https://sagehana.substack.com/p/bill-gatess-1997-interview-with-rfks

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

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

Nic told me that, doing WCH community outreach, half of the people she spoke with in Thornbury today were unwell or injured. Share: https://twitter.com/lawrie_dr/status/1765037980383932604 📌 Follow me: ➨ @DrTessLawrie

Chlorine Dioxide & Electro-Molecular Medicine: A New & Hopeful Paradigm During the Covid-19 event, establishment forces made it their business to ensure that the public was denied access to existing safe, effective, and affordable treatments while waiting for ‘the vaccine’ to save the day. We all remember how Ivermectin was smeared by the media and banned by regulatory bodies. Another compound that suffered an early fall from grace was chlorine dioxide; as soon as it was mentioned by Donald Trump, the media mocked him loudly for ‘injecting bleach’. In 2024, the war against chlorine dioxide continues. Dr Tess Lawrie caught up with Dr Andreas Kalcker, a biophysicist who has spent the past 17 years researching chlorine dioxide, to set the record straight. Read more, subscribe & share: https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/chlorine-dioxide Watch the full Better Way Today episode: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/chlorine-dioxide-solution/ Follow: ➡️@WCH_org 📧 NEWSLETTER | 🌳 LINKTREE 🌐 WorldCouncilforHealth.org

https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/all-eyes-on-ireland-and-the-crotty?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help? Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024 Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom. Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes. That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty. The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO. So, what can we do to help? 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… Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO? By Dr. Tess Lawrie A summary of what you need to know. A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope! New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start. How did this situation arise? The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal. 1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.” In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate. 2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states. 3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron. 4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution. 5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948. 6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement. 7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing. 8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose. 9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests. Time for legal action WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow. Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that: The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’. The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations. Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification. Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation. Further resources: Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation! Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO! About the Author Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/

‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 106: Israel bombs Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, U.S. bombs Yemen Biden insists Netanyahu is open to a two-state solution, despite Netanyahu stating the opposite. Meanwhile, a Palestinian-American teenager was killed by Israelis in the West Bank, and the UN estimates two mothers are killed in Gaza every hour. Mondoweiss Palestine BureauJanuary 20, 2024 A Palestinian child istreated on the floor of a hospital after being injured in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza (APA Images) An injured Palestinian woman looks over a child being treated on the floor of a hospital after they were injured in Israeli air strikes on December 30, 2023 in Dair El-Balah, Gaza. (Photo: APA Images) Casualties: 24,927 killed* and at least 62,388 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 369 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147. 550 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, including 194 since the beginning of the ground invasion, and at least 3,221 injured.** *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on January 20. Some rights groups put the death toll at more than 32,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. **This figure is released by the Israeli military. Key Developments Israel continues to relentlessly kill Palestinians in Gaza, as more reports emerge of torture and executions of Palestinians by Israeli forces. The United Nations says that two mothers are killed every hour on average in Gaza, as it denounces the disproportionate impact of the violence on women. An Israeli airstrike in the Syrian capital kills at least four Iranian military advisers. U.S. forces meanwhile launch the sixth wave of airstrikes on Yemen in a self-avowedly unsuccessful bid to deter Houthi rebels from disrupting commercial shipping in the Red Sea in support of Palestine. Israelis shoot and kill a Palestinian-American teenager in the head in the occupied West Bank. An Israeli airstrike kills two people in southern Lebanon. U.S. President Joe Biden has his first call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in nearly a month, and tells journalists that Netanyahu is in favor of a two-state solution, despite all evidence to the contrary. Israel’s emergency government meanwhile teeters on the brink of collapse amid internal discord and unilateral moves by Netanyahu threatening a hostage deal. The European Union’s chief diplomat says Israel bears responsibility for the existence of Hamas, and argues that a diplomatic solution may need to be imposed on Israel “from the outside.” The Guardian: Legal advisers for U.K.’s Foreign Office cannot conclude that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is compliant with international law. Women and children face ‘hell’ in Gaza, as survivors recount torture, humiliation, and executions at hands of Israeli soldiers Israeli forces killed at least 165 Palestinians and wounded 280 more in the past 24 hours in Gaza, the Ministry of Health in the small bombarded enclave reported on Saturday, bringing the official death toll since October 7 in Gaza to 24,927, with at least 62,388 more wounded. Advertisement Help Mondoweiss reach 100,000 subscribers on YouTube! This number does not include people who are missing and believed to be trapped under rubble, unidentified bodies, people who were buried by their families without going to a hospital, nor people who have died due to illness, cold, or hunger as a result of Israel’s merciless blockade of Gaza. The real death toll is believed by some groups to surpass 32,000. Deadly Israeli strikes have pummelled the areas of Khan Younis, al-Qarara, Bani Suheila, al-Zana, Abasan, Batn Al-Sameen, Nuseirat refugee camp, al-Shati refugee camp, and Jabalia since Friday, WAFA news agency reported. After eight days of complete blackout, Paltel meanwhile reported a partial return of telecom services in Gaza. Palestinian armed factions meanwhile said they were confronting ground Israeli forces in various neighborhoods of Gaza City, as well as in al-Bureij, al-Maghazi, Jabalia, and Khan Younis. Israel’s relentless war on Gaza is killing two mothers every hour, U.N. Women estimated in a new report looking into the gendered impact of the catastrophic situation in the Palestinian enclave since October 7. “We have seen evidence once more that women and children are the first victims of conflict and that our duty to seek peace is a duty to them. Without change, these last 100 days will be mere prelude to the next 100,” UN Women executive director Sima Bahous said on Friday. “These are people, not numbers, and we are failing them. That failure, and the generational trauma inflicted on the Palestinian people over these 100 days and counting, will haunt us all for generations to come.” UNICEF, which has estimated that some 20,000 babies have been born in Gaza since October 7, said these Palestinian children were being “born into hell.” “Becoming a mother should be a time for celebration. In Gaza, it’s another child delivered into hell,” UNICEF communication specialist Tess Ingram said on Friday. “Humanity cannot allow this warped version of normal to persist any longer. Mothers and newborns need a humanitarian ceasefire.” Meanwhile, more accounts have emerged of Israeli soldiers torturing and executing Palestinians in Gaza, with eyewitnesses telling Al Jazeera that Israeli forces publicly hanged some Palestinians in Beit Lahia’s Indonesian Hospital, and forced survivors to sleep in the same room as dead bodies. Palestinian men who were detained incommunicado by Israel for up to 55 days meanwhile spoke of being beaten, having dogs urinate on them, and being subjected to psychological terror. “They threatened to shoot us. After two hours of being half-naked in such conditions, they moved us a few meters and told us to get ready for our execution,” Muhammad Abu Samra, one former prisoner, told Al Jazeera. