• 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/
    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/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    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.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6858 Views
  • FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19
    by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am
    In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emily Post News reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19 by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19. “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time. This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals. There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients. New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice. The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden. Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine. U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media. Emily Post News reported: The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.) It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update. Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted. “After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden. Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.” “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued. However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication. Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit. “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote. “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday. During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID. “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold. “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said. “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.” “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said. It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech. The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital. Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug. Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin. “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.” “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.” The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5124 Views
  • Politicians come and go, but the elite are permanent in Malaysia
    Too powerful to overcome

    Murray Hunter
    Kuala Lumpur Itinerary : A Guide to the Perfect Five-Day Trip in KL
    Share

    Governments do change in Malaysia. Each incoming administration will have its own narratives and specific agendas. However, policies will be generally very similar, and based upon the same principles as the previous government. In and around the executive and administrative government is a network of elite people, who collectively yield massive power. The actors can be seen in GLCs, corporations, royal households, civil servants, the judiciary, police, and within the executive itself. This massive power is however, hidden due to its fragmentation, and unseen influence its membership carries.

    The Elite consolidate Malay power

    While politicians come and go, the elites are permanent, exercising both formal and informal influence. Together, the elite permeates across all society in all states and territories. There is an established elite in Penang, Sarawak, and Sabah. They act independently and in conjunction with the rest of the nation’s class of elites. Sometimes groups within the elite work together, and sometimes they oppose each other.

    ไฟล์:Flag of the Federated Malay States (1895 - 1946).png ...
    The real symbol of elite power

    No matter who is in power, the interwoven network of the elite is there. Governments must work in cooperation with these elites, or be seriously undermined. As we can see monopolies and concessions continue to flourish no matter which political grouping is in power. Major contracts are still dished out by direct negotiation, rather than open tender. Annual budgets and five-year plans still deliver ‘crafted opportunities’ to these groups, cementing crony capitalism and kleptocracy in Malaysia as a way of life. No administration will tax the Top 10 percent of income earners in the country.

    The power of the prime minister is only as strong as the relationships he carries with sections of the elite.

    Networks control corporate Malaysia

    Today’s public policy initiatives are implemented through government linked companies (GLCs) and partnerships with corporations. Thus, the running of government is concerned about business deals and contracts to business vehicles owned by the elite. This is why the Malaysian economy is so heavily dependent upon GLCs and crony corporations, which have been granted artificial monopolies.

    The only way someone can become a member of this exclusive group is to have strong connections with various stakeholders within the elite class. This is why new entrants strive to find ‘God fathers’ within the GLCs that employ them, and politicians seek to be appointed to agency and GLC boards.

    Some powerful people are members of multiple public corporation boards, and also on the boards of agencies and GLCs. Their networking potential is vast, where through informal relationship, much can be achieved to achieve their own ends.

    Much of elite networking with the government decision makers of the day, carries massive persuasion. Sometimes this persuasion is too powerful for government decision makers to refuse.

    Those activists, journalists, and NGOs who criticise what the elites do is dealt with through lawfare, humiliation through the media and even arrest by the police. Defamation actions are taken to drain the financial resources of activists to make them bankrupt, in order to silence them. Some just disappear all-together.

    The privileged elite are generally immune from the law, investigation by the politicised police, and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). This network controls and defines the law.

    The elite live by the creed ‘greed is good’

    They look after the interests of their own, using tools like the New Economic Policy (NEP), at the cost of the rest of Malaysians. After 60 years of the NEP most of the most marginalised people in Malaysia are Bumiputeras. The NEP concerns itself with equity within the economy, and not income, so the KPIs are skewed. The primary objective of the elite is to pursue ‘created opportunities’ to make money. This is why the Malaysian economy today is primarily based upon rent-seeking activities and not innovation. The elite take few risks.

    There was no indigenous Malaysian vaccine created during the Covid-19 pandemic, even though the government spent great sums of money promoting a biotechnology sector. Rather than local companies gearing up to produce parts for the local production of indigenous electric vehicles (EVs), most are facing financial difficulties and heading towards bankruptcy. These are just two examples of the rent-seeking Malaysian economy today.



    All countries have their own elites, where Malaysia is no exception. The elites form a strong component of the nature of the real-politic of the nation.

