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

Let’s Talk Detox on Better Way Today You can also find this video on: Rumble | Facebook | Bitchute Join us as we learn all about detoxification with our resident health coach, Linda Rae. Linda shares her knowledge on detoxing – what it is, why it matters, and how to do it right. So sit down, grab a pencil and paper, and get ready to detox! We live on a poisoned planet. Whether it’s fluoride in the water, chemtrail agents in the air, parabens in cosmetics, or pesticides sprayed on our vegetables – it’s a challenge to avoid toxins these days. Linda’s presentation identifies sources of toxic substances to be aware of, the body’s organ systems they affect, symptoms to look out for, and actions we can take to reduce exposure to toxins and get rid of them from our bodies. From nutritious, protective food choices to homemade deodorants, skin brushing, and castor oil packs, there is a lot we can do. Linda’s detox basics presentation can be found here as a standalone video as well – perfect for sharing with family and friends! Tune in for the latest Better News with Christof Plothe, DO and Emma Sron, World Council for Health announcements, and to see where WCH has been out and about in the last week! Here is some of what we discussed on today’s show: Australians abandon failed mRNA Covid shots Historic #FluorideLawsuit Happening Right Now: Everything You Need to Know 5 Takeaways From This Week’s Testimony in Landmark Fluoride Trial The WHO Overplays its Hand and Watches Support Drain Away Photos from the Irish Expedition to expose the WHO power grab All eyes on Ireland and the Crotty Judgment More About Linda Rae Linda is a certified Health Coach and founder of Blissful Mum, a health coaching service that offers personalised health coaching to empower mothers to prioritise their well-being, ensuring they can create a nurturing and joyful family environment. Drawing on her training as a health coach and her professional experience in occupational therapy and mental health, combined with personal experience of being a mother of two young boys, Linda provides tailored support to help mothers navigate the complexities of motherhood, improve their health, and find fulfillment in their roles. Linda’s mission is to foster happy families by guiding mothers toward a balanced and healthy lifestyle. View all previous episodes of our live shows here. Mhttps://rumble.com/v4cyra6-lets-talk-detox-on-better-way-today.html

One Conspiracy Theory to Rule Them All! Kevin Barrett, Senior EditorJanuary 28, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Video link Originally Published October 1, 2023 right here on VTForeignPolicy.com The new False Flag Weekly News with Brett Redmayne-Titley references many conspiracy theories (ungood!) and even some anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (double-plus ungood!!) Many such theories, which might be more neutrally termed “non-mainstream interpretations,” represent attempts to make sense of one or more aspects of what Brett’s book’s subtitle terms “A World Gone Mad.” Are we mad if we try to make sense of a mad world? That is what a well-funded sector of the consent manufacturing industry insists. There is no easier way for a mediocre academic intellect to rake in grant money than by jumping on the anti-conspiracy-theory bandwagon. This scholarly cottage industry begins its Soviet-style “disabling” of dissidents a.k.a. conspiracy theorists by claiming that we believe things like “COVID was a bioweapon and the response was an unfreedom drill” or “mRNA vaccines have not been proven safe and effective, nor have many other vaccines for that matter” or “US election outcomes are sometimes rigged” or “the Biden Administration blew up Nordstream” or “the JFK assassination and 9/11 were coups” or “the government is either covering up UFOs or running a huge disinfo program” or “Zionist Jews are heavily overrepresented in media and finance and work together to advance their own interests” and so on because those beliefs are so warm and fuzzy and comforting. How’s that?! Well, according to the anti-conspiracy industry, the fact that stuff just happens, without rhyme or reason, terrifies us conspiracy theorists into spurious dot-connecting. In other words, we conspiracy theorists comfort ourselves by imposing meaning on a meaningless universe. For example, Joseph Uscinski his book American Conspiracy Theories (read my review) argues that conspiracy theories “offer a sense of control and order in a world that often feels chaotic and unpredictable.” The fact that mainstreamers cling to vastly more comforting (if less well-supported) interpretations, and that if all we wanted was comfort we too would take the blue pill, somehow does not register with the likes of Uscinski. It is far more disturbing to try to make sense of the madness all around us than to ignore it, deny it, roll with it, or explain it away by embracing mainstream narratives. Conspiracy theorizing is a dirty, disturbing job, but somebody’s gotta do it. So let’s go all-out and see if we can string together a bunch of this week’s False Flag Weekly News stories into some sort of grand unified theory making at least a minimum of sense about where the world is going and why. Demography, Destiny, and Degeneracy We’ll begin with a story that came out too late to make this week’s list: Eugene Kusmiak’s “Population Explosion or Population Collapse?” Kusmiak’s point is that the world is entering a state of demographic contraction, but it won’t last forever. Why not? People who are culturally/genetically predisposed to having few or no children if given the chance, now have the chance, thanks to advanced birth control. So they are weeding their genes and memes out of humanity’s garden, leaving the world to those who continue having large families (and their descendants who will also tend to have large families). That minority will soon become a majority, and population growth will resume. That’s all very interesting, you say. So how can we turn this into a grand conspiracy theory, preferably an anti-Semitic one?