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) meanwhile denounced in its latest update the “dramatic increase” in Israel’s denials of access to humanitarian aid deliveries. The organization said that 69 percent of aid deliveries to northern Gaza were rejected by the Israeli military in the first two weeks of January, compared to a 14 percent denial rate between October and December. The rejection rate rose 95 percent for the distribution of fuel and medicine to water reservoirs, water wells, and health facilities, leading to “increased health and environmental hazards while debilitating the functionality of the six partially functioning hospitals” in northern Gaza. Palestinian-American teenager shot in the head and killed in the West Bank A Palestinian-American teenager was shot in the head and killed by Israelis on Friday near the central occupied West Bank village of Mazraa al-Sharqiya. WAFA news agency identified him as 17-year-old Palestinian-American Tawfiq Hafiz Ajjaq, who had recently moved back to Palestine. Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Ajjaq was killed by an Israeli settler and an off-duty police officer, who claimed the boy had been throwing stones. The U.S. State Department told journalists it was in contact with Israeli authorities over the case and “working to understand the circumstances of the incident.” Washington has historically done little to ensure justice when Israelis kill Palestinians with U.S. citizenship, such as Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, and 80-year-old Omar Assad. Israeli forces detained at least 22 Palestinians across the West Bank overnight, Al Jazeera reported, including a former prisoner in the Jenin area. WAFA news agency reported a number of raids across the occupied West Bank, including in Nablus, Kafr Nim’a, Tuqu’, and Hebron. Confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinian residents were meanwhile reported in Nablus, Tubas, Balata refugee camp, and Jenin. Elsewhere, Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians in the flashpoint area of Masafer Yatta and near Rammon. In occupied East Jerusalem Israeli police once again restricted worshippers’ access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Friday prayers, and Israeli authorities forced a Palestinian resident of Silwan to demolish his own home for not having a near-impossible to obtain a construction permit. The Israeli political circus continues Barely a day after Benjamin Netanyahu publicly reiterated that there would be no Palestinian state under his watch, the Israeli premier had a phone call with U.S. President Joe Biden for the first time in nearly a month. Biden later told journalists that Netanyahu had told him he was open to a two-state solution, sparking bafflement from reporters. “There are a number of types of two-state solutions,” Biden told the journalists. “There’s a number of countries that are members of the UN that don’t have their own militaries…. And so I think there’s ways in which this could work.” “Bibi just said he’s opposed to any two-state solution,” CBS journalist Weijia Jiang told Biden, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “No, he didn’t say that,” Biden responded. While the Israeli prime minister appears to be telling his staunch American ally one thing and his Israeli audience another, Israeli president Isaac Herzog told the audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday that no Israeli “in his right mind is willing now to think about what will be the solution of the peace agreement.” Tensions meanwhile are continuing to rise within Netanyahu’s wartime coalition government, with some observers saying it is “close to collapse.” Among the latest indications of a fracture between Netanyahu and his fellow war cabinet members, former army chiefs of staff Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli prime minister unilaterally changed Israel’s conditions for a hostage release deal to a tougher series of demands, Israeli media reported. While Gantz and Eisenkot have publicly stated that a deal is the only way to obtain the safe return of some 132 Israelis still held in Gaza, Netanyahu and his far-right allies are obstinately arguing that the use of force is the only way forward, despite its failure so far to lead to the release of hostages alive. The families of Israeli hostages camped outside of Netanyahu’s home in Cesarea on Friday to call for him to agree to a deal that could bring their loved ones home. Tensions ratchet up across the Middle East Tensions in the region are at a tipping point, as several strikes by Israel and its allies threaten to escalate violence irrevocably. Israeli forces launched an airstrike in the Syrian capital Damascus on Friday, killing five people, including at least four military advisers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian military organization confirmed, calling it a “terrorist attack.” Meanwhile, an Israeli airstrike on a car killed two people in southern Lebanon. Lebanese media could not immediately confirm whether the two were, as Israel claims, members of Hamas. On the Yemeni front, U.S. forces struck Ansar Allah targets for the sixth time this month, in a bid to halt the Yemeni rebel group, also known as the Houthis, from thwarting the passage of commercial ships in the Red Sea in support of Palestine. Biden has himself acknowledged that American and British airstrikes were unlikely to deter Ansar Allah, but has nonetheless vowed to continue on. In Europe, the E.U.’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell accused Israel on Friday of bearing responsibility for the creation and funding of the Hamas movement – claims that have been extensively acknowledged by Israeli officials themselves. “Hamas was financed by the Israeli government in an attempt to weaken the Palestinian Authority,” Borrell told an audience at the University of Valladolid in Spain, before adding that “The only solution is to create two states that share the land for which they have been dying for 100 years,” even if this two-state solution needs to be “imposed from the outside.” 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/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-106-israel-bombs-gaza-lebanon-and-syria-u-s-bombs-yemen/

