https://brownstone.org/articles/unofficial-qa-international-health-regulations/

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

Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states: No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO, referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to. A rational examination of the texts in question shows that: The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics. The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here. The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty. The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18): require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas. These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9). No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12). Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13). Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19). Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20). The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21). Everyone has the right to work (Article 23). Everyone has the right to education (Article 26). Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28). Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva. The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1), Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A). States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response. As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements. States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42): Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures. Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it. Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty. All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.” It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction. If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span. Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using. The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12): In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers. And Article 20 (1): …provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source. The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b). Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary. In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens. As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18): …and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO. The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended. It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool). Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding? Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates. The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022: We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…, repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration: …an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024, and by the Council of the European Union: A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect. The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain. The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies. If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent. The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign. The Need for Clarification The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs. No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day). So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

ALERT: World Health Assembly Meeting on May 27th – Here’s What You Need to Know March 22, 2024 • by Meryl Nass, MD Introduction On May 27th 2024, the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) will take place. At this meeting, the WHA may vote, or may approve by consensus or secret ballot, two documents that would transfer health decision-making powers to the WHO, and would give the WHO Director General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, the unilateral ability to declare health emergencies worldwide – with no checks and balances. The two documents of concern are amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Treaty. These two documents give the WHO control over health information, health decision-making, and sharing of pandemic pathogens. They require member states to implement laws enforcing censorship, requiring vaccinations, and controlling movement and quarantine based on WHO directives. Call to Action We are asking everyone to help get out these messages: HR 4665 – Vote on March 22 – defunds the WHO and requires any pandemic treaty to go through Senate ratification process. What can you do? Sign the Align Act to contact your congress person More info here: https://doortofreedom.org/2024/03/15/federal-watch-hr-4665 Model legislation: a resolution states can pass reinforcing that the WHO has no jurisdiction. If you have a health-freedom friendly legislator or legislature, please share this model resolution. https://doortofreedom.org/2024/03/15/model-legislation/ What can Parliamentarians do? This document provides a list that could be used by any concerned member of Parliament or Congress to challenge the WHO. https://doortofreedom.org/what-can-parliamentarians-do/ —————————– Email from March 15th, 2024 Tedros continues to lie about what the WHO is attempting to achieve. His lies get a lot of press. They have been repeated in European Parliaments and by US diplomats in front of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in the House. Like the IHR amendments, negotiated in secret for 15 months, or the Pandemic Treaty, which has had 5 different names, there is a concerted, deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead the public about the IHR amendments and pandemic treaty before their anticipated vote in May 2024. Here are lies he told at the World Governments Summit last month: “The second major barrier [to passage of the documents] is the litany of lies and conspiracy theories about the agreement: That it’s a power grab by the World Health Organisation; That it will cede sovereignty to WHO; That it will give WHO power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries; That it’s an ‘attack on freedom’; That WHO will not allow people to travel; And that WHO wants to control people’s lives. These are some of the lies that are being spread. If they weren’t so dangerous, these lies would be funny. But they put the health of the world’s people at risk. And that is no laughing matter. These claims are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.” I have shown with the evidence from the documents themselves how this statement is false, here. Dr. David Bell and international lawyer Van Dinh (both have PhDs and both have worked for UN agencies) show how these claims are false as well, here: https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/ It is important to point out the lies and obfuscations, for this is likely to lead to people understanding that the WHO cannot be trusted with such agreements, and they may begin to grasp the enormity of what we face. I have also compiled a list of 12 ways the WHO can be challenged in national or state parliaments, legislatures and Congress: https://doortofreedom.org/what-can-parliamentarians-do/ I hope you will spread this information widely. Subscribe to DailyClout so you never miss an update! https://dailyclout.io/alert-world-health-assembly-meeting-on-may-27th-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows It also appears that the contamination enters the cell nucleus and integrates with human DNA Rebekah Barnett Regulators and fact checkers claim that plasmid DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid vaccines can’t change your genomic DNA, but new evidence suggests that it actually can. The fact checkers assert that DNA contamination poses no risk to your genomic DNA because your body will naturally destroy any contaminant DNA before it even gets into the cells. Even if the contaminant DNA could get into cells, there’s no way it can enter the cell nucleus, where genomic integration events occur, they say. And even if the contaminant DNA could enter the nucleus, which it can’t, it still couldn’t genomically integrate unless specific enzymes are present, they say. However, results from independent lab testing conducted on ovarian cancer cell lines show that contaminant DNA from Pfizer’s Covid vaccine not only crossed into the cells, but that it survived multiple cell divisions. This is suggestive that the contaminant DNA is able to transfect (enter) the cell nucleus, and that it integrated with the human cell DNA. TLDR 1. Scientists claim that Pfizer vaccine contaminant DNA has been detected in ovarian cancer cell line DNA, but they do not yet know if it’s chromosomal (heritable) or extra-chromosomal DNA (not heritable) 2. This is an in vitro (in a lab dish) finding, and needs to be replicated in vivo (in a human patient) 3. As the finding is specific to cancer cell lines, it is not generalisable, but scientists say it may give an indication of what cancer patients in remission could experience after mRNA Covid vaccination 4. This finding calls into question fact checker claims that mRNA Covid vaccine DNA contamination can't enter cells, can't enter the nucleus, and cannot integrate with human DNA. Last year, Boston-based genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made the shocking discovery that the mRNA Covid vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of plasmid DNA, an artefact of the vaccine production process. McKernan’s findings were soon confirmed by multiple independent labs around the world for both the Pfizer and Moderna mono- and bi-valent vaccines, including lots approved for children, with one Canadian study led by Dr David Speicher concluding that there are “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose.” Scientists including McKernan, University of South Carolina cancer genomics scientist Dr Phillip Buckhaults, and Dr Wafik El-Diery, head of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, expressed concerns that fragments of plasmid DNA contamination could cause adverse events, autoimmune problems and cancers in some patients. But perhaps most significantly, there is also a theoretical risk of the contaminant DNA integrating with