultation with our lawyers. We demand that the Health Ministry provides appropriate victim compensation based on the vaccination law. In other words, victim compensation based on the Vaccination Law is properly stipulated by Japanese law. So, it is not necessary to create a new law to compensate for the vaccine harm. Scientists like us are taking responsible actions in every respect to ensure that the vaccine victims are compensated. Journalist: Let me ask you a few questions. In your editorial, Professor Fukushima, you wrote two strong statements to all healthcare workers: a warning about the safety of vaccines and a request to stop vaccinations. For example, medical societies are flooded with case reports of various diseases in addition to myocarditis and shingles all over Japan. A huge number of case reports, more than 300 reports by medical experts have been released all over Japan. I consider that this is an extraordinary alarming situation. What is your message to the medical professionals? Professor Fukushima: I want to say one thing very clearly to the Health Ministry in addition to the medical professionals. They should distribute a Vaccination Victim’s Handbook to everyone who has been vaccinated. The Vaccination Victim’s Handbook is similar to the Atomic Bomb Victim’s Handbook which is distributed to survivors of the atomic bombs. After distributing the Vaccination Victim’s handbook to vaccinated people, medical institutions should be encouraged to properly follow up with the vaccinated people. It is necessary to examine whether there is a link between the disease and the vaccine. Biopsy tests should be performed on sick people suspected of vaccine induced illness. A different clip with English subtitles can be found here: References: [i] https://twitter.com/ShortShort_News/status/1622224704064098304 [ii] https://youtube.com/watch?v=GCPaPaAEP4g 【公式】2023.2.2福島雅典教授、厚労省に対する訴訟記者会見ハイライト (English with Japanese subtitles). Full press conference in Japanese available at https://nicovideo.jp/watch/so41730996 Share https://infogame.substack.com/p/japanese-professor-files-lawsuit February 2nd 2023: Professor Fukushima held the press conference for his lawsuit at the Tokyo District Court. In addition to the lawsuit demands previously mentioned, he also warned that additional lawsuits may be filed if the Japanese MHLW does not acknowledge a causal link between the vaccine and their associated deaths https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/japanese-professor-files-lawsuit.html