* Let’s start by considering the relationship between Zionism, Western sexual degeneracy, and demographics. Take Thomas Donnelly, PNAC’s token goy and lead author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the September 2000 document calling for a “New Pearl Harbor.” Thomas Donnelly became “Giselle Donnelly” in 2018. The image of ultra-Zionist PNAC’s 9/11-forecasting spokesperson, who also happens to be the group’s Shabbos goy, cutting “his” militarist balls off and becoming a (sterile) “her” is, shall we say, pregnant with symbolism. After all, America’s media and academic elites seem to want straight white males to abjure their erstwhile role as paterfamilias and either (A) cut off their balls literally and join the tranny revolution, or (B) embrace sexual degeneracy and hedonism and devote themselves to a frivolous life of fun-and-games, without the burden of children and the projection of male authority children so desperately crave and need. The polemical war on patriarchy and the role of fathers, alongside the feminist war on motherhood, suggests that the propaganda apparatus doesn’t want people, especially white/Western people, to reproduce. But contrary to the claims of white nationalists, it doesn’t want Muslims to reproduce, either. And that is where 9/11 comes in. The spectacularly telegenic 2001 false flag attack on New York and Washington was basically one gigantic anti-Islam public relation stunt. The 9/11 wars reduced the global Muslim population by around 30 million, according to Australian expert Dr. Gideon Polya. But far more demographically important was 9/11’s effect on Muslims’ religious élan, or what Ibn Khaldun called asabiyyah. Before 9/11, the mood of the global Muslim umma was confident, even triumphalist. The psychological effect of 9/11’s equating Islamic religiosity with “terrorism” not only took the wind out of the sails of Islamic political movements, but also contributed to slowing Muslim birthrates, which have collapsed spectacularly since the late 1990s. (9/11 injected Muslim communities with an “anti-extremism” meme that made intense religiosity uncool rather than cool, presumably leading to less intense-religiosity-driven family formation and reproduction.) Thomas Friedman has repeatedly employed neocon doublespeak—sometimes with remarkable vulgarity—to crow about the success of his tribe’s 9/11 false flag. Friedman has hinted that 9/11 was necessary to puncture the rising Muslim élan of the 1990s, which he and others saw as an existential threat to Israel. So “they” don’t want Muslims to inherit the earth. And “they” don’t want Americans and Westerners in general to inherit the earth either. “They” have used 9/11 and the promotion of sexual degeneracy and hedonism to help knock down the birth rates, and the asabiyyah, of those groups. So who do “they” want to inherit the earth? Here’s were we get into a classic “anti-Semitic conspiracy trope”—one that I don’t believe, I hasten to add, but am willing to entertain. That is the notion, asserted with various degrees of certainty by some of my radio guests, that the real purpose of the Ukraine war is to exterminate the Slavs who currently occupy the real Jewish homeland in Ukraine so that Jews can return to rule that homeland. Call it the Zionist Kaganate of Khazaria. Naturally Neo-Khazaria would be ruled by Kagans, with the Grand Kagan role going to Robert and his Kaganite Queen, Vicki Nudelman. When I first heard this theory from legendary NASA whistleblower Richard Cook, I thought it ridiculous. When are the Zionists planning to leave Israel? Not any time soon, that’s for sure. And are there even enough of them to fill Khazaria/Ukraine? Israel has such a hard time finding actual Jews to make aliyah that it has to import millions of fake Jews, most of the Russian. If they’re trying to kill off the Slavs and fill Khazaria with Jews, where are all those Jews going to come from? Enough Jews to Fill Khazaria In “Population Explosion or Population Collapse?” Eugene Kusmiak hints at an answer. He points out that Israel is on the upswing of a population boom thanks almost entirely to the exploding ultra-religious orthodox Jewish population. In this “ultra-religious ultra-fertile minority becomes the majority” effect, he says, Israel is far ahead of the rest of the world. Long before the West and the Muslims and the Rest finally reach the point of population rebound, Israel’s (and to some extent New Jersey’s) ultra-orthodox Jews will have been exponentially exploding their populations for decades. So with the Slavs removed by war and demoralization alongside vodka, porn, and other forms of hedonism, and with tens or (before long) hundreds of millions of Orthodox Jews looking for places to live, maybe Ukraine really could become a “big Israel.” This “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory” is not unproblematic. If the Kagans and their ilk covet their ancient homeland of Khazaria, and plan to move