    Subscribe Below:

    https://open.substack.com/pub/murrayhunter/p/politicians-come-and-go-but-the-elite?r=29hg4d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web


    https://youtu.be/VVxYOQS6ggk
    Politicians come and go, but the elite are permanent in Malaysia Too powerful to overcome Murray Hunter Kuala Lumpur Itinerary : A Guide to the Perfect Five-Day Trip in KL Share Governments do change in Malaysia. Each incoming administration will have its own narratives and specific agendas. However, policies will be generally very similar, and based upon the same principles as the previous government. In and around the executive and administrative government is a network of elite people, who collectively yield massive power. The actors can be seen in GLCs, corporations, royal households, civil servants, the judiciary, police, and within the executive itself. This massive power is however, hidden due to its fragmentation, and unseen influence its membership carries. The Elite consolidate Malay power While politicians come and go, the elites are permanent, exercising both formal and informal influence. Together, the elite permeates across all society in all states and territories. There is an established elite in Penang, Sarawak, and Sabah. They act independently and in conjunction with the rest of the nation’s class of elites. Sometimes groups within the elite work together, and sometimes they oppose each other. ไฟล์:Flag of the Federated Malay States (1895 - 1946).png ... The real symbol of elite power No matter who is in power, the interwoven network of the elite is there. Governments must work in cooperation with these elites, or be seriously undermined. As we can see monopolies and concessions continue to flourish no matter which political grouping is in power. Major contracts are still dished out by direct negotiation, rather than open tender. Annual budgets and five-year plans still deliver ‘crafted opportunities’ to these groups, cementing crony capitalism and kleptocracy in Malaysia as a way of life. No administration will tax the Top 10 percent of income earners in the country. The power of the prime minister is only as strong as the relationships he carries with sections of the elite. Networks control corporate Malaysia Today’s public policy initiatives are implemented through government linked companies (GLCs) and partnerships with corporations. Thus, the running of government is concerned about business deals and contracts to business vehicles owned by the elite. This is why the Malaysian economy is so heavily dependent upon GLCs and crony corporations, which have been granted artificial monopolies. The only way someone can become a member of this exclusive group is to have strong connections with various stakeholders within the elite class. This is why new entrants strive to find ‘God fathers’ within the GLCs that employ them, and politicians seek to be appointed to agency and GLC boards. Some powerful people are members of multiple public corporation boards, and also on the boards of agencies and GLCs. Their networking potential is vast, where through informal relationship, much can be achieved to achieve their own ends. Much of elite networking with the government decision makers of the day, carries massive persuasion. Sometimes this persuasion is too powerful for government decision makers to refuse. Those activists, journalists, and NGOs who criticise what the elites do is dealt with through lawfare, humiliation through the media and even arrest by the police. Defamation actions are taken to drain the financial resources of activists to make them bankrupt, in order to silence them. Some just disappear all-together. The privileged elite are generally immune from the law, investigation by the politicised police, and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). This network controls and defines the law. The elite live by the creed ‘greed is good’ They look after the interests of their own, using tools like the New Economic Policy (NEP), at the cost of the rest of Malaysians. After 60 years of the NEP most of the most marginalised people in Malaysia are Bumiputeras. The NEP concerns itself with equity within the economy, and not income, so the KPIs are skewed. The primary objective of the elite is to pursue ‘created opportunities’ to make money. This is why the Malaysian economy today is primarily based upon rent-seeking activities and not innovation. The elite take few risks. There was no indigenous Malaysian vaccine created during the Covid-19 pandemic, even though the government spent great sums of money promoting a biotechnology sector. Rather than local companies gearing up to produce parts for the local production of indigenous electric vehicles (EVs), most are facing financial difficulties and heading towards bankruptcy. These are just two examples of the rent-seeking Malaysian economy today. All countries have their own elites, where Malaysia is no exception. The elites form a strong component of the nature of the real-politic of the nation. Subscribe Below: https://open.substack.com/pub/murrayhunter/p/politicians-come-and-go-but-the-elite?r=29hg4d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://youtu.be/VVxYOQS6ggk
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 3104 Views
  • Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100

    Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart!
    Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree.
    This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love,
    from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out -
    claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart!

    Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685

    #Walmart
    #ShoppingSpree
    #Deals
    #Savings
    #WinBig
    #ClaimNow
    #ShopTillYouDrop
    #LimitedOffer
    #Discounts
    #Cashback
    #AmericanSavings
    #RetailTherapy
    #Bargains
    #GetItNow
    #DealOfTheDay
    #BigSavings
    #ShopSmart
    #WalmartDeals
    #ClaimYourPrize
    #RetailMagic
    Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100 Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart! Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree. This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love, from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out - claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart! Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685 #Walmart #ShoppingSpree #Deals #Savings #WinBig #ClaimNow #ShopTillYouDrop #LimitedOffer #Discounts #Cashback #AmericanSavings #RetailTherapy #Bargains #GetItNow #DealOfTheDay #BigSavings #ShopSmart #WalmartDeals #ClaimYourPrize #RetailMagic
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4667 Views
  • Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100

    Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart!
    Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree.
    This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love,
    from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out -
    claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart!

    Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685

    #Walmart
    #ShoppingSpree
    #Deals
    #Savings
    #WinBig
    #ClaimNow
    #ShopTillYouDrop
    #LimitedOffer
    #Discounts
    #Cashback
    #AmericanSavings
    #RetailTherapy
    #Bargains
    #GetItNow
    #DealOfTheDay
    #BigSavings
    #ShopSmart
    #WalmartDeals
    #ClaimYourPrize
    #RetailMagic
    Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100 Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart! Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree. This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love, from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out - claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart! Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685 #Walmart #ShoppingSpree #Deals #Savings #WinBig #ClaimNow #ShopTillYouDrop #LimitedOffer #Discounts #Cashback #AmericanSavings #RetailTherapy #Bargains #GetItNow #DealOfTheDay #BigSavings #ShopSmart #WalmartDeals #ClaimYourPrize #RetailMagic
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4370 Views
  • Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100

    Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart!
    Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree.
    This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love,
    from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out -
    claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart!

    Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685

    #Walmart
    #ShoppingSpree
    #Deals
    #Savings
    #WinBig
    #ClaimNow
    #ShopTillYouDrop
    #LimitedOffer
    #Discounts
    #Cashback
    #AmericanSavings
    #RetailTherapy
    #Bargains
    #GetItNow
    #DealOfTheDay
    #BigSavings
    #ShopSmart
    #WalmartDeals
    #ClaimYourPrize
    #RetailMagic
    Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100 Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart! Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree. This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love, from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out - claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart! Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685 #Walmart #ShoppingSpree #Deals #Savings #WinBig #ClaimNow #ShopTillYouDrop #LimitedOffer #Discounts #Cashback #AmericanSavings #RetailTherapy #Bargains #GetItNow #DealOfTheDay #BigSavings #ShopSmart #WalmartDeals #ClaimYourPrize #RetailMagic
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4406 Views
  • Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100

    Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart!
    Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree.
    This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love,
    from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out -
    claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart!

    Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685

    #Walmart
    #ShoppingSpree
    #Deals
    #Savings
    #WinBig
    #ClaimNow
    #ShopTillYouDrop
    #LimitedOffer
    #Discounts
    #Cashback
    #AmericanSavings
    #RetailTherapy
    #Bargains
    #GetItNow
    #DealOfTheDay
    #BigSavings
    #ShopSmart
    #WalmartDeals
    #ClaimYourPrize
    #RetailMagic
    Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100 Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart! Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree. This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love, from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out - claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart! Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685 #Walmart #ShoppingSpree #Deals #Savings #WinBig #ClaimNow #ShopTillYouDrop #LimitedOffer #Discounts #Cashback #AmericanSavings #RetailTherapy #Bargains #GetItNow #DealOfTheDay #BigSavings #ShopSmart #WalmartDeals #ClaimYourPrize #RetailMagic
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4153 Views
  • Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100

    Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart!
    Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree.
    This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love,
    from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out -
    claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart!

    Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685

    #Walmart
    #ShoppingSpree
    #Deals
    #Savings
    #WinBig
    #ClaimNow
    #ShopTillYouDrop
    #LimitedOffer
    #Discounts
    #Cashback
    #AmericanSavings
    #RetailTherapy
    #Bargains
    #GetItNow
    #DealOfTheDay
    #BigSavings
    #ShopSmart
    #WalmartDeals
    #ClaimYourPrize
    #RetailMagic
    Sign Up And Claim Now Walmart$100 Elevate your retail therapy with an exclusive $100 bonus from Walmart! Simply sign up now to grab your share of the shopping spree. This is your ticket to scoring big on everything you love, from tech gadgets to fashion must-haves. Don't miss out - claim your bonus today and shop like a boss at Walmart! Offer Now: https://walmart100.offer2k23.com/?pub=14685 #Walmart #ShoppingSpree #Deals #Savings #WinBig #ClaimNow #ShopTillYouDrop #LimitedOffer #Discounts #Cashback #AmericanSavings #RetailTherapy #Bargains #GetItNow #DealOfTheDay #BigSavings #ShopSmart #WalmartDeals #ClaimYourPrize #RetailMagic
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4038 Views

  • The Ultimate Guide to $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store 2024

    In the era of digital rewards and cash incentives, the allure of gift cards has become increasingly prominent. Among the plethora of options available, the $750 Cash App Gift Card stands out as a lucrative and versatile reward, offering recipients the flexibility to choose how they wish to utilize their earnings. Whether you're aiming to treat yourself or seeking the perfect gift for a loved one, understanding the intricacies of this rewards store is essential to maximizing its benefits. Here's everything you need to know about the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store in 2024:

    Diverse Redemption Options:

    One of the most enticing aspects of the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store is its wide range of redemption options. From popular retailers and online marketplaces to subscription services and entertainment platforms, recipients have the freedom to explore an extensive selection of products and experiences. Whether you're in need of household essentials, craving a shopping spree, or looking to indulge in streaming services, the $750 Cash App Gift Card ensures that there's something for everyone.