patients’ chromosomal DNA and modifying the human genome. This is of particular concern with the Pfizer vaccine, which contains an SV40 enhancer sequence, used in gene therapies “to drive DNA into the nucleus,” explains McKernan. While regulators have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach, independent scientists, including McKernan, have been more proactive, initiating experiments testing for evidence of genomic integration. Now, the first results are in. In an experiment conducted together with German molecular biologist Dr Ulrike Kämmerer, McKernan has detected vaccine contaminant DNA in ovarian cancer cell lines treated with Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. The scientists found a chimeric combination of human ovarian cell line DNA and spike sequence DNA derived from the contaminating plasmid at at least one, and possibly two sites. “If anything, this work has put to bed the question regarding if this contaminant DNA gets into the cell, and the chimeric human and contaminant spike DNA sequences imply it has entered the nucleus,” McKernan says. “The PCR and sequencing data both demonstrate the vaccine is getting into the cell and surviving cell passaging. It is likely bioactive and being partially replicated.” To reach this finding, Dr Kämmerer first treated ovarian cancer cell lines with mRNA Covid vaccines, using cells treated with AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines as controls. The cells were then ‘passaged’, meaning they were left to divide and replicate numerous times. This has the effect of “rinsing away residual vaccine,” explains McKernan. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was then performed, a staining process that Dr Kämmerer used to detect levels of spike protein expression produced by the vaccine modified-RNA. This was to confirm that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrying mod-RNA and plasmid DNA contamination “did their job and delivered the payload,” says McKernan. Measuring how many cells expressed spike protein also allowed the scientists to determine how much of the vaccine to treat the cells with. Immunohistochemistry performed with Pfizer top left, AstraZeneca top right as a control. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack Cell lines were then sent in cold storage to McKernan’s Boston lab, where his team used qPCR to screen which samples to sequence the cell line DNA. “What we found is, [contaminant] DNA that is getting transfected into ovarian cancer cell lines is replicating in the cells,” says McKernan, noting that the ratio of vaccine contaminant DNA to human cell DNA was “higher than we expected.” Chimeric sequences of human and vaccine contaminant DNA were detected at two sites: chromosomes 9 and 12, with the evidence for the latter being the strongest. “But we don't know if it's extra-chromosomal or whether it's chromosomal because of the Illumina (short read) method we used to sequence,” explains McKernan. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack Extra-chromosomal DNA is not part of the chromosome, and is therefore less likely to replicate and to be heritable. Chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is heritable and more likely to be replicated. A third category, mitochondrial DNA, is heritable, but only from the maternal line. You can read a detailed account of methods and findings via McKernan’s Substack article, ‘Vaccine targeted qPCR of Cancer Cell Lines treated with BNT162b2.’ ‘Major advance,’ but clinical implications are limited McKernan emphasises that these findings cannot be generalised, stating that “it is too early to make comments on the clinical implications.” “The study is performed in ovarian cancer cell lines. It is not performed in patient cells, but this is a proxy for what might happen in an ovarian cancer patient who's in remission,” says McKernan, especially as there is evidence that the LNPs go to the ovaries. The risk for patients in this scenario is that integration events with contaminant DNA might cause aberrant cell growth, which poses a risk to immune suppression of new cancer cells. McKernan notes that his experiment only picked up on putative integration events that persisted after multiple cell replications. That is to say, the scientists were not able to detect integration events that may have occurred, but then died off immediately. At the moment, no one knows how many integration events might be occurring, or what effect that would have on patients. “The unknowns are just exponential,” says McKernan. The cancer cell line experiment can be said to be “a microcosm of genome integration of contaminated DNA,” said Japanese molecular oncology scientist Hiroshi Arakawa, in his own analysis of McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s experiment, published to his popular science blog on which he shares critical views on Covid vaccine safety. Akira calls the two possible integrations observed in Dr Kämmerer’s experiment a “major advance” laying the ground for further experimentation. “What happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells, and a wide variety of abnormalities can occur depending on the site of genome integration,” such as “the induction of cancer or malignant transformation,” he wrote (translated from Japanese to English). LNPs deliver contaminant DNA straight to the cells A key assumption underlying claims that mRNA Covid vaccine contamination cannot enter the cell nucleus, and cannot genomically integrate with host DNA, is that the contamination will never make it into dividing cells, which would be required for integration to occur. This is based on the assumption that the LNPs containing both mod-RNA and contaminant DNA mostly stay in the muscle at the injection site. As muscle cells do not divide, there’s no problem, the logic goes. This is misleading, however, as Pfizer’s own biodistribution data shows that the LNPs enter the blood and every major organ system, including the ovaries, as mentioned above. While it is true that muscle cells don’t divide, LNPs distributed around the body can transfect any number of dividing cells in various organ systems. Table 4-2. shows biodistribution of LNPs, Pfizer Nonclinical Evaluation Report, 2021 From there, it’s only a matter of time before the LNP contents get into the cell nucleus, says McKernan. “In any dividing cell, the nucleus dissolves. So, when people say the DNA can get into the cytoplasm [inside the cell membrane] but won't get into the nucleus, well, in any dividing cell, it will end up getting into the nucleus.” It is possible that the dissolution of the cell nucleus during division is the mechanism underlying McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s observed passaging of contaminant DNA, but further research will be required to confirm or disprove this hypothesis. Because of the effectiveness of LNPs in delivering their contents into cells, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and Dr Speicher have questioned the suitability of the current regulatory limits on contaminant DNA in vaccines, which were set prior to the introduction of LNP technology in vaccines. Regulators unconcerned I sent McKernan’s Substack article documenting the new DNA integration findings to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for comment. The TGA did not address the new findings, but a spokesperson from the TGA responded, “The Department of Health and Aged Care has every confidence in the safety, quality and efficacy of the various approved COVID-19 vaccines for use in Australia. The TGA’s assessment of all vaccines is based upon high quality evidence, including studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed scientific and clinical journals.” However, when asked previously to provide evidence for its position that Covid vaccines pose no risk of DNA integration, the TGA provided no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its claims. Instead, the TGA provided links to a Mayo Clinic fact page with no scientific citations, an article by the discredited RMIT FactLab, and a scientific commentary article suggesting that in vitro findings cannot be generalised. Furthermore, TGA has not been forthcoming with the evidence it does hold. When asked to release Covid vaccine batch testing results under Freedom of Information, the regulator provided all 74 pages - fully redacted. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied that contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines can enter the nucleus or pose any threat to patients’ genomic DNA, in a response to concerns raised by Florida Surgeon General, Dr Joseph A. Ladapo in December of last year. Additionally, the FDA misleadingly refuted the presence of SV40 proteins in the vaccines, when in fact Dr Ladapo raised concerns over the presence of an SV40 enchancer sequence in the Pfizer vaccine, as confirmed by Health Canada and numerous independent laboratories. Such ham-fisted mischaracterisation of a gene therapy sequence by the FDA is suggestive of either gross incompetence, or a disinformation play. Both are concerning. Science journalist Maryanne Demasi reported, in November last year, that the FDA shut down her enquiries into the DNA contamination matter, refusing to confirm if it found levels of DNA that exceeded acceptable levels, or if it was investigating further. The presence of contamination has been officially acknowledged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada, with the latter also acknowledging the presence of the SV40 enhancer sequence, though both regulators deny that the amounts exceed regulatory limits, or that the DNA contamination poses any risk. ‘No excuse’ for ignoring ‘screaming hot signal’ Instead of denying excessive DNA levels and deferring to manufacturers’ reported test results, regulators should run their own qPCR testing on batch lots, says McKernan. Then, “they would see what everyone else is seeing, which is that sometimes the CT scores come out as low as 13… that’s a screaming hot signal.” “As a reference, the Covid test would call people positive at 33-35,” McKernan explains. “That’s a million-fold difference (20 CTs). A million-fold less Covid RNA and you're positive and quarantined. But you can inject a million-fold