there, why are they poisoning the place with DU and strewing it with landmines? More pertinently, do ultra-secular barely-breeding ashkenazim like the Kagans and the rest of the Western/Zionist Straussian elite really love their hyperreligious and largely sephardic ultra-orthodox coreligionists so much that they will go to such extraordinary lengths to help them inherit the earth, or at least as much of it as possible? I don’t know. But I do know that there really is a ”Jewish plot to take over the world.” It’s called eschatology. Whereas Islamic and Christian eschatologies are universalist and center on that universal prophet of love and brotherhood, Jesus, Jewish eschatology posits their messiah as a military conqueror who will subjugate the non-Jewish nations or goyim to the Jews. The Jews’ return to Israel, according to the mainstream traditional Jewish perspective, is part of this end-times process by which Yahweh will finally compensate the Jews for millennia of persecution by making them the world rulers and the goyim their slaves. Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion Netanyahu, like the rest of Zionism’s brain trust, was, as his New York Times obituary put it, “a secular Jew who was deeply committed to the Jewish people and the State of Israel.” What The New York Times didn’t say was that Netanyahu Sr., though an atheist, was nonetheless deeply committed to the traditional eschatological project of conquering the world for the Jews and subjugating the goyim. Netanyahu Sr.’s biography of Abarbanel celebrates that great rabbi, who proposed tricking the Muslims and the Christians into killing each other off in an apocalyptic war so the Jews could inherit the earth, as a forerunner of modern atheistic Zionist realpolitik. It’s conceivable that rabidly Zionist atheist Jews like Thomas Friedman and the Kagans and the Netanyahus are attracted to, or even participating in, the traditional Jewish eschatological project. If so, crashing the demography of rival groups, while celebrating and encouraging the demographic explosion of hyperreligious Orthodox Jews, even while secretly despising them as untermenschen, would be a strategy one might expect them to pursue. *I like anti-Semitic conspiracy theories not because I have anything against Jews—I don’t—but because those are the only kind that ever get me noticed by the ADL. And in the alternative media, earning an ADL fatwa is like winning the Pulitzer Prize. Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard-driving weekly radio show funded by listener subscriptions at Substack and the weekly news roundup FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN). He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. Archived Articles (2004-2016) www.truthjihad.com ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/one-conspiracy-theory-to-rule-them-all/

Arne Burkhardt: mysterious death of German doctor after declaring young women “should not start families with vaccinated men”; died shortly after Dr. Rashid Buttar October 31, 2023 admin TheCOVIDBlog.com October 31, 2023 (updated November 3, 2023) Dr. Arne Burkhardt. We’ve known from the very beginning that the lethal injections destroy the female reproductive system. Former Pfizer Vice President turned truth-teller Michael Yeadon sounded the alarm way back in December 2020. Syncytin-1 is a necessary protein for placenta formation during pregnancy. This protein is also found within the spike proteins vaxxed people endlessly produce. The human immune system will thus recognize Syncytin-1 as a pathogen, attack it, and prevent placenta formation. In the alternative, a GMO placenta will form, exposing the baby to all kinds of potential issues. Further, receiving the injections while already pregnant is a documented disaster. Mrs. Mary Voll was the first of many to threaten legal action against The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. She received her second mRNA injection at 21 weeks pregnant. Eight days later, she delivered a stillborn baby. A month prior, we wrote about Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce. She tweeted on January 28, 2021 that she was “14 weeks pregnant and fully vaccinated.” Seven days later, she had a miscarriage. We’ve covered countless related stories since that time. Ms. Amanda Makulec fed her newborn baby vaxxed breast milk. He died at 10 weeks old. Ms. Jennifer Deon called religious exemptions from the lethal injections “dumb excuses.” She received an mRNA booster shot at six weeks pregnant. Two weeks later, an ultrasound showed that her baby was dead in utero. You get the picture. RELATED: Stephanie Whitmore: pregnant Australia woman’s baby suffers in utero brain bleed, stillborn 12 days after mother’s second Pfizer mRNA injection (January 12, 2022) But when it comes to vaxxed men, data are scant. Granted common sense dictates that vaxxed sperm is about as useless as a losing, scratched off lottery ticket. One study showed lower sperm counts and motility in vaxxed men. That was it until Dr. Arne Burkhardt confirmed scientifically what was fairly obvious. But those revelations may have cost the good doctor his life. Who was Dr. Arne Burkhardt? Dr. Burkhardt was born in Germany in 1944. He was a medical doctor and pathologist. Dr. Burkhardt, 79, became a professor in pathology at the University of Hamburg and later the University of Tübingen. He was a guest professor at universities all around the world, including Harvard. Dr. Burkhardt was long retired in 2021. But he’s a real doctor, and