    Seamless Integration with Cash App:

    As a prominent player in the realm of digital finance, Cash App offers users a seamless and convenient experience when it comes to managing their funds. The integration of the $750 Gift Card into the Cash App ecosystem further enhances this convenience, allowing recipients to effortlessly redeem their rewards and track their transactions within a single platform. With intuitive features and user-friendly interfaces, navigating the rewards store becomes a hassle-free experience for users of all backgrounds.

    Enhanced Security Measures:

    Security is paramount in today's digital landscape, and the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store prioritizes the safety and privacy of its users. Robust encryption protocols and stringent authentication measures safeguard sensitive information, ensuring that transactions remain secure and protected against potential threats. Whether you're redeeming your rewards online or making in-store purchases, you can rest assured that your personal and financial data are in safe hands.

    Exclusive Deals and Promotions:

    In addition to its diverse redemption options, the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store offers exclusive deals and promotions to enhance the value proposition for its users. From limited-time discounts to special offers on premium products and services, there are ample opportunities to stretch your rewards further and make the most out of your shopping experience. Keep an eye out for notifications and updates to capitalize on these lucrative deals and maximize your savings.

    User-Friendly Redemption Process:

    Navigating the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store is a breeze, thanks to its intuitive redemption process. Whether you prefer to browse through categories or search for specific items, the platform offers a seamless and user-friendly interface that caters to your preferences. With just a few clicks or taps, you can select your desired rewards, complete your transaction, and enjoy the satisfaction of securing valuable products or experiences with your gift card earnings.

    conclusion, the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store represents a compelling opportunity for individuals seeking versatile and rewarding experiences in 2024. With its diverse redemption options, seamless integration with Cash App, enhanced security measures, exclusive deals, and user-friendly redemption process, it's no wonder why this rewards store continues to captivate users worldwide. Whether you're treating yourself or surprising a loved one, the $750 Cash App Gift Card is your ticket to unlocking a world of possibilities and indulging in the rewards you deserve.
    check site:
    https://sites.google.com/view/clickherecahha/home




    The Ultimate Guide to $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store 2024 In the era of digital rewards and cash incentives, the allure of gift cards has become increasingly prominent. Among the plethora of options available, the $750 Cash App Gift Card stands out as a lucrative and versatile reward, offering recipients the flexibility to choose how they wish to utilize their earnings. Whether you're aiming to treat yourself or seeking the perfect gift for a loved one, understanding the intricacies of this rewards store is essential to maximizing its benefits. Here's everything you need to know about the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store in 2024: Diverse Redemption Options: One of the most enticing aspects of the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store is its wide range of redemption options. From popular retailers and online marketplaces to subscription services and entertainment platforms, recipients have the freedom to explore an extensive selection of products and experiences. Whether you're in need of household essentials, craving a shopping spree, or looking to indulge in streaming services, the $750 Cash App Gift Card ensures that there's something for everyone. Seamless Integration with Cash App: As a prominent player in the realm of digital finance, Cash App offers users a seamless and convenient experience when it comes to managing their funds. The integration of the $750 Gift Card into the Cash App ecosystem further enhances this convenience, allowing recipients to effortlessly redeem their rewards and track their transactions within a single platform. With intuitive features and user-friendly interfaces, navigating the rewards store becomes a hassle-free experience for users of all backgrounds. Enhanced Security Measures: Security is paramount in today's digital landscape, and the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store prioritizes the safety and privacy of its users. Robust encryption protocols and stringent authentication measures safeguard sensitive information, ensuring that transactions remain secure and protected against potential threats. Whether you're redeeming your rewards online or making in-store purchases, you can rest assured that your personal and financial data are in safe hands. Exclusive Deals and Promotions: In addition to its diverse redemption options, the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store offers exclusive deals and promotions to enhance the value proposition for its users. From limited-time discounts to special offers on premium products and services, there are ample opportunities to stretch your rewards further and make the most out of your shopping experience. Keep an eye out for notifications and updates to capitalize on these lucrative deals and maximize your savings. User-Friendly Redemption Process: Navigating the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store is a breeze, thanks to its intuitive redemption process. Whether you prefer to browse through categories or search for specific items, the platform offers a seamless and user-friendly interface that caters to your preferences. With just a few clicks or taps, you can select your desired rewards, complete your transaction, and enjoy the satisfaction of securing valuable products or experiences with your gift card earnings. conclusion, the $750 Cash App Gift Card Rewards Store represents a compelling opportunity for individuals seeking versatile and rewarding experiences in 2024. With its diverse redemption options, seamless integration with Cash App, enhanced security measures, exclusive deals, and user-friendly redemption process, it's no wonder why this rewards store continues to captivate users worldwide. Whether you're treating yourself or surprising a loved one, the $750 Cash App Gift Card is your ticket to unlocking a world of possibilities and indulging in the rewards you deserve. check site: https://sites.google.com/view/clickherecahha/home
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9958 Views
  • Biden-Soros Regime Illegally Funds Hungarian Opposition Media with $320,000 to Bring Down President and Former Justice Minister
    by Richard Abelson Feb. 13, 2024 10:00 am
    “Don’t let him get the last laugh!” – Hungarian ad campaign against Soros 2017
    The Biden regime is once again trying to overthrow the conservative Christian government of Hungary with US taypaxer money, paying over $320,000 via Soros-funded NGOs to 15 opposition media outlets ahead of the European Parliament elections June 6 to 9. A campaign by Soros-tied media forced the resignation of Hungarian President Katalin Novák and former Justice Minister Judit Varga.