more past your mucosa?” There’s “no excuse” for regulators to not sequence every vaccine lot, says McKernan, when the costs for doing so have dropped dramatically in recent years. “DNA sequencing costs have dropped 100,000 fold in the last decade. They have relaxed the DNA contamination limits 1000-fold in this time frame. It likely only costs $1,000 in reagents for millions-to-billions of dollars worth of product.” Source: National Human Genome Research Institute DNA sequencing by regulatory agencies is important not just for measuring quantities, says McKernan, but also for determining the type of DNA contamination. “Not all DNA is created equal. Some is designed to replicate - when it gets into a cell, it can make more of itself. It's a massive loophole in the regulations that they don't do sequencing. But it's never been cheaper. You can precisely know the nature of the DNA in every single vial.” Scientists pick up regulators’ slack In the absence of any regulatory appetite for investigating the risks of DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid shots, and particularly the risk of genomic integration, independent scientists have taken the baton. “We are writing up our findings and will publish a preprint soon,” says McKernan, who is planning further testing in partnership with Dr Kämmerer. “We’re doing more experiments first. We need to sequence deeper to find out if the integration events are in chromosomal or extra-chromosomal DNA.” Dr Buckhaults is also running his own experiment, calling for de-identified samples of tumours or fresh blood from pathology and hematology labs. These samples will be tested for the presence of plasmid DNA contamination, with whole genome sequencing to then be carried out on positive samples to identify genomic integration sites. In an email outlining his experiment, Dr Buckhaults told me that he intends to report his findings in a peer-reviewed publication, predicting that the work could take “a few months to a year,” depending on how fast samples come in. “I am hopeful to prove my concerns are unwarranted by accumulating a lot of negative data, and of course negative data takes the most time to collect,” he said. McKernan says he is aware of other labs running tests for contaminant plasmid DNA integration, but cannot disclose the details at present. Decentralisation the future of science? McKernan says he has experienced some pushback for publishing his methods and findings in real time via Substack, X, and preprints. But, he believes that making his data available as quickly as possible is a way for the field of science to regain public trust. “Many will criticize our disclosure of preliminary findings but we feel this is an insult to the intelligence of the average person,” says McKernan. “It's a form of scientific elitism that implies people can't handle the truth and will be scared like sheep if given a glimpse of how the true scientific process is performed. Scientists are 90% of the time wrong but only publish the times when they are right. There is no journal of negative results.“ In light of the prospect that most published research findings are false (as famously asserted in a 2005 article by Professor John Ioannidis), McKernan questions the value of peer-review, instead favouring replication or refutation in the real world. Source: X For this reason, McKernan says he has not prioritised peer-reviewed publication for his DNA contamination findings, but is rather focusing on conducting more experiments and releasing the data as he goes - even when it’s incomplete, or requires further experimentation. “We were not expecting to find any integration events at this depth of coverage, but they are evident to anyone who downloads our public reads. To not speak to obvious evidence in such data would be irresponsible even when such evidence doesn't 100% answer a given question,” says McKernan. Dr Buckhaults takes a somewhat different view. After sharing his initial plasmid DNA contamination findings in a South Carolina Senate hearing in September last year, the video recording broke the internet. Believing the hearing to have been private, Dr Buckhaults was alarmed that the widespread distribution of his testimony may have caused “unintended, harmful side effects.” He requested that YouTube take down his testimony video, which is now defunct. Source: X In our correspondence, Dr Buckhaults stressed that while more research is warranted, he is of the opinion that the public “should not overreact to the news of the plasmid DNA contamination. It's serious enough that scientists need to hustle and figure out if it's causing any health problems now or down the road, but it's not cause for the general public to be alarmed.” But, “The reality is that`transfection experiments with contaminated DNA' have been carried out on vast numbers of people around the world in the name of vaccination,” writes Arakawa. Perhaps the experiment participants will be the ones to decide if they should be alarmed, or not. The FDA was contacted for comment about Dr Kämmerer and McKernan’s new findings, but they did not respond by publication deadline. This article will be updated if comment is received. View Kevin McKernan’s write up of his DNA integration experiment (in partnership with Dr Kämmerer) here. Scroll down for links to sequencing data files. Pathology and hematology labs wishing to send samples to Dr Buckhaults are invited to contact him at the University of South Carolina. Update 23 March 2024: This article was edited to add mention of the Dr David Speicher et al. finding of “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose” of the mRNA vaccines, and the scientists’ concerns that regulatory limits on DNA contamination have not taken LNP transfection into account. To support my work, make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account and/or subscribe. Thanks! Follow me on X Follow me on Instagram 1 From an article I wrote for Umbrella News on this topic last year: The TGA maintains that allegations put forward in the case about the potential for mRNA vaccines to alter the recipient’s DNA are unfounded. A spokesperson for the TGA told Umbrella News, “COVID-19 vaccines do not alter a person’s DNA. The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.” “The TGA continues to monitor the scientific literature associated with the SARS – CoV-2 virus and the various COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Australia.” With reference to the specific studies cited in the case materials, the TGA pointed Umbrella News to an RMIT ABC Fact Check post from 2022 purporting to ‘debunk’ claims that mRNA jabs are genotoxic. This is the same site that ‘debunked’ claims that COVID vaccines can cause menstrual disruption, before peer-reviewed scientific studies proved that they can and do (the post has not been corrected). As evidence that it is “well established” that vaccine mRNA and protein do not enter the nucleus, the TGA provided a link to a Mayo Clinic fact page which provides no studies or scientific evidence in support of its claims. The TGA did provide one commentary article published in a scientific journal which pointed out that the in vitro liver cell line study cannot be extrapolated to generalise about in vivo findings (in a human, not a dish) without further research being undertaken. Additionally, RMIT FactLab was suspended by Facebook in August 2023 after an uproar over its blatantly biased and factually dubious ‘fact checking’ of media articles relating to the Voice referendum campaign. It also transpired that RMIT FactLab had falsely represented its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network as current, when it had in fact lapsed. https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/dna-contamination-in-covid-vaccines

Medical Researchers Call for Urgent Actions to Deal with Mass Contamination of Blood Supply "Japanese researchers have published disturbing evidence that blood transfusions from individuals who received COVID-19 shots are tainted with a myriad of dangers." - Jeff Dornik Karen Kingston March 22, 2024: Japanese researchers published a meta-analysis on the dangers of using blood donated from people who were injected with the COVID-19 ‘vaccines,’ increasing the risks for acute health conditions and severe diseases in recipients of blood donations. The researchers provide testing and screening recommendations, and proposed regulations to reduce these risks. Share Jeff Dornik published an excellent article summarizing the scientific meta-analysis, declaring; “The blood supply, once deemed a lifeline, has now become a conduit for harm.” - Jeff Dornik In his article entitled, Japanese Researchers Sound Alarm on Deadly Risks of Vaccinated Blood Transfusions, Jeff writes, “In a shocking revelation, Japanese researchers have unearthed disturbing evidence that could change the way we view COVID-19 Injections forever. According to their findings, blood transfusions from individuals who have received COVID-19 shots are tainted with a myriad of dangers, potentially wreaking havoc on both vaxxed and unvaxxed recipients. This discovery has sparked urgent calls for action from the global medical community, as the ramifications of this contamination could be catastrophic.” I recommend reading and sharing Jeff’s breaking news article. You Can Make an Impact The COVID-19 injections have not only contaminated the blood of those who are injected, but due to shedding and blood donations, all individuals are at risk of being inoculated with gene-editing nanoparticle technologies and toxic biosynthetic spike proteins. These toxic biosynthetic nanoparticles are proven to increase the risk for cardiovascular, neurological, auto-immune, and pulmonary diseases, and can induce permanent changes to the human genome. For the safety of the public, the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections must be banned from every county and state in America. Every American has standing in their state to demand that the COVID-19 mRNA nanoparticle ‘vaccines’ be banned from their state. You can send a demand letter to your governor, attorney general, and even local sheriff. If they fail to take action, you can petition your state’s Supreme Court to order the governor and attorney general to seize the injections and ban the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections. Hebrews 10:35-36 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. Pending Florida Supreme Court Case: Will DeSantis & AG Moody Be Court-Ordered to Remove ALL mRNA Injections from Florida? Pending Florida Supreme Court Case: Will DeSantis & AG Moody Be Court-Ordered to Remove ALL mRNA Injections from Florida? March 5, 2024: When I first began this endeavor, God put on my heart to have the mRNA shots removed from every community across the United States and around the world. I’m honored that I was integral in sending Dr. Joseph Sansone the document that I updated from the Read full story The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS. Ways to Support My Work Mail: Karen Kingston/miFight Inc., 960 Postal Way #307, Vista, CA 92085 Buy me a coffee (Ko-fi) Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. email: [email protected] Get a FREE $99 Wellness Company Membership You can keep a full armamentarium of prescriptions on-hand for bacterial, viral, or parasite infections through The Wellness Company. Use the code FREEMEMBER at checkout and SAVE $45. Here is the direct link to Emergency Prescription Kit, which contains prescriptions for the above listed acute (not chronic) conditions and infections. Use the code FREEMEMBER at checkout and SAVE $45 PLUS Receive a FREE TWC Membership ($99 Value) https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/medical-researchers-call-for-urgent