https://writinganessay.org/overnightessay-com-review/

Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment. World Council for Health Written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD. They say that you pick up the most flack when you’re right over the target. Since the Covid phenomenon began, the degree of flack has become a navigational aid in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia’s hit piece on the World Council for Health (WCH) is evidence that their message of health sovereignty has become a threat to the establishment. Brainwashing goes global Ever more brazenly over the past four years, members of the ‘Great Reset Establishment’ have been involved in a process of what Psychoanalyst Dr Bruce Scott calls ‘menticide’, or brainwashing on a global scale. Through the unethical use of applied psychology, governments, corporations, and organisations around the world have been manipulating the masses into compliance with their globalist agenda. Whether the issue has been Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, economic meltdown, or climate hysteria, the outcome has been an environment of heightened fear and uncertainty. People seeking direction have been subjected to unprecedented levels of propaganda and censorship, which have added to the confusion by creating a ‘through-the-looking-glass’ world in which it feels like truths have become lies, and vice versa. If this content is important to you, please share it with your network. Share Wikipedia - no longer reliable One of the ‘trusted’ sources we have become accustomed to turning to when seeking information on a host of topics is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This online encyclopedia was established in 2001 with the aim of being a free, open, and neutral source of information that anyone could access and edit. The idea was that all sides of controversial issues would be welcomed and readers would be left to make up their own minds. But, as Wikipedia co-founder-turned-critic Larry Sanger complained in an interview with Glenn Greenwald in July 2023, “It didn’t work out that way.” Over time, the platform has moved away from its non-negotiable editorial policy that content should strive to reflect a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). As Kristin Heflin described in her PhD thesis in 2010, this means that: … all Wikipedia content must represent―fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By insisting articles represent [―] all significant views without bias, the policy of striving for NPOV shares similarities with objectivity … (p. 89) In 2015, Heather Ford observed in her D. Phil. Thesis that Wikipedia was by that time offering “a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others” (p. 3). She continued: Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented. This means that Wikipedia is able to decide which facts are stabilised or destabilised on its platform, according to the ideological positions of its editors. While Wikipedia originally provided the opportunity for people to publish without the need for gatekeepers or mediators, this is no longer the case. Especially since the Covid-19 event boosted the fortunes of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Wikipedians have become foot soldiers in the battle to scrub from the Internet information they consider to be mis-, dis-, or mal-information. Larry Sanger, in the interview mentioned above, described how he has watched Wikipedia’s neutrality evaporate over the years, shifting around 2005 to establishment views on topics like global warming and certain drugs, and starting to show bias against holistic medicine in the early 2010s. Its reliable sources of information are now left-of-centre media corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, while in their policies 80% of news sources on the right are deemed unreliable. Independent news outlets and self-published subject experts are also not able to edit a Wikipedia page. Before it is deemed acceptable, information needs to be filtered through a mainstream news source, which in turn is constrained by fact-checking services. Misrepresenting Covid dissidents The World Council for Health (WCH) is one of many organisations and individuals who have been defamed by Wikipedia since the advent of Covid-19. As discussed at the WCH’s 83rd General Assembly meeting in April 2023, this has been part of a much broader strategy to silence dissent with regard to the so-called pandemic and its protocols. WCH was established to challenge the official Covid response and its Wikipedia article was created in September 2022. The current Wikipedia entry is fairly close to the original version, although it has been edited a number of times. However, a number of Wikipedia pages created prior to Covid-19 have been completely amended since 2020, resulting in a ‘hero-to-zero’ fall from grace for people such as the author Dr Vernon Coleman (compare his October 2019 entry with the current article), and the early developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, whose role in this invention has been deleted from the page on mRNA vaccines. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/fact-checkers-independent-media/ Who’s fact-checking the fact-checkers? A trio of independent media creators—Derrick Broze, Jason Bassler & Joe Martino—reveal their eye-opening shared experience in dealing with fact-checkers and censorship dating back years before Covid-19 emerged. Scarcely worth commenting on … but we shall! Let’s take a look at the WCH Wikipedia article (accessed 18 December 2023) to see just how deeply flawed and factually incorrect it is. Firstly, the content – comprising just eight paragraphs – is entirely inadequate. Other than stating that the organisation “appears to have been formed in September 2021” [emphasis mine], and that it was “founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie”, nothing substantive is mentioned about what WCH is or what it does, despite its goals, values, and initiatives being clearly represented on its website and social media channels. Secondly, most of the article attempts to smear WCH by association. The bulk of the content refers to people or organisations who are part of the broader health freedom network but neither WCH staff nor council members, including Robert F Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense and esteemed cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra. Wikipedia maligns these experts for their efforts to cancel the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapies which, contrary to the protestations of the fact-checkers, have caused millions of deaths worldwide. Ironically, Wikipedia accuses Dr Malhotra of “cherry-picking” sources to substantiate his concerns about the jab, yet they themselves cherry-pick tangential content and questionable opinions from, with only two exceptions, rather dubious sources. So, thirdly, let’s have a look at the references Wikipedia uses to back up its potentially libelous statements. The reference to Kerr et. al (March 2022) is simply a brief Erratum, noting that some of the authors of the paper quoted were using ivermectin to treat patients, which one would expect as they were reporting on its efficacy. The flawed Cochrane Review by Popp et. al (2022) that criticised a systematic review by Bryant et. al (2021) on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19 was thoroughly debunked in a letter sent to them by Fordham and colleagues in September 2021, but this has not been acknowledged on Wikipedia. The Bryant et al review remains in the top 10 most read out of 23 million tracked scientific papers. Three references are to fact-checking