    A campaign by Biden-Soros financed 444.hu media has forced the resignantion of popular Hungarian President Katalin Novák and charismatic Justice Minister Judit Varga of Victor Orbán’s Fidesz party. They were accused of pardoning a man convicted of covering sexual abuse of orphans.

    In 2019, the director of the orphanage in Bicske, János V., was sentenced to eight years in prison for the sexual abuse of underage male wards in ten cases between 2004 and 2016.

    His deputy, Endre Kónya, was sentenced to three years and four months in prison for allegedly assisting the orphanage director to coerce one of the victims into retracting their statement. Endre Kónya began serving his prison sentence in November 2021 and transitioned to a halfyway house beginning of 2023. Ahead of the visit by Pope Francis in April 2023, Endre Kónya’s wife appealed to Novak to pardon her husband, who only had a few months left to serve. Novák pardoned the man 27 April 2023 with the signature of then-Justice Minister Judit Varga.

    For a Limited Time: Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow Now Come With Free Shipping On Your Entire Order


    This pardon was then revealed by 444.hu media and turned into a campaign by EU- and Soros-backed socialist Momentum party, which organized protests outside the President’s office February 9th and 10th. Novak resigned as President Feb. 10th, and Varga stepped down as MP and European Parliament candidate. Varga had stepped down as Justice Minister in June 2023 to run for the European Parliament.

    Fidesz spokesman János Halász called Momentum part of the “Soros plan” in 2020.

    On Jan. 27, Hungarian political analyst András László and American conservative expat in Hungary Rod Dreher had posted receipts on X showing that 444 and other media involved were funded by the Biden regime.

    László wrote that “left-wing NGOs announce which Hungarian media outlets will receive direct financing from the US Embassy. More than a DOZEN, a total of 15 media will receive US taxpayer money.”


    “US taxpayers are funding anti government media in Hungary, a NATO ally,” Rod Dreher wrote.

    Foreign-funded Soros opposition radio station Klubradio published an opinion piece calling the parting President and Justice Minister “whores”:


    Today Gateway Pundit can reveal the Biden regime funded the outlet that conspired with the Hungarian socialist opposition and Soros media to bring down the popular Hungarian President and Justice Minister – strong conservative Christian women fighting to protect the family and the civilization.

    Hungarian Rock Star Justice Minister Judith Varga in Texas: “Weak America” Leads to War – Hungary Doesn’t Want US Wokeness

    According to the documents posted by László, parent company Magyar Jeti received 10,025,048 Hungarian Forint ($27,939.23) from the US State Dept. via Ökotars Foundation for 444 media and 6452024 Hungarian Forint ($17981,42) for the Qubit publication. Klubradio, which László called “filth”, recieved 5,135,146 Hungarian Forint ($14311,35) from the US State Dept.

    Magyar Jeti was directly funded by the EU with €460,000 in 2022 and €130,000 in 2021, according to the EU Financial Transparency System.

    Ökotars Foundation received €3.86 M from the EU 2018-2022, and Mérték Media Monitor received €260,000 from the EU 2017-2022.

    “The U.S. Department of State entrusted Soros-funded Ökotárs Foundation and media watchdog Mérték Media Monitor to hand over $320,000 in taxpayer dollars to 15 media outlets critical of the pro-freedom Hungarian government, according to NGO and government documents”, Media Research Center wrote:

    Soros has funded Both Ökotárs and Mérték. Between 2017 and 2022, Soros gave $306,147 to the Ökotárs Foundation and $88,113 to Mérték Media Monitor. According to descriptions provided by the Open Society Foundation, all three donations to Mérték Media Monitor aligned with the current goals of the State Department.