What a War Requires Yes, It's About Resources Dr Naomi Wolf Dear Readers, Dear Extended Family I am grateful that this Substack — which, if you read the comment section, is also one that is a home or meeting-place for many of the most interesting and idealistic people on the Internet — has 83,500 plus subscribers. That is almost the subscriber base of The New Republic. It had 737,000 plus views in the last 30 days — 249,000 plus more than the month prior. That is more views than the number of the audience of CNN. Every reader is equally precious to me. But you all count on me — you tell me this — to do all I can to affect national and even global outcomes. From the messages I receive, leaders from all walks of life do indeed read this Substack — and so it is having some impact on the public discussion and perhaps even on public outcomes. But this Substack has only a few more than 4000 paid subscribers. Why does this matter, more than to my personal finances? As you know, I believe — I think at this point it is incontrovertible - that a war is being waged upon us, one that will soon become a “hot war.” My husband Brian O’Shea, who cohosts the podcast “Unrestricted Invasion” with JJ Carrell, is documenting the positioning of military-age or gangland-age illegal-immigrant young men, in barracks-type situations in strategic points around the country. This week he went undercover to a budget hotel in Massachusetts, where security and the hotel staff sought to prevent him from filming what was happening inside in relation to scores of illegal incomers. He was subsequently followed by a maroon sedan that pulled up right as he was leaving the hotel; the drivers proceeded to wait til he was his car, and then followed him across three different exits til he shook them off. Brian was also confronted by security, and then followed, earlier this year, when he went to document a facility in Brooklyn, Floyd Bennett Field, an area with over 1000 flat acres of land, where illegal immigrants are being housed in military-style facilities. Illegal immigrants are being housed at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, a sensitive strategic location for a possible attack on America, if there ever was one. Illegal immigrants, disproportionately fighting-age men, are being housed for months in hotels in midtown Manhattan, all basic expenses paid and with cleaning services. As they say, wake up and smell the coffee. This is not a domestic policy issue any longer — ie, what are these illegal immigrants getting that your legal immigrant parents or grandparents, your enslaved great-grandparents, did not get? To anyone who has ever been in a combat area, this set of situations depicts what is obviously a military or terrorist set of staging areas. Or, to be conservative, this set of landscapes has all the hallmarks of depicting military or terrorist staging areas. Meanwhile, the whips are being brought down on the shoulders of the last standing dissidents in the United States and globally. A Canadian court ordered psychologist and commentator Jordan Peterson to be forced into a re-education program. Literal Marxism. Ethical physician Dr Kulvinder Kaur Gill, who was critical of the mRNA injections, has been hit with a $1 million dollar fine after her libel suit in defense of her reputation, failed. She was forced to mobilize an online donations campaign in order not to lose her house. Under the guise of a credit review, as he points out, researcher and inventor of the mRNA vaccine Dr Robert Malone has been hit with a letter from payment processor Stripe, demanding his bank records. He was told that it will cost $100,000 to fight it. Other dissident voices on Substack, including conservative voices, are being hit in similar ways. Governor Hochul declared that National Guard would take on some civil policing roles in New York State, and she is appealing the court decision that prevented her from opening quarantine camps that could detain New Yorkers without trial or even without infection, indefinitely. If she prevails, and if the WHO treaty that declares WHO “pandemic” requirements superior to national or state law prevails in May, the National Guard (or the WHO’s own mercenaries) could show up at any New Yorker’s house, and this is the state where I live; and compel him or her to be transported to a detention facility, and that would be that. Why am I presenting all of this to you? Because things are getting very scary and we need your help. This Substack does not just provide personal income for me. It is the source of funds to meet costs for the independent news and opinion site DailyClout.io and for BillCam when our demands exceed our resources. Gloria Steinem says to look at your checkbook to see if you are walking your talk morally, and my checkbook speaks volumes. I had hoped by the age of 61, after decades of training for my profession, honing my craft as a writer, and fighting for humanity and for humane values, that I would be able to look at my checkbook records and see mostly expenses for travel, with other records perhaps of dinners in some lovely restaurants, an occasional nice dress or two, and funds devoted to caring for elderly relatives. But my primary expenditure is not for any of that. Most of the money I earn goes to scrambling to meet the extraordinary and unpredictable costs that running a war from the trenches of DailyClout can involve, and many of these high costs arise unpredictably. Remember, too, that those who use their own resources to oppose and harass us and me personally, include one of the biggest companies in the world, not to mention the United States government, including its justice arm — and state governments. One of our legal letters is against the Justice Department. One of our lawsuits is against the Biden administration, including the CDC. Though we are doing impressively well as a startup helmed by three people, and punching far above our weight, we have, as you know, bills that can top six figures for the various lawsuits we are waging on your behalf. To keep a dissident news startup — one that also crafts draft bills and passes them, as nonprofits cannot do, which activity involves traversing a minefield of FEC restrictions — so scrupulously kosher that it can’t be brought down by government tripwires, is itself a legal bill for tens of thousands. Though we are a lean machine, our technical costs are substantial. Our API, the feed from which our legislative technology that lets you see, share and act on any bill, costs thousands of dollars per quarter. Our developers have created tools — the latest being the extraordinary game changer LegiSector, at https://www.legisector.com (due to suppression, you need to cut and paste the whole url in order to see it) — that sweep away all obfuscation from state and federal legislation, and allow you to pass, share or stop bills from the ease of your own desktop, or even from your handheld. This is also a tens of thousands of dollars a year commitment. As we push to launch this revolutionary tool, Google appears to be suppressing it so thoroughly that it is difficult for us to let the world know that everything has changed now, as interviewers who have covered this tool are telling me, when it comes to legislative transparency. We need a marketing campaign in the tens of thousands to break through this censorship by another one of the biggest companies on Earth. It is my sleepless nights, no one else’s, that are involved in trying to figure out how. Then there are the fights to protect the reputation that allows me to lead this company and its mission and tools, forward; I was forced to spend tens of thousands on a lawsuit against Twitter for suppressing my (accurate, important) warnings about harms to women from the mRNA injections. My co-plaintiff? President Donald Trump. (Sadly I do not have the resources for legal representation, that my co-plaintiff does.) The point of all of the above is that staying credible, meaning fighting the constant government- and nonprofit-sponsored attacks on the credibility of my and my company’s reputations; staying on the right side of all government regulations, so that no harm can come to me or the company; fighting in the courts so that a precedent can be set to protect all Americans from the government leaning on private companies to destroy them — fighting Google’s algorithms with creative workarounds; fighting laws that constantly seek to imprison or bankrupt us — all of this, at times, as you know because I have shared it with you before, can take a terrible financial and psychic/energetic toll. It is tempting to just walk away and, to paraphrase Voltaire, “cultivate my own garden.” But to stay in these trenches and achieve it at all, all that so