realized that mRNA and viral vector DNA injections were killing and maiming people globally. Dr. Burkhardt felt it was his duty as a doctor to learn and present the truth. He and fellow German doctor, Sucharit Bhakdi, did presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium on December 10, 2021. The primary conclusion of their presentations was that “COVID vaccines cannot work” and that there is “irrefutable evidence of [the vaccines] causative role in deaths.” Dr. Burkhardt also wrote a de-facto instructional manual for coroners, medical examiners, etc. to follow when doing post-mortems on vaxxed people to determine true cause of death. RELATED: New Lancet report shows Pfizer, Moderna et al. misled the public with deceptive efficacy statistics (May 31, 2021) He presented an update on his ongoing research related to 55 subjects (51 deceased and four alive) at the Pandemic Strategies: Lessons and Consequences international conference by Swedish physician group Läkaruppropet (The Doctor’s Call) on January 21, 2023. All subjects had already undergone previous postmortems, with only one determined to “probably” be caused by the injections. But when Dr. Burkhardt and his team did postmortems, they found 80% were caused by the injections. Further, 15 of the 51 deceased spontaneously collapsed and died. The viral highlight was when Dr. Burkhardt spoke about the reproductive systems of the deceased vaxxed males. A 28-year-old man’s sperm basically transformed into spike proteins. Once that’s inside a non-vaccinated woman, her immune system will attack said sperm. Dr. Burkhardt provided this tidbit of advice: “If I were a woman in fertile age, I would not plan a motherhood with a man that has been vaccinated.” The full 38-minute video is here (and very much worth the watch). Dr. Burkhardt also said and showed that prostate glands and the inside of testicles in vaxxed males suffered from lymphocytic infiltration – plaque-like skin eruptions. E.U. Presentation Dr. Burkhardt’s final and perhaps greatest moment was when he presented his findings at the European Parliament International COVID Summit on May 3, 2023 (starts at the 2:19:00 mark). He provided updated statistics related to his ongoing research. “In 77% of the 75 autopsies, the vaccination had an important impact on the death process,” he said. The endothelium (lining of all blood and lymphatic vessels) was ripped to shreds in pretty much every vaxxed subject. That’s what leads to blood clots, cardiac arrest, increased cancers, etc. All organs were also infested with the spike proteins, thus the subjects’ immune systems attacked their organs, thinking said organs were foreign invaders (autoimmune disease). He ended the presentation urging the E.U. to speak directly to the public about what the injections are doing to their bodies, and to get the vaccines off the market as soon as possible. Death All we know for certain is that Dr. Burkhardt died on May 30. One version is that he drowned while trying to save his disabled son who had fallen into a lake. The other version is that his body was found in a lake by a helicopter search-and-rescue team. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, the natural immunity truth doctor, implied that Dr. Burkhardt may have been killed by the powers-that-be (“TPTB”). This man was a world-renowned pathologist. But the results are paper thin for the keywords “Dr. Arne Burkhardt death” in all search engines. TPTB want to erase him from history. Dr. Rashid Buttar died 12 days earlier Dr. Rashid Buttar was first mentioned on The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. This blogger learned a lot about the actual evil science behind the synthetic mRNA and DNA embedded in the injections via Dr. Buttar. The British-born, North Carolina-based osteopathic doctor was always responsive to this blogger’s emails. He was by far one of the best we had during The Great Reset. Perhaps his most memorable moment was the October 21, 2021 CNN interview with reporter Drew Griffin. The whole interview is too nauseating to link herein due to the vile vaxx zealotry. But Griffin said to Dr. Buttar, “I’m vaccinated. Am I a ticking time bomb?” Dr. Buttar said it was “probable.” Griffin died from hyper-aggressive cancer on December 17, 2022. What happened next cannot be a coincidence. Dr. Buttar did an interview with The 700 Club Canada host Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on May 17. He sounded traumatized and even a bit incoherent, which would make sense if what he said was true. Dr. Buttar said, “I was poisoned…with 200x of what’s in the vaccine.” He implied CNN may have had something to do with the alleged poisoning. Less than 24 hours later, Dr. Buttar was dead at age 57. It’s as if TPTB would not let Dr. Buttar be correct about one of their mainstream media tools dying from the injections. So they took his life. It’s not far-fetched at all. This blogger was tortured, sexually assaulted and poisoned in the Maricopa County (Arizona) Jail in 2008. It was all a setup because of journalism exposing Tempe, Phoenix and other Arizona cops. Every single day, this blogger expects to be his last after that experience. The journalism has only gotten more aggressive and more provocative since that time, without regard for safety. Again, “the only thing they can do now is kill me.” But we’ll get a few shots off beforehand. Non-vaccinated people cannot date vaxxed people. Indirect shedding is bad enough. Vaxxed sperm and semen are essentially the vaccine. The spike proteins overtake