    At least five of the media outlets that were awarded grant funding were funded by Soros. Soros has funded Nyugat Media for years, giving them $259,142 in five donations from 2017-2020. “Let’s make democracy together,” a $25,000 donation claimed in its description. ” A second donation referred to Nyugat Media as “the largest, independent media site in the Hungarian countryside.”

    Trending: Mitch McConnell and Senate RINOs Help Pass Ukraine Funding Package that Includes Language for Automatic Impeachment if Trump Terminates Funding for Ukraine War!

    Soros gave $129,962 to the Tilos Cultural Foundation from 2016 to 2022, four grants in total. Two of the grants reference support for “independent community media in Hungary” and “alternative values.”

    Soros has also given $197,478 to grant-recipient Atlatszo.hu Kozhasznu Nonprofit Kft. Two out of the four Soros grants were earmarked for “independent media,” while another donation aided collaboration with a different State Department beneficiary Magyar Hang. Soros gave $15,000 to grant-recipient Debreciner in 2019, again for “independent” media.

    Media Research Center Vice President Dan Schneider ripped the State Department for funding the Hungarian opposition: “It is wrong for U.S. government employees to farm out how our tax dollars are spent. It is outrageous that a lazy diplomat in our embassy relied on the Soros crew to figure out how to spend our taxpayer dollars.”


    Gateway Pundit has extensively covered the Biden-Soros interference in Hungary in the name of “democracy”. Foreign election interference is illegal in Hungary.

    Now it seems the Biden Regime has gone the next step of bringing down the Hungarian President and Justice Minister.

    The aim of the Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Act is “to prevent foreign attempts to interfere in Hungary’s democratic processes”, Judit Varga wrote on X. “The adoption of the law was necessary: at the 2022 elections, the Hungarian left risked Hungary’s sovereignty by accepting foreign campaign contributions. This proves a serious attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign EU member state. Brussels has refused to comment or investigate the case ever since. The initiation of the infringement procedure is a clear proof that bureaucrats in Brussels don’t acknowledge: foreign NGO networks want to gain influence in member states. A main stake of the EP elections is whether it will be possible to elect a Parliament strong enough to free the Brussels bureaucracy from the grip of NGOs & mainstream media financed by international financiers.”