many of you tell me you are counting on, requires a robust and reliable stream of resources if we are to stay alive in this culture of lies and erasures. Think about the lives we have saved. Maybe yours or your loved ones. Think about whether anyone else’s technology lets you see and act on any state or Federal bill, or protect your investments; with both BillCam and LegiSector offering free searches. Think about whether anyone else is soliciting citizens’ input on draft model bills, hiring lawyers, drafting and passing them, in the way we do. Remember, nonprofits can give you a tax deduction, but they cannot lobby. They must stop short of actual political action with legislation and legislators. The fact that we aren’t a nonprofit allows us to lobby and draft and pass bills — a superpower — but makes it much harder for us to raise donation funding. Think about this Substack, for that matter. Did my writing help to balance and reassure you in this nightmarish struggle? Did it inform you of important issues that could affect your family? Did you find community and spiritual strength here? What would your world be like without my voice, or without DailyClout’s voice and tools and advocacy? There would be a lot more darkness, and you and your family’s position and knowledge base would be weakened. I do not think that is too strong a statement. If you want these voices and institutions to keep fighting this war, mine but also others’, there is no alternative but to support them with, dare I say it, your actual money. I know that many people cannot afford $8 a month. But many of the 83,000 subscribers who are now free, could afford to upgrade to the status of paid subscriber. And the difference between 4 per cent of my readers being paid subscribers and eight per cent being paid subscribers, is the difference between a precarious and easily extinguished position on the battlefield, versus a more secure one that can continue winning victory after victory for you. And I will tell you, speaking both as a writer and on behalf of a dissident company, without your financial support it is not only materially unsustainable to fight on, but emotionally unsustainable, as the battles grow more serious and more costly. Without your help, over time, the strain of trying to figure out, during many months, how to pay our lawyers, as well as our API invoices and our developers and our travel to statehouses to lobby for freedom for you, will simply become too great. We need your help in spiritual and emotional as well as in material ways. You should support us not as a charity but because our our approach works. Because of our draft Five Freedoms bill, which passed in 33 states in 2021, you do not have vaccine passports in the US, and kids went back to school earlier than they might have done. Our Election Integrity bill, which you all shared, has cosponsors in Wyoming, was introduced and defeated in Maine (but a successor has been tapped to re-introduce it in the Fall), and three other states, Michigan, Alabama and North Dakota, have citizens and legislators acting to push it forward. The Pfizer Papers comes out in May. The manuscript, which Amy Kelly and I edited, is 500 pages long. We edited 96 reports from the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Team, who in turn had reviewed 450,000 pages of internal Pfizer documents. They revealed the greatest crime against humanity in history in exhaustive detail, affecting people and governments worldwide. Their work is cited or used without citation by dozens of other freedom advocates, and legislators. And booster uptake is now down to 4%; Pfizer’s profits ground to pre-2016 levels. We saved, together, with your help, what may turn out to be millions of lives and countless unborn babies. But to continue, I need your help; seriously; now just now but into the future. If you can afford, it, and if the above is meaningful to you at all, do please upgrade your subscription from free to paid. The war is here, and you need warriors fighting for you, who are not barefoot in the snow, but who have warm clothing, and weapons, and ammunition. https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/what-a-war-requires

Scientist claims ‘smoking gun’ evidence COVID-19 intentionally created by researchers in Chinese lab Ronny Reyes COVID-19 may have been created in a Chinese lab, a British professor told the UN Wednesday, with another expert claiming that evidence of the likelihood has reached “the level of a smoking gun.” Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, was quoted saying in a new Wall Street Journal article that the virus that killed millions around the world may actually have been manmade in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. He cited evidence found in a 2018 document from the lab that talked of making such a virus. Advertisement “[The document] elevates the evidence provided by the genome sequence from the level of noteworthy to the level of a smoking gun,” Ebright said in the piece by former New York Times editor Nicholas Wade. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says there is enough evidence to suggest the pandemic was man-made. 4 Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says there is enough evidence to suggest the pandemic was manmade. Rutgers New Brunswick The papers from the lab cited by Ebright contained drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, which sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans. The proposal was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but Wade suggested that their work could have been carried out by researchers in Wuhan who had secured Chinese government funding. Advertisement “Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019,” wrote Wade, a former science editor of the New York Times. Virologist Zhengli Shi, a researcher of coronavirus in bats at the Wuhan facility, was on the team seeking to engineer a virus that was more easily transmissible to humans. 4 Virologist Zhengli Shi, a researcher of coronavirus in bats at the Wuhan facility, was on the team seeking to engineer a virus that was more easily transmissible to humans. AFP via Getty Images “This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin.” Along with the research notes, Wade claimed the specific genetic structure of the coronavirus that allowed it to infect humans served as another strong indication of “the virus’s laboratory birth.” Advertisement “Whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol,” Wade wrote. While scientists continue to debate whether the coronavirus pandemic was a natural occurrence or manmade, Ebright believed there was credibility that the work proposed by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance led to the development COVID-19. Following the release of the 2018 documents — which were published by US Right to Know through a Freedom of Information Act request — Ebright said there was clearer evidence that the virus was manufactured in a lab, the Daily Telegraph reported. Advertisement The 2018 documents contained drafts and notes regarding Project DEFUSE and how to synthesize bat coronaviruses to make them more transmissible. The Wuhan Institute of Virology stands at the center of scrutiny over the origins of Covid-19. 4 The Wuhan Institute of Virology stands at the center of scrutiny over the origins of COVID-19. AFP via Getty Images The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab, the same method several biologists have said could have been used to synthesize the coronavirus that led to the pandemic. According to the documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where they noted that safety conditions were not up to US standards, to the point where they claimed American scientists would “likely freak out.” Advertisement A spokesperson for EcoHealth Alliance said its research played no role in the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Documents representing incomplete or early drafts of the proposal have been acquired via the Freedom of Information Act and published along with allegations regarding their intent. These allegations are false, based on misunderstanding of edits and comments on the document, and based on misleading out-of-context quotations, and a lack of understanding of the process by which federal grants are awarded,” the spokesperson said. “Because the work was not selected for funding, any assertions about these details are by definition based on review of incomplete information and are extremely misleading.” Dr. Filippa Lentzos, an associate professor of science and international security at King’s College London. 4 Dr. Filippa Lentzos, an associate professor of science and international security at King’s College London, called on scientists to follow more rigorous safety standards. King College London Advertisement While COVID-19’s origins remain a mystery, Dr. Filippa Lentzos, an associate professor of science and international security at King’s College London, said the world needed to acknowledge that the possibility exists that the virus was synthesized. Speaking before the UN in New York on Wednesday, Lentzos presented the work of the Independent Task Force on Research with Pandemic Risks, which calls on scientists the world over to follow stricter regulations lest another worldwide breakout occur, the Telegraph reported. “We have to acknowledge the fact that the pandemic could have started from some research-related incident,” Lentzos said. Advertisement “Are we going to find that out? In my view, I think it’s very unlikely that we will. We need to do better in the future,” she added. “We are going to see more ambiguous events.” https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/world-news/scientists-may-have-started-the-covid-pandemic-article/ https://telegra.ph/Scientist-claims-smoking-gun-evidence-COVID-19-intentionally-created-by-researchers-in-Chinese-lab-03-11