every organ, gland, etc. in the human body. That includes the Bartholin gland, which produces vaginal lubrication. Ladies’ passion, if you will, is also contaminated with the spike proteins. And if a pregnancy does miraculously occur, you’ll have to worry about the potential of experiencing the grossest scene in movie history in real life. Dr. Burkhardt and Dr. Buttar are martyrs. It takes a lot of courage to do what they did, when they did it. Many “new kid on the block” doctors are coming out of the woodwork in 2023 now that the heat isn’t as intense as 2020 to 2022. Same with all the new bloggers and “journalists” now trying to tell truth about the injections in 2023. It’s always easier being the third or fourth squadron raiding an enemy fort versus being the first. But whatever it takes to force eyes open, this blogger is all for it. Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones. COVID Legal USA is your partner in fight mandatory vaccines and other COVID mandates. Follow us on Telegram. Pre-order The COVID Blog® book here. Fight back against censorship! We are once again processing credit card donations. CLICK HERE TO DONATE VIA CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD. You may also donate via CashApp, Zelle, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stellar, and/or snail mail. https://thecovidblog.com/2023/10/31/arne-burkhardt-mysterious-death-of-german-doctor-after-declaring-young-women-should-not-start-families-with-vaccinated-men-died-shortly-after-dr-rashid-buttar/

Arne Burkhardt: mysterious death of German doctor after declaring young women “should not start families with vaccinated men”; died shortly after Dr. Rashid Buttar October 31, 2023 admin TheCOVIDBlog.com October 31, 2023 (updated November 3, 2023) Dr. Arne Burkhardt. We’ve known from the very beginning that the lethal injections destroy the female reproductive system. Former Pfizer Vice President turned truth-teller Michael Yeadon sounded the alarm way back in December 2020. Syncytin-1 is a necessary protein for placenta formation during pregnancy. This protein is also found within the spike proteins vaxxed people endlessly produce. The human immune system will thus recognize Syncytin-1 as a pathogen, attack it, and prevent placenta formation. In the alternative, a GMO placenta will form, exposing the baby to all kinds of potential issues. Further, receiving the injections while already pregnant is a documented disaster. Mrs. Mary Voll was the first of many to threaten legal action against The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. She received her second mRNA injection at 21 weeks pregnant. Eight days later, she delivered a stillborn baby. A month prior, we wrote about Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce. She tweeted on January 28, 2021 that she was “14 weeks pregnant and fully vaccinated.” Seven days later, she had a miscarriage. We’ve covered countless related stories since that time. Ms. Amanda Makulec fed her newborn baby vaxxed breast milk. He died at 10 weeks old. Ms. Jennifer Deon called religious exemptions from the lethal injections “dumb excuses.” She received an mRNA booster shot at six weeks pregnant. Two weeks later, an ultrasound showed that her baby was dead in utero. You get the picture. RELATED: Stephanie Whitmore: pregnant Australia woman’s baby suffers in utero brain bleed, stillborn 12 days after mother’s second Pfizer mRNA injection (January 12, 2022) But when it comes to vaxxed men, data are scant. Granted common sense dictates that vaxxed sperm is about as useless as a losing, scratched off lottery ticket. One study showed lower sperm counts and motility in vaxxed men. That was it until Dr. Arne Burkhardt confirmed scientifically what was fairly obvious. But those revelations may have cost the good doctor his life. Who was Dr. Arne Burkhardt? Dr. Burkhardt was born in Germany in 1944. He was a medical doctor and pathologist. Dr. Burkhardt, 79, became a professor in pathology at the University of Hamburg and later the University of Tübingen. He was a guest professor at universities all around the world, including Harvard. Dr. Burkhardt was long retired in 2021. But he’s a real doctor, and realized that mRNA and viral vector DNA injections were killing and maiming people globally. Dr. Burkhardt felt it was his duty as a doctor to learn and present the truth. He and fellow German doctor, Sucharit Bhakdi, did presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium on December 10, 2021. The primary conclusion of their presentations was that “COVID vaccines cannot work” and that there is “irrefutable evidence of [the vaccines] causative role in deaths.” Dr. Burkhardt also wrote a de-facto instructional manual for coroners, medical examiners, etc. to follow when doing post-mortems on vaxxed people to determine true cause of death. RELATED: New Lancet report shows Pfizer, Moderna et al. misled the public with deceptive efficacy statistics (May 31, 2021) He presented an update on his ongoing research related to 55 subjects (51 deceased and four alive) at the Pandemic Strategies: Lessons and Consequences international conference by Swedish physician group Läkaruppropet (The Doctor’s Call) on January 21, 2023. All subjects had already undergone previous postmortems, with only one determined to “probably” be caused by the injections. But when Dr. Burkhardt and his team did postmortems, they found 80% were caused by the injections. Further, 15 of the 51 deceased spontaneously collapsed and died. The viral highlight