    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/biden-soros-regime-illegally-funds-hungarian-opposition-media/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/biden-soros-regime-illegally-funds.html
    Biden-Soros Regime Illegally Funds Hungarian Opposition Media with $320,000 to Bring Down President and Former Justice Minister by Richard Abelson Feb. 13, 2024 10:00 am “Don’t let him get the last laugh!” – Hungarian ad campaign against Soros 2017 The Biden regime is once again trying to overthrow the conservative Christian government of Hungary with US taypaxer money, paying over $320,000 via Soros-funded NGOs to 15 opposition media outlets ahead of the European Parliament elections June 6 to 9. A campaign by Soros-tied media forced the resignation of Hungarian President Katalin Novák and former Justice Minister Judit Varga. A campaign by Biden-Soros financed 444.hu media has forced the resignantion of popular Hungarian President Katalin Novák and charismatic Justice Minister Judit Varga of Victor Orbán’s Fidesz party. They were accused of pardoning a man convicted of covering sexual abuse of orphans. In 2019, the director of the orphanage in Bicske, János V., was sentenced to eight years in prison for the sexual abuse of underage male wards in ten cases between 2004 and 2016. His deputy, Endre Kónya, was sentenced to three years and four months in prison for allegedly assisting the orphanage director to coerce one of the victims into retracting their statement. Endre Kónya began serving his prison sentence in November 2021 and transitioned to a halfyway house beginning of 2023. Ahead of the visit by Pope Francis in April 2023, Endre Kónya’s wife appealed to Novak to pardon her husband, who only had a few months left to serve. Novák pardoned the man 27 April 2023 with the signature of then-Justice Minister Judit Varga. For a Limited Time: Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow Now Come With Free Shipping On Your Entire Order This pardon was then revealed by 444.hu media and turned into a campaign by EU- and Soros-backed socialist Momentum party, which organized protests outside the President’s office February 9th and 10th. Novak resigned as President Feb. 10th, and Varga stepped down as MP and European Parliament candidate. Varga had stepped down as Justice Minister in June 2023 to run for the European Parliament. Fidesz spokesman János Halász called Momentum part of the “Soros plan” in 2020. On Jan. 27, Hungarian political analyst András László and American conservative expat in Hungary Rod Dreher had posted receipts on X showing that 444 and other media involved were funded by the Biden regime. László wrote that “left-wing NGOs announce which Hungarian media outlets will receive direct financing from the US Embassy. More than a DOZEN, a total of 15 media will receive US taxpayer money.” “US taxpayers are funding anti government media in Hungary, a NATO ally,” Rod Dreher wrote. Foreign-funded Soros opposition radio station Klubradio published an opinion piece calling the parting President and Justice Minister “whores”: Today Gateway Pundit can reveal the Biden regime funded the outlet that conspired with the Hungarian socialist opposition and Soros media to bring down the popular Hungarian President and Justice Minister – strong conservative Christian women fighting to protect the family and the civilization. Hungarian Rock Star Justice Minister Judith Varga in Texas: “Weak America” Leads to War – Hungary Doesn’t Want US Wokeness According to the documents posted by László, parent company Magyar Jeti received 10,025,048 Hungarian Forint ($27,939.23) from the US State Dept. via Ökotars Foundation for 444 media and 6452024 Hungarian Forint ($17981,42) for the Qubit publication. Klubradio, which László called “filth”, recieved 5,135,146 Hungarian Forint ($14311,35) from the US State Dept. Magyar Jeti was directly funded by the EU with €460,000 in 2022 and €130,000 in 2021, according to the EU Financial Transparency System. Ökotars Foundation received €3.86 M from the EU 2018-2022, and Mérték Media Monitor received €260,000 from the EU 2017-2022. “The U.S. Department of State entrusted Soros-funded Ökotárs Foundation and media watchdog Mérték Media Monitor to hand over $320,000 in taxpayer dollars to 15 media outlets critical of the pro-freedom Hungarian government, according to NGO and government documents”, Media Research Center wrote: Soros has funded Both Ökotárs and Mérték. Between 2017 and 2022, Soros gave $306,147 to the Ökotárs Foundation and $88,113 to Mérték Media Monitor. According to descriptions provided by the Open Society Foundation, all three donations to Mérték Media Monitor aligned with the current goals of the State Department. At least five of the media outlets that were awarded grant funding were funded by Soros. Soros has funded Nyugat Media for years, giving them $259,142 in five donations from 2017-2020. “Let’s make democracy together,” a $25,000 donation claimed in its description. ” A second donation referred to Nyugat Media as “the largest, independent media site in the Hungarian countryside.” Trending: Mitch McConnell and Senate RINOs Help Pass Ukraine Funding Package that Includes Language for Automatic Impeachment if Trump Terminates Funding for Ukraine War! Soros gave $129,962 to the Tilos Cultural Foundation from 2016 to 2022, four grants in total. Two of the grants reference support for “independent community media in Hungary” and “alternative values.” Soros has also given $197,478 to grant-recipient Atlatszo.hu Kozhasznu Nonprofit Kft. Two out of the four Soros grants were earmarked for “independent media,” while another donation aided collaboration with a different State Department beneficiary Magyar Hang. Soros gave $15,000 to grant-recipient Debreciner in 2019, again for “independent” media. Media Research Center Vice President Dan Schneider ripped the State Department for funding the Hungarian opposition: “It is wrong for U.S. government employees to farm out how our tax dollars are spent. It is outrageous that a lazy diplomat in our embassy relied on the Soros crew to figure out how to spend our taxpayer dollars.” Gateway Pundit has extensively covered the Biden-Soros interference in Hungary in the name of “democracy”. Foreign election interference is illegal in Hungary. Now it seems the Biden Regime has gone the next step of bringing down the Hungarian President and Justice Minister. The aim of the Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Act is “to prevent foreign attempts to interfere in Hungary’s democratic processes”, Judit Varga wrote on X. “The adoption of the law was necessary: at the 2022 elections, the Hungarian left risked Hungary’s sovereignty by accepting foreign campaign contributions. This proves a serious attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign EU member state. Brussels has refused to comment or investigate the case ever since. The initiation of the infringement procedure is a clear proof that bureaucrats in Brussels don’t acknowledge: foreign NGO networks want to gain influence in member states. A main stake of the EP elections is whether it will be possible to elect a Parliament strong enough to free the Brussels bureaucracy from the grip of NGOs & mainstream media financed by international financiers.” https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/biden-soros-regime-illegally-funds-hungarian-opposition-media/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/biden-soros-regime-illegally-funds.html
    WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM
    Biden-Soros Regime Illegally Funds Hungarian Opposition Media with $320,000 to Bring Down President and Former Justice Minister | The Gateway Pundit | by Richard Abelson
    The Biden regime is once again trying to overthrow the conservative Christian government of Hungary with US taypaxer money, paying over $320,000 via Soros-funded NGOs to 15 opposition media outlets ahead of the European Parliament elections June 6 to 9.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 13784 Views
  • Provide a visual representation of sales data which includes how much sale deals win or lost, average deal size, and conversion rate using this fully customizable sales KPI dashboard PowerPoint template. You can also use this PPT template to identify sale issues to make better business decisions.
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/XvGQ0Dfj2Fg
    Explore now: https://bit.ly/3HLCL8X
    #KPI #SalesDashboard #KPIs #powerpointpresentation #powerpointdesign #ppt
    Provide a visual representation of sales data which includes how much sale deals win or lost, average deal size, and conversion rate using this fully customizable sales KPI dashboard PowerPoint template. You can also use this PPT template to identify sale issues to make better business decisions. Watch Now: https://youtu.be/XvGQ0Dfj2Fg Explore now: https://bit.ly/3HLCL8X #KPI #SalesDashboard #KPIs #powerpointpresentation #powerpointdesign #ppt
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3021 Views
  • ✅ Need a full or part-time job? Amazon Starting Salary Over💲19 - 49/hr http://tinyurl.com/yuccn7u3