sites: AAP FactCheck (Australia), AFP Fact Check (France), and Health Feedback (USA), which employ teams of people to prevent the dissemination of information that is not in line with the menticidal narratives of the Great Reset Establishment. Four of the nine sources come from two Vice magazine journalists, Anna Merlan and Tim Hume. Their articles are replete with worn-out terms such as right-wing, conspiracy theorist, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer, and mis-/disinformation-peddler. They also predictably take issue with ivermectin, common law, and even the notion of sovereign citizens! The tone of the articles ranges from wryly dismissive to scathingly scornful, with words such as discredited, nonsense, completely false, misleading, and fringe peppering the text. They also delight in reporting cases of doctors and scientists who have been barred from their professions for refusing to deny their professional oaths and personal principles. Underlying the supercilious slurs, however, runs a definite current of concern that these ‘discredited conspiracy theorists’ who are promoting health, freedom, and human rights may actually be gaining traction. Larry Sanger reflects on how far Wikipedia has departed from its original commitment to neutrality by pointing out the features of biased reporting, all of which apply to the Wikipedia article on WCH: negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people); dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented While WCH might wish to create a more accurate Wikipedia entry, this is not possible. According to the view source button, only registered users are allowed to edit this article. In other words, WCH has no right of reply. Wikipedia, like a child having a tantrum, refuses point-blank to engage with those people and ideas it just WILL NOT acknowledge. Is there a future for Wikipedia? Why anyone would bother to search Wikipedia for information about WCH, which has a perfectly informative website and Substack, is anyone’s guess. But the more Wikipedia produces atrocious articles like the one on WCH, the faster they will lose credibility among those who simply want information and do not have an ideological axe to grind. In fact, it is worth subjecting this article to a well-known credibility test developed by California State University, and appropriately named the CRAAP test! Its five components (plus comments on the WCH article) include: Currency: Is the source up-to-date? – No, for one thing, it does not mention WCH’s second conference in 2023. Although editing of the Wikipedia article continues, no up-to-date information has been added. Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research? – Not if one wants to know anything about WCH. But it has been very relevant to an investigation into the decline and fall of Wikipedia. Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field? – Absolutely not. Wikipedia’s policy on Reliable Sources specifically discounts independent experts in favour of large news corporations, which are committed to promoting Establishment narratives. Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly? – Not at all. Please visit the WCH website to confirm this. Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source? – The only purpose appears to be to discredit WCH. At least in the case of the WCH article, Wikipedia’s credibility is clearly questionable. More broadly, Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that the platform can no longer be trusted. Observing that it has become a useful propaganda mouthpiece for the Establishment, he mused: “If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.” Indeed, in recent years, Google has invested substantially in the Wikipedia Foundation, paying them to provide the “most accurate and up-to-date information” for its search engine. Google is now elevating Wikipedia articles in Internet searches, using their content to populate their ‘knowledge panels’, and inserting their articles under videos on YouTube (its subsidiary) in an effort “to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories.” In this way, the actual spreaders of misinformation flood the Internet with their post-truth propaganda, causing those who value Truth, Beauty, and Goodness to look elsewhere for information. What is particularly interesting, though, is that the Wikipedia edifice may be crumbling from within. Thanks to the transparency of the Wikimedia system, one is able to peer behind the curtain into the online discussions of the various editors working on a particular article. And here we discover dissention in the ranks. Recent discussions between Wikipedia editors working on the WCH article reveal anything but agreement regarding this flimsy hit-piece. For example, one editor asks why the article on WCH focuses on Dr Lawrie. The person then asks why Dr Lawrie’s qualifications, directorship, publication record, and over 4,000 citations are not mentioned (actually Dr Lawrie has over 5,000 citations and is ranked among the top 5% of Researchgate scientists), but only her prior role as an obstetrician. It is encouraging to read the following comment: Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's [sic.] make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher. Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method. Later, and for good reason, concerns are expressed about the use of Vice magazine as a ‘reliable source’ (RS). Anna Merlan, author of three of the Vice articles. Conclusion WCH’s Wikipedia experience is the tip of a very large iceberg of censorship and suppression (Shi-Raz et al. 2023) that, especially over the past four years, has been threatening to sink those opposing Establishment narratives. Media and tech companies, including Wikipedia, Google, and the fact-checkers mentioned in this article, have played a central role in stifling debate and attempting to constrain narratives and minds. But, as Larry Sanger puts it, “people have natural BS detectors” and are not satisfied with condescending journalists or one flavour of opinion. Instead, as described by Shi-Raz et al., many people who are concerned about public health and committed to freedom of speech have not been deterred by the efforts of the Establishment. Instead, they have been motivated to create a world in parallel to the mainstream, using alternative channels of communication, establishing multi-disciplinary support networks, and developing alternative medical and health information systems such as, of course, the World Council for Health. And, recognising the decline of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger is in the process of creating what he calls the ‘Encyclosphere’, a massive network of online encyclopaedias covering a plethora of specialist and generalist areas of knowledge, that is set to literally put Wikipedia in its place as an equal among many others. So, while Wikipedia spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money on a business that not only lacks substance but is also mean-spirited and divisive, initiatives like WCH and the Encyclosphere shine like candles in the dark, illuminating a better way. Share If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch?utm_medium=ios

The WHO wants to control our health. Dr Tess Lawrie, from the World Council for Health, is among those sharing important information about the debate in Parliament on Monday December 18th.

https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/tess-lawrie-exposes-the-w-h-o/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/25/exposed-bill-gatess-relationship-with-convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-revolved-around-a-global-health-investment-fund/