Lawsuit Claiming COVID-19 Jab Is a 'Biological Weapon' Docketed by Florida Supreme Court Writ of mandamus calls for halt in distribution of COVID vaccine "weapons of mass destruction." Jon Fleetwood In an extraordinary legal move, the Florida Supreme Court has accepted into its system a writ of mandamus that presents a grave portrayal of COVID-19 vaccines, characterizing them as “biological weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction.” Share Jon Fleetwood Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood A ‘writ of mandamus’ is a court order compelling a party to perform a specific legal duty. The petitioner, Joseph Sansone (MS, PhD), brings the action with serious accusations regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and legality. The case was docketed on Monday under the case number SC2024-0327. Dr. Sansone’s petition pulls no punches, declaring that “COVID-19 injections have caused countless deaths, permanent injury, and disability.” He demands immediate action, stating that “the COVID-19 injections are dangerous” and that it is therefore “the duty of the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately to prohibit their distribution.” The urgency of the matter is underscored as Sansone argues it “is incumbent on this Court to compel the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately.” A critical aspect of the petition revolves around the scrutiny of the mainstream public health campaign concerning coronavirus jabs. According to the writ, “A massive mass media and government campaign promoting ‘COVID-19 vaccines’ as safe and effective ‘vaccines’ to prevent infection targeted Florida’s population of approximately 22 million people. This campaign narrative was false and misleading and has led to numerous deaths, permanent injury, and disability.” Share Jon Fleetwood Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood Sansone’s claim extends to the foundation of the vaccine’s approval process through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “It is well-established that the FDA clinical trials for the COVID-19 injections were not designed to clinically or statistically demonstrate that the COVID-19 nanoparticle injections prevent infection, prevent transmission, or protect against disease, hospitalizations, and death,” he states. The foundation of Sansone’s argument hinges on the belief that these shots, due to “shedding,” whereby components of the vaccine are shed from the vaccinated onto the unvaccinated, “pose a risk of harm, including death and disability, to all Floridians whether ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated.’” He goes further, saying, “Every Floridian, including members of this Court, and likely the Respondents, were lied to—COVID-19 injections are not safe, nor are they effective.” Also central to the writ’s claim is the assertion that “COVID-19 injections containing engineered mRNA nanoparticle technologies meet the legal definition of biological weapons” and “meet the exact criteria of weapons of mass destruction.” “The facts of this case evidenced above demonstrate nanotechnology present in the COVID-19 injections which do qualify as a device designed and intended to cause harm, as does the use of such technology, and or a biological agent, resulting in death or harm. Repeatedly distributing a biological agent or device causing harm in mass, especially after it is well known to cause harm, qualifies it as a weapon of mass destruction and a biological weapon.” The legal statutes cited in the petition are broad and encompassing, aiming to leverage “Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023); Federal Crime of Treason 18 USC § 2381; Treason § 876.32 Fla. Stat. (2023); Domestic Terrorism, 18 USC § 2331, Terrorism § 775.30 Fla. Stat. (2023); Murder § 782.04 (1)(a) Fla. Stat. (2023); and Genocide 18 USC §1091.” Through these laws, Sansone seeks an order to “immediately prohibit the distribution, promotion, access and administration of COVID-19 injections, mRNA nanoparticle injections, and all mRNA products in the State of Florida.” Share Jon Fleetwood Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood This stance is supported by resolutions from “approximately 10 Florida Republican County Political Parties,” calling for a ban on the injections and analysis of their contents. Dr. Francis Boyle, a key figure in the drafting of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, is cited as endorsing the resolution, adding significant weight to Sansone’s arguments. Sansone’s argument crescendos as he suggests that the stakes involve “the future existence of the human race itself.” He firmly believes he has a “clear legal right to the requested relief,” positioning his request not just as a legal challenge but as a plea to “protect the public from biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and remove them from the market.” Citing the fact that, “Since February 21, 2023, approximately 10 Florida Republican County Political Parties, representing millions of people, have passed resolutions declaring Covid 19 injections and mRNA injections biological and technological weapons,” the writ paints a dire picture of the possible threat posed by COVID jabs. Sansone identifies himself as a victim, stating he “has been targeted with biological and technological weapons of mass destruction,” and expresses his advocacy not only for his rights but for “the millions of Floridians that have been targeted, including friends and family members.” The petition also makes clear its aim of “not demanding the prosecution of individuals.” Rather, the mandamus “simply seeks to compel the Governor and Attorney General to enforce the law and protect the public from biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and remove them from the market.” This legal challenge marks a pivotal moment, thrusting the Florida Supreme Court into the center of a highly charged debate over public health, vaccine safety, and the legal categorization of these interventions. As the court prepares to deliberate on this unprecedented case, the outcome could set a significant legal and ethical precedent concerning the response to pandemics and the regulation of vaccines. You can read the full lawsuit here: Share Jon Fleetwood Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood https://telegra.ph/Lawsuit-Claiming-COVID-19-Jab-Is-a-Biological-Weapon-Docketed-by-Florida-Supreme-Court-03-11 🔴 Lawsuit Claiming COVID-19 Jab Is a 'Biological Weapon' Docketed by Florida Supreme Court In an extraordinary legal move, the Florida Supreme Court has accepted a writ of mandamus that characterizes Covid-19 vaccines as “biological weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction.” A ‘writ of mandamus’ is a court order compelling a party to perform a specific legal duty. The petitioner, Joseph Sansone (MS, PhD), brings the action with serious accusations regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and legality. The case was docketed on Monday under the case number SC2024-0327. Dr. Sansone’s petition pulls no punches, declaring that “COVID-19 injections have caused countless deaths, permanent injury, and disability.” He demands immediate action, stating that “the COVID-19 injections are dangerous” and that it is therefore “the duty of the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately to prohibit their distribution.” https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/lawsuit-claiming-covid-19-jab-is

Energy audits are a systematic inspection and analysis of energy usage within a building or facility. The primary purpose of an energy audit is to identify areas of energy waste and recommend cost-effective solutions to improve efficiency. In the context of San Francisco, energy audits are specifically designed to align with the city’s sustainability goals and to comply with local regulations. Click here to read more: https://blog.vertpro.com/san-francisco-energy-audits-what-happens-if-you-miss-the-2024-deadline/

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

WCH Africa Represented at African Bar Conference in Accra, Ghana Africa’s role in health, freedom and sovereignty is an important one. In 2022, the 47-nation African bloc stood up to the World Health Organisation’s attempts to coerce disturbing International Health Regulation amendments, without transparency and consultation. World Council for Health steering committee member Shabnam Palesa Mohamed attended the African Bar Association’s medical law conference in Accra, Ghana this January. She was accompanied by Fahrie Hassan, in his capacity as a Children’s Health Defense Africa representative. World Council for Health and Children’s Health Defense are partners in the health freedom movement, including a collaboration on The Great Freeset campaign. Read more: https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wch-africa-represented-in-ghana Follow: ➡️@WCH_org 📧 NEWSLETTER | 🌳 LINKTREE 🌐 WorldCouncilforHealth.org

What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’ | VT Foreign Policy February 2, 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. What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’ https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-no-not-new-nazis-by-zahir-ebrahim.html Zahir Ebrahim January 17, 2009* Background Summary This is Part-3 of the series of articles on Israel-Palestine I composed especially for VT. Part-3 is my ongoing exposure of what’s taboo in Western press due to the fact that Israel is the new ruling state in the world. Ruling state has the following definition: a state that dictates to the world including through its surrogates and client states, but none can dictate to it; a ruling state does whatever it wants and its slavish clients and prostitute states support it in every way imaginable. Part-1 was: Israel’s Barbarianism – How can Israel get away with it? ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/press-release-israels-barbarianism ); Part-2 was: 100 Years of Balfour Declaration and Continuing ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/100-years-of-balfour-declaration-and-continuing/ ). This third part was previously published in 2009 during Israel’s inhuman assault on Gaza… This latest incarnation assault on Gaza which began on Oct 7, 2023, is in continuation of the long held Zionist premeditated policy of Palestinian population transfer, ethnic cleansing, intermingled with genocidal impulses whenever the holy Jews can get away with it. This latest barbarian assault by Israel was based on the pretext that was an outright MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose), not a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), nor a “surprise attack” as Israel and her obliging Western surrogates have propagandized, duly echoed by their Uncle Toms and Aunty Thomases throughout the world’s mass media. I called it as such on October 8, 2023, the moment I heard about it in the news, in a series of private emails to some friends and journalists, including VT’s own venerable senior editor and my internet-confrere in common cause of justice of many years, Dr. Kevin Barrett, who wrote on VT on October 30, 2023: Why I Support Hamas – And you should too ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/10/why-i-support-hamas/ ). Not being a “Doctor” of anything, nor a college professor, as far as I perceive matters as a common man who can reason based on empiricism, and who is not given to presuppositions based on whim, dogma, tribal or religious and cultural affiliations, Hamas is complicit in, or actual part of, this MIHOP operation of Israel. In other words, Hamas was either made a useful idiot by Israel, or is still an asset of Israel just as it was at its inception. The Oct 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, was no more a surprise attack on Israel than Pearl Harbor was on the United States. It was a calculated premeditated creation of legal pretext for what followed. The difference only being MIHOP vs LIHOP. 9/11 too was a MIHOP operation by the United States to create legal pretext using a range of patsies and side shows. Israel did the same. Subsequently, more evidence that Israel may have even had other pecuniary motivations to attack Gaza have been revealed in an oped by Kevin Barrett himself on January 25, 2024, leaving his already dubious support of Hamas even more absurd and unexplainable as to how did Israel get Hamas to become its patsy to enable realize that motivation : Israel Committing Genocide to Steal Gaza’s Gas? – Al-Jazeera cites Western alternative media outlets Global Research and Mondoweiss (see https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/israel-committing-genocide-to-steal-gazas-gas/ ). Contrary to what Jews might think, not all goy are dumb ass. The hair-splitting by the goy of Jews being different from Zionists, is the stupidity of goy to not face up to empirical realism. The actual reality is even more perverse. The Jews and Zionism are in fact being used by the same oligarchic powers that used Militant Islam, before that Soviet Communism and Nazi Socialism, to create world wars and controlled conflict, pitting plebe human beings – the common rank and file – against each other under the sound of trumpets. This will be the topics of subsequent parts – all of which are already deeply researched essays in my books (see links for Part 1 & 2) – how the Jews themselves have been indoctrinated into becoming the useful idiots of Zionism, and just as diabolically harvested to construct a single one-world global empire of the oligarchy as other patsies. But as Zionist zombie mass murderers, useful idiots or not, they still cannot escape culpability any more than the Nazis could, nor Germany could, but only under victor’s justice. The honest conscionable Jew who distances himself / herself from the primacy of Israel and settler colonialism of Zionism are part of us goyem in principle as human beings first. The rest are enemies of humankind no different than any villainous mass murderers, including those aliased as Muslims under the imperial label of Militant Islam manufactured by empire as a Hegelian Dialectic (see my book: Hijacking The Holy Qur’an And Its Religion Islam – Muslims and Imperial Mobilization, 2nd Edition 2015, https://tinyurl.com/Islam2e ). The fact that the Jews of Israel under Zionism are indoctrinated trigger-pullers of oligarchic masters behind the scenes absolves neither them nor their godfathers who own Israel outright, from their genocidal crimes against humanity. Palestinians are just the canary in the coal mine. The same fate lies in store for all Untermensch on the planet in every country on the new road to The Great Reset that is birth-panging a new global dystopic world order to be administered from the New Ruling State of the world. Not by the Jews of Prophet Moses. But by the atheist satanic Khazarian financial Oligarchy with pretenses of being God’s Chosen People from the Abrahamic clan. Yeah, not a dumb goy! And neither should you be taken in by the ploy to make goy stupid and fight amongst ourselves. All that’s needed is a bit of commonsense and the ability to reason away from attractive authority figures. Not college degrees. 2009 Article Begins In reference to the short article by Alan Hart “The New Nazis<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.alanhart.net/the-new-nazis/>” in which he described the mechanics of a possible “Zionist Holocaust” upon the Palestinians, reaching the somewhat belated realization that it was high time that he called the Israelis by their real nom de guerre, “the New Nazis”, I would say he is sadly mistaken in his choice of labels. The Israeli Jews are not the New Nazis. It is convenient to associate them to something abhorrent but irrelevant. What relevance does Nazism have today? None whatsoever. But the more direct relevance to the Settling of the United States of America is not to be drawn – for that might be a wee bit too relevant and uncomfortable. President George W. Bush for once had truthfully blurted out the grotesque reality-space while on the 60th birthday-bash visit to Zionistan https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html “Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed.” The core-principle being, the outright elimination of indigenous peoples, wherein, “the very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan – mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.” The Pious self-righteous Jews of Israel, atheist or orthodox, don’t intend to make the ‘Sherman mistake’ in Palestine! They have noted it time and again that “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel … Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” But the Jews’ narrative of Holocaust is what remains the most profound and sacred obsession of the ‘civilized’ West – a perennial “mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed.”. And for their detractors, it is merely the New Nazism – when the tortuous reality is located in Washington, in London, in the Pentagon, in EU, and in the massive control of world’s financial systems through the international banksters that is held in the hands of world Jewry! So isn’t it rather convenient not to draw upon any of these associations and linkages of support for Israel which is what, in fact, props up that pariah state in Palestine? I must admit I am sometimes guilty of sugar-coating the Zionists as the ‘New Nazis’ myself. But that’s an emotional response based on years of watching Hollywood World War II movies where such labeling of a suitably demonized foe simply falls into the consciousness for associating anything grotesque. A more intellectually honest and empirically accurate depiction of Zionism however, and its power base among the world Jewry, renders an entirely new meaning to the now hackneyed term ‘banality of evil’. The support network of Israel is systemic enough, and its aspirations endemic enough, to make Hannah Arendth turn in her grave. The second glossing over by Alan Hart is in his expression of fear of the Zionist Holocaust upon the Palestinians, where he unwittingly absolves the world Jewry of their direct involvement with Israel: “unless enough Israelis and the Jews of the world are prepared to acknowledge that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews.” That statement has no basis in reality. It is not just “Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews”, but the direct and active participation of most of world Jewry in the Israel project. Here are two short excerpts from two very different perspectives. They explain the afore-stated point much better than I can today, emotionally drained that I am watching the systematic and deliberate killing of children, women, men, and anything that lives, in Gaza which conjures up the image of the gatling-gun set loose upon the defenseless native American Indians by Sherman. The first excerpt is from the 1996 memoirs of Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M), Director of ISI, Pakistan, titled ‘Profiles of Intelligence’, Chapter 3, pages 45-46. Under the subsection titled “Why did the ISI not intervene to save Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto if they knew he was being murdered”, the top spymaster of Pakistan during ZAB’s and his executioner General Zia ul Haq’s era, writes (and do pay particular attention to the last paragraph, emphasis mine): Begin Excerpt (Profiles of Intelligence) … It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction: One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power. Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price. Three, in order to bring the taking of appropriate counter measures within the ambit of ISI functions, a revolutionary reorientation of minds at the national level and of the systems and institutions at the State level becomes imperative. Are we, as a nation, and as we stand today, morally capable of bringing about such a change in our attitudes and our thinking? I believe we are not. I also believe that the day we acquire the capability, it will mark the end of all our problems, troubles and misfortunes. We will learn to manage out affairs ourselves. Four, probably, the most formidable hurdle in the way to our self-respect and self-reliance is the breed of salable ‘elite’ among us. Specimens of this breed are available in all models and also in abundance. They are active in many deceptive and diversionary forms to ‘strike a deal’ at the cost of our vital national interests. Is there a remedy for this cancerous growth? Five, many of our countrymen would not cooperate with the C.I. men. My study on the Israeli Intelligence revealed that, apart from other elements, a major factor for their successes has been the cooperation that a Mossad man gets from the Jews. It claimed that a Jew, in any corner of the world, whenever approached by an Israeli Intelligence agent, would provide him with maximum help and assistance. (pages 45-46) End Excerpt The second excerpt is from the recent book of a former Israeli Jew who served with the IDF, turned Christian pacifist, Israel Adam Shamir. He writes in the Introduction of his book “Masters of Discourse”, an eloquent politically incorrect exposition of the relationship of the world Jewry to Israel. I had previously quoted from that book in my “Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/letter-to-palestinian-intellectuals.html>”, and here is the excerpt from that letter: Begin Excerpt (Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals by Project Humanbeingsfirst) This is also why the exponents of Israel entirely control the global discourse on Israel-Palestine throughout the world, even among the ruling elite in the Muslim nations, not to mention among the Palestinian ruling elite itself, none of which reflects either any deep comprehension of the manifest reality on the ground, or the aspirations of the Palestinian masses. These are the Masters of Discourse, and a far more formidable foe across the world’s Jewry than the Palestinians seem to apprehend – as they continually losingly engage the foot soldiers among their antagonists and not the real power-wielders! Israel Shamir notes in the English Introduction to his new book https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Discourse-Israel-Shamir/dp/1419692437 the following veritable truth which must by now be self-evident to all who are able to comprehend the power of the concept of “Der Judenstaadt” on the global Jewish psyche which carries upon its bent backs, the weight of three thousand years of history https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=avh6dkSop0EC&dq=Israel+Shahak&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Lu84cAhe0q&sig=Z2SGKxTq0rxAlKDwnFsSA-eLR7U (also Jewish History, Jewish Religion https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198>): The new Jewish elite did not fully identify with Russia but carried out a separate policy. It had a fateful effect in 1991, when over 50 % of the Jews (as opposed to 13 % of the Russians) supported the pro-Western coup of President Yeltsin. In 1995, 81% of the Jews voted for pro-Western parties, and only 3% for the Communists (as opposed to 46% of Russians), according to the publication by the Jewish sociologist Dr. Ryvkina in her book, Jews in Post-Soviet Russia (1996). In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout. They still do not identify with the goyish America: they force the Congress and the Administration to send billions of dollars to their Israeli offshoot, they forced the US to break Iraq to pieces, and now they are trying to let America fight their war in Iran, though it brings disaster to America. They do discriminate against other Americans; otherwise 60% of the leading positions in the media would not become Jewish. Jews of France do not identify with France, either. “Their identification with Israel is so strong, it overshadows their ties to the country they live in,” writes Daniel Ben Simon in Haaretz. This dual loyalty was made very clear to me by a Jewish doctor in Nice. “If the choice is between Israel and France, there’s no question I feel closer to Israel,” he said, without a moment’s hesitation. He was born and bred in France; he went to medical school in France; his patients are French; he speaks French with his wife and children. But in the depths of his heart, he feels a greater affinity with the Jewish state. In Palestine, the Jews have no compassion for the natives. They travel by segregated roads, study in segregated schools, while a Jew consumes ten times more water resources than a goy, and has an income seven times higher. Thus, the Jewish separateness remains a fact of life for many Jewish communities. While the Palestinian intellectual and revolutionary need not adopt the discourse of European anti-Semitism – cousins as they are of their oppressors – they do need to comprehend the immense psychological and sociological power of that discourse, and the power of the world Jewry in sustaining the Jewish State because of it. The significance of this statement is made evident by the fact that this discourse prevailed upon not only the very Evangelical Christian American President George W. Bush, but also the Christian Prime Minister of Germany, Angela Merkel, the Christian Prime Minister of France, Nicholas Sarkozy**, the Roman Catholic Christian Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and the Christian Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, along with the Queen of England, representing the world’s most powerful Christian coalition of Western Hegemons, to pay homage to Jewish Zionistan on May 15, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3540751,00.html. None showed up, even in false courtesy, to offer their feeble condolences for the Nakba to what remains of the Palestinian Reservations! End Excerpt And this state of affairs was finally admitted to by the Palestinian journalist based in Ramallah, Khalid Amayreh. Writing from Ramallah for the Palestinian Information Center, he was finally forced to acknowledge the grotesque reality of this Jewish power in his article “When it comes to Israel , Europe is hypocritical, submissive and obsequious https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://tinyurl.com/4n3rxb. Excerpting from the same Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals, where I had quoted Khalid Amayreh: Begin Excerpt In comparison to the madman in the White House, Europe may look less bellicose, less confrontational and less unreasonable in its overall approach to contentious international issues. However, when the issue is the Palestinian plight, the US and Europe look very much like tweedledee and tweedledum. In recent months and years, European leaders from Germany’s Merkel, to France’s Sarkozy, to Britain’s Brown and Italy’s Berlusconi were shamelessly pandering to Israeli savagery to the extent of embracing relentless Israeli criminality against the Palestinian people , including the ongoing genocidal ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip. True, the European tone of speech often sounds less odious especially when compared with the unmitigated saber-rattling coming from Washington. But, in the final analysis, the outcome in both cases is similar. In fact, the US and Europe collaborate and even collude to effect the same unethical goals often by playing the old game of Mutt and Jeff (good cop and bad cop), with their persecuted victims, whether in Palestine, Sudan or Iran. End Excerpt The points being made here are admittedly nuanced and subtle, but crucial and fundamental nevertheless in correctly identifying the monster that feeds on Blood-Sacrifice of the Palestinians. The Zionists are not following in the footsteps of the Nazis, although they are certainly using many of the Nazi tactics. They are following in the veritable footsteps of the United States of America, and are religiously principled in their not making the ‘Sherman mistake’. This is empirically so blatantly obvious that even the conscionable among the Israeli Jews reluctantly admit it. The late Tanya Reinhart, professor of linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted in her 2002 book “How to end the war of 1948 https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-How-End-1948/dp/1583225382 : “The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel’s actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states.” The world Jewry is in on the game of conquest, in many different guises, with many different incantations of power, and with full spectrum political and financial support. The biggest support to Israel comes from the United States Congress and the Federal Government, financially, politically, militarily, as well as legally. Just witness this mind numbing Antiboycott Compliance https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm bureau especially constructed for Israel’s sake. It states: “The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.” So what is this red herring of calling Israelis “The New Nazis”, without also calling its parent the Fourth Reich? Further evidence of sophisticated and rather devilish support of Israel may be gleaned in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “The endless trial of red herrings https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html “. The day the World Jewry asserts that they will live equitably in a single-state with the indigenous Palestinians, with restoration of full right of return to the displaced and their progeny, and fair compensation for pain and suffering that is due all the native populations of Palestine and their progeny for cataclysmic upheaval inflicted upon them since the first World Jewish Congress meeting in Basle Switzerland in 1896, then that very fine day, the Shoah of the Palestinians will miraculously end. Such a fair and just articulation of demand is more than the mere recognition of great wrongs being done the Palestinians. It is of no less measure, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, than what the Jews have themselves extracted with their specialized and incomprehensible Holocaust narrative from the world. Let the Palestinian people not be sold short by those who claim to support them – even if they be Palestinian themselves! Their ruling elite has already sold the beleaguered people down the drain of ineptitude and corruption. Let their friends, unwittingly, not do the same. Thank you. * Footnote: Excerpts from this article first appeared as comment on January 18, 2009 on former Pakistani-Canadian journalist Abidullah Jan’s famous (now defunct) dictatorshipwatch.com: https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf> 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/2024/02/whats-the-difference-between-jews-and-zionists-no-no-not-the-new-nazis/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/whats-difference-between-jews-and.html https://telegra.ph/Whats-The-Difference-Between-Jews-and-Zionists-No-No--Not-the-New-Nazis--VT-Foreign-Policy-03-10

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