    #amazon #amazonprime #amazondeals #kindle #amazonfinds #love #usa #onlineshopping #instagram #ebay #bookstagram #fashion #youtube #flipkart #spotify #itunes #amazonfashion #amazonseller #books #netflix #ecommerce #kindleunlimited #ebook #shopping #instagood #amazonreviewer #deals #book #freebies #music
    ✅ Need a full or part-time job? Amazon Starting Salary Over💲19 - 49/hr http://tinyurl.com/yuccn7u3 #amazon #amazonprime #amazondeals #kindle #amazonfinds #love #usa #onlineshopping #instagram #ebay #bookstagram #fashion #youtube #flipkart #spotify #itunes #amazonfashion #amazonseller #books #netflix #ecommerce #kindleunlimited #ebook #shopping #instagood #amazonreviewer #deals #book #freebies #music
    1 Comments 0 Shares 11841 Views 14
  • Amazon jobs $19 - 49/hr Sign-up Get link: http://tinyurl.com/yuccn7u3

    #amazon #amazonprime #amazondeals #kindle #amazonfinds #love #usa #onlineshopping #instagram #ebay #bookstagram #fashion #youtube #flipkart #spotify #itunes #amazonfashion #amazonseller #books #netflix #ecommerce #kindleunlimited #ebook #shopping #instagood #amazonreviewer #deals #book
    Amazon jobs $19 - 49/hr Sign-up Get link: http://tinyurl.com/yuccn7u3 #amazon #amazonprime #amazondeals #kindle #amazonfinds #love #usa #onlineshopping #instagram #ebay #bookstagram #fashion #youtube #flipkart #spotify #itunes #amazonfashion #amazonseller #books #netflix #ecommerce #kindleunlimited #ebook #shopping #instagood #amazonreviewer #deals #book
    Love
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 10851 Views
  • Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way”

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

    Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How could he know this in advance?

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

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

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

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

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

    According to Forbes:

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

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

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

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

    Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux


    Click here to watch the interview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

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

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

    The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


    Click here to watch the video.

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

    In a factual nutshell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

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

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

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

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

    According to David Skripac:

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

    Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (The Guardian, emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Best wishes
    Mike

    👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic” “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way” Michel Chossudovsky [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.] Introduction WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide. There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation. It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022: “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates. “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC). “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said. How could he know this in advance? “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”. Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.” According to Forbes: Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″ 300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.” A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”. Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic. Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux Click here to watch the interview. “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”. “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017: “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years. In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added) It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time. “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee. “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests. “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph) The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019. The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X” A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”. The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X” “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201) An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions. Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.” “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme. Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added) Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X” Click here to watch the video. Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions In a factual nutshell: WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases. All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people. In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people. The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis. The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank. All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system. According to David Skripac: “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as: “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).” Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen” Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”. A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023. “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen. Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.” She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective. “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” … “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.” (The Guardian, emphasis added) The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE). Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in: The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons. The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board. What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024). We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.” Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic. https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world. When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never. Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one. Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen. So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense! Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic. Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before? You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever. I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives! Best wishes Mike 👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    A “vaccine” for a non-existent hypothetical “Disease X” is slated to to be developed at one of UK Ministry of Defense's most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 22134 Views
  • Dreamy Diu Getaways: Book Your Ideal Hotel Online for a Blissful Stay

    Discover serenity at its best! Book your stay at our Diu hotel online booking for a seamless experience. Unwind in comfort, indulge in luxury, and create unforgettable memories. Your perfect getaway awaits – reserve now for exclusive deals and a stay that transcends expectations.

    https://www.hotelapaardiu.com/

    Dreamy Diu Getaways: Book Your Ideal Hotel Online for a Blissful Stay Discover serenity at its best! Book your stay at our Diu hotel online booking for a seamless experience. Unwind in comfort, indulge in luxury, and create unforgettable memories. Your perfect getaway awaits – reserve now for exclusive deals and a stay that transcends expectations. https://www.hotelapaardiu.com/
    Best Hotel In Diu: Experience The Charm Of Island Paradise
    Best Hotel in Diu: Experience the Charm of Island Paradise
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2849 Views
More Results