was when Dr. Burkhardt spoke about the reproductive systems of the deceased vaxxed males. A 28-year-old man’s sperm basically transformed into spike proteins. Once that’s inside a non-vaccinated woman, her immune system will attack said sperm. Dr. Burkhardt provided this tidbit of advice: “If I were a woman in fertile age, I would not plan a motherhood with a man that has been vaccinated.” The full 38-minute video is here (and very much worth the watch). Dr. Burkhardt also said and showed that prostate glands and the inside of testicles in vaxxed males suffered from lymphocytic infiltration – plaque-like skin eruptions. E.U. Presentation Dr. Burkhardt’s final and perhaps greatest moment was when he presented his findings at the European Parliament International COVID Summit on May 3, 2023 (starts at the 2:19:00 mark). He provided updated statistics related to his ongoing research. “In 77% of the 75 autopsies, the vaccination had an important impact on the death process,” he said. The endothelium (lining of all blood and lymphatic vessels) was ripped to shreds in pretty much every vaxxed subject. That’s what leads to blood clots, cardiac arrest, increased cancers, etc. All organs were also infested with the spike proteins, thus the subjects’ immune systems attacked their organs, thinking said organs were foreign invaders (autoimmune disease). He ended the presentation urging the E.U. to speak directly to the public about what the injections are doing to their bodies, and to get the vaccines off the market as soon as possible. Death All we know for certain is that Dr. Burkhardt died on May 30. One version is that he drowned while trying to save his disabled son who had fallen into a lake. The other version is that his body was found in a lake by a helicopter search-and-rescue team. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, the natural immunity truth doctor, implied that Dr. Burkhardt may have been killed by the powers-that-be (“TPTB”). This man was a world-renowned pathologist. But the results are paper thin for the keywords “Dr. Arne Burkhardt death” in all search engines. TPTB want to erase him from history. Dr. Rashid Buttar died 12 days earlier Dr. Rashid Buttar was first mentioned on The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. This blogger learned a lot about the actual evil science behind the synthetic mRNA and DNA embedded in the injections via Dr. Buttar. The British-born, North Carolina-based osteopathic doctor was always responsive to this blogger’s emails. He was by far one of the best we had during The Great Reset. Perhaps his most memorable moment was the October 21, 2021 CNN interview with reporter Drew Griffin. The whole interview is too nauseating to link herein due to the vile vaxx zealotry. But Griffin said to Dr. Buttar, “I’m vaccinated. Am I a ticking time bomb?” Dr. Buttar said it was “probable.” Griffin died from hyper-aggressive cancer on December 17, 2022. What happened next cannot be a coincidence. Dr. Buttar did an interview with The 700 Club Canada host Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on May 17. He sounded traumatized and even a bit incoherent, which would make sense if what he said was true. Dr. Buttar said, “I was poisoned…with 200x of what’s in the vaccine.” He implied CNN may have had something to do with the alleged poisoning. Less than 24 hours later, Dr. Buttar was dead at age 57. It’s as if TPTB would not let Dr. Buttar be correct about one of their mainstream media tools dying from the injections. So they took his life. It’s not far-fetched at all. This blogger was tortured, sexually assaulted and poisoned in the Maricopa County (Arizona) Jail in 2008. It was all a setup because of journalism exposing Tempe, Phoenix and other Arizona cops. Every single day, this blogger expects to be his last after that experience. The journalism has only gotten more aggressive and more provocative since that time, without regard for safety. Again, “the only thing they can do now is kill me.” But we’ll get a few shots off beforehand. Non-vaccinated people cannot date vaxxed people. Indirect shedding is bad enough. Vaxxed sperm and semen are essentially the vaccine. The spike proteins overtake every organ, gland, etc. in the human body. That includes the Bartholin gland, which produces vaginal lubrication. Ladies’ passion, if you will, is also contaminated with the spike proteins. And if a pregnancy does miraculously occur, you’ll have to worry about the potential of experiencing the grossest scene in movie history in real life. Dr. Burkhardt and Dr. Buttar are martyrs. It takes a lot of courage to do what they did, when they did it. Many “new kid on the block” doctors are coming out of the woodwork in 2023 now that the heat isn’t as intense as 2020 to 2022. Same with all the new bloggers and “journalists” now trying to tell truth about the injections in 2023. It’s always easier being the third or fourth squadron raiding an enemy fort versus being the first. But whatever it takes to force eyes open, this blogger is all for it. Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones. COVID Legal USA is your partner in fight mandatory vaccines and other COVID mandates. Follow us on Telegram. Pre-order The COVID Blog® book here. Fight back against censorship! We are once again processing credit card donations. CLICK HERE TO DONATE VIA CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD. You may also donate via CashApp, Zelle, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stellar, and/or snail mail.

Arne Burkhardt: mysterious death of German doctor after declaring young women “should not start families with vaccinated men”; died shortly after Dr. Rashid Buttar October 31, 2023 admin TheCOVIDBlog.comOctober 31, 2023 (updated November 3, 2023) Dr. Arne Burkhardt. We’ve known from the very beginning that the lethal injections destroy the female reproductive system. Former Pfizer Vice President turned truth-teller Michael Yeadon sounded the alarm way back in December 2020. Syncytin-1 is a necessary protein for placenta formation during pregnancy. This protein is also found within the spike proteins vaxxed people endlessly produce. The human immune system will thus recognize Syncytin-1 as a pathogen, attack it, and prevent placenta formation. In the alternative, a GMO placenta will form, exposing the baby to all kinds of potential issues. Further, receiving the injections while already pregnant is a documented disaster. Mrs. Mary Voll was the first of many to threaten legal action against The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. She received her second mRNA injection at 21 weeks pregnant. Eight days later, she delivered a stillborn baby. A month prior, we wrote about Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce. She tweeted on January 28, 2021 that she was “14 weeks pregnant and fully vaccinated.” Seven days later, she had a miscarriage. We’ve covered countless related stories since that time. Ms. Amanda Makulec fed her newborn baby vaxxed breast milk. He died at 10 weeks old. Ms. Jennifer Deon called religious exemptions from the lethal injections “dumb excuses.” She received an mRNA booster shot at six weeks pregnant. Two weeks later, an ultrasound showed that her baby was dead in utero. You get the picture. RELATED: Stephanie Whitmore: pregnant Australia woman’s baby suffers in utero brain bleed, stillborn 12 days after mother’s second Pfizer mRNA injection (January 12, 2022) But when it comes to vaxxed men, data are scant. Granted common sense dictates that vaxxed sperm is about as useless as a losing, scratched off lottery ticket. One study showed lower sperm counts and motility in vaxxed men. That was it until Dr. Arne Burkhardt confirmed scientifically what was fairly obvious. But those revelations may have cost the good doctor his life. Who was Dr. Arne Burkhardt? Dr. Burkhardt was born in Germany in 1944. He was a medical doctor and pathologist. Dr. Burkhardt, 79, became a professor in pathology at the University of Hamburg and later the University of Tübingen. He was a guest professor at universities all around the world, including Harvard. Dr. Burkhardt was long retired in 2021. But he’s a real doctor, and realized that mRNA and viral vector DNA injections were killing and maiming people globally. Dr. Burkhardt felt it was his duty as a doctor to learn and present the truth. He and fellow German doctor, Sucharit Bhakdi, did presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium on December 10, 2021. The primary conclusion of their presentations was that “COVID vaccines cannot work” and that there is “irrefutable evidence of [the vaccines] causative role in deaths.” Dr. Burkhardt also wrote a de-facto instructional manual for coroners, medical examiners, etc. to follow when doing post-mortems on vaxxed people to determine true cause of death. RELATED: New Lancet report shows Pfizer, Moderna et al. misled the public with deceptive efficacy statistics(May 31, 2021) He presented an update on his ongoing research related to 55 subjects (51 deceased and four alive) at the Pandemic Strategies: Lessons and Consequences international conference by Swedish physician group Läkaruppropet (The Doctor’s Call) on January 21, 2023. All subjects had already undergone previous postmortems, with only one determined to “probably” be caused by the injections. But when Dr. Burkhardt and his team did postmortems, they found 80% were caused by the injections. Further, 15 of the 51 deceased spontaneously collapsed and died. The viral highlight was when Dr. Burkhardt spoke about the reproductive systems of the deceased vaxxed males. A 28-year-old man’s sperm basically transformed into spike proteins. Once that’s inside a non-vaccinated woman, her immune system will attack said sperm. Dr. Burkhardt provided this tidbit of advice: “If I were a woman in fertile age, I would not plan a motherhood with a man that has been vaccinated.” The full 38-minute video is here (and very much worth the watch). Dr. Burkhardt also said and showed that prostate glands and the inside of testicles in vaxxed males suffered from lymphocytic infiltration – plaque-like skin eruptions. E.U. Presentation Dr. Burkhardt’s final and perhaps greatest moment was when he presented his findings at the European Parliament International COVID Summit on May 3, 2023 (starts at the 2:19:00 mark). He provided updated statistics related to his ongoing research. “In 77% of the 75 autopsies, the vaccination had an important impact on the death process,” he said. The endothelium (lining of all blood and lymphatic vessels) was ripped to shreds in pretty much every vaxxed subject. That’s what leads to blood clots, cardiac arrest, increased cancers, etc. All organs were also infested with the spike proteins, thus the subjects’ immune systems attacked their organs, thinking said organs were foreign invaders (autoimmune disease). He ended the presentation urging the E.U. to speak directly to the public about what the injections are doing to their bodies, and to get the vaccines off the market as soon as possible. Death All we know for certain is that Dr. Burkhardt died on May 30. One version is that he drowned while trying to save his disabled sonwho had fallen into a lake. The other version is that his body was found in a lake by a helicopter search-and-rescue team. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, the natural immunity truth doctor, implied that Dr. Burkhardt may have been killed by the powers-that-be (“TPTB”). This man was a world-renowned pathologist. But the results are paper thin for the keywords “Dr. Arne Burkhardt death” in all search engines. TPTB want to erase him from history. Dr. Rashid Buttar died 12 days earlier Dr. Rashid Buttar was first mentioned on The COVID Blog® back in March 2021. This blogger learned a lot about the actual evil science behind the synthetic mRNA and DNA embedded in the injections via Dr. Buttar. The British-born, North Carolina-based osteopathic doctor was always responsive to this blogger’s emails. He was by far one of the best we had during The Great Reset. Perhaps his most memorable moment was the October 21, 2021 CNN interview with reporter Drew Griffin. The whole interview is too nauseating to link herein due to the vile vaxx zealotry. But Griffin said to Dr. Buttar, “I’m vaccinated. Am I a ticking time bomb?” Dr. Buttar said it was “probable.” Griffin died from hyper-aggressive cancer on December 17, 2022. What happened next cannot be a coincidence. Dr. Buttar did an interview with The 700 Club Canada host Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on May 17. He sounded traumatized and even a bit incoherent, which would make sense if what he said was true. Dr. Buttar said, “I was poisoned…with 200x of what’s in the vaccine.” He implied CNN may have had something to do with the alleged poisoning. Less than 24 hours later, Dr. Buttar was dead at age 57. It’s as if TPTB would not let Dr. Buttar be correct about one of their mainstream media tools dying from the injections. So they took his life. It’s not far-fetched at all. This blogger was tortured, sexually assaulted and poisoned in the Maricopa County (Arizona) Jail in 2008. It was all a setup because of journalism exposing Tempe, Phoenix and other Arizona cops. Every single day, this blogger expects to be his last after that experience. The journalism has only gotten more aggressive and more provocative since that time, without regard for safety. Again, “the only thing they can do now is kill me.” But we’ll get a few shots off beforehand. Non-vaccinated people cannot date vaxxed people. Indirect shedding is bad enough. Vaxxed sperm and semen are essentially the vaccine. The spike proteins overtake every organ, gland, etc. in the human body. That includes the Bartholin gland, which produces vaginal lubrication. Ladies’ passion, if you will, is also contaminated with the spike proteins. And if a pregnancy does miraculously occur, you’ll have to worry about the potential of experiencing the grossest scene in movie history in real life. Dr. Burkhardt and Dr. Buttar are martyrs. It takes a lot of courage to do what they did, when they did it. Many “new kid on the block” doctors are coming out of the woodwork in 2023 now that the heat isn’t as intense as 2020 to 2022. Same with all the new bloggers and “journalists” now trying to tell truth about the injections in 2023. It’s always easier being the third or fourth squadron raiding an enemy fort versus being the first. But whatever it takes to force eyes open, this blogger is all for it. Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones. COVID Legal USA is your partner in fight mandatory vaccines and other COVID mandates. Follow us on Telegram. Pre-order The COVID Blog® book here. Fight back against censorship! We are once again processing credit card donations. CLICK HERE TO DONATE VIA CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD. You may also donate via CashApp, Zelle, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stellar, and/or snail mail.

To all those sleepless nights, to all the stress your children have given you, to motherhood. Wishing a very Happy Mother's Day to me and to all the Mothers in this day????

Neskhon (“She Belongs to Khons [Khonsu, the Egyptian God of the Moon]”), was a noble woman in the 21st Dynasty of ancient Egypt who died around 969 B.C. Neskohn was a fairly young woman at the time of her death and was married to Pinudjem II, a high Priest of Amun at Thebes. At the time of her unwrapping, when surveying her mummy, Neskohn’s figure; plumpness of her physique and well-endowed bust seemed to indicate pregnancy or motherhood to archaeologists, and to this day it is widely believed she was either pregnant or had died during childbirth. #history #somee #cent #archon

Yesterday was my mother's birthday but I wasn't able to reach her. We called however, my brother and I and we sang for her. She really appreciated it. It's always nice seeing your mum happy. I hope to get her something before the week runs out. This being my first time in the community and the platform in general, I decided to put in much effort, share something that took time and so I share with you this drawing of a mother and her child signifying the joy and pains of motherhood. Happy Birthday Mum......#SomeeFeatured #SME #motherhood

Energía recíproca! ♻️ #MotherHood