• Unlock Your Website's Potential: Discover the Best SEO Service Provider

    Elevate your online presence and drive organic traffic to your website with the best SEO service provider. Our expert team utilizes proven strategies to optimize your website, improve search engine rankings, and boost visibility. From keyword research to on-page optimization and link building, trust us to enhance your digital presence and achieve sustainable growth.

    https://penzu.com/p/99538c92961882fe
    Unlock Your Website's Potential: Discover the Best SEO Service Provider Elevate your online presence and drive organic traffic to your website with the best SEO service provider. Our expert team utilizes proven strategies to optimize your website, improve search engine rankings, and boost visibility. From keyword research to on-page optimization and link building, trust us to enhance your digital presence and achieve sustainable growth. https://penzu.com/p/99538c92961882fe
    PENZU.COM
    Penzu
    Free personal journal and online diary.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 395 Views
  • 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
    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
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    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.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10743 Views
  • WHO never Discovered SARS-COV-2 Artificial Origin but Promotes VIPs Calling for New Deal on Future Pandemics
    28 Marzo 2024
    FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailLinkedInTelegramCondividi
    12.285 Views

    by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

    VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

    “I love my brother Bobby, but I do not share or endorse his opinions on many issues, including the COVID pandemic, vaccinations, and the role of social media platforms in policing false information,” she said at the time. “It is also important to note that Bobby’s views are not reflected in or influence the mission or work of our organization.”

    These were the sentences about Robert F. Kennedy jr statements released by Kerry Kennedy, former wife of New York Governor Andrea Cuomo and Chair of the Amnesty International USA Leadership Council. Nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. She serves on the board of directors of the United States Institute of Peace, as well as Human Rights First, and Inter Press Service (Rome, Italy).

    Zuckerberg Confession: “Establishment asked Facebook to ‘censor’ Covid posts”

    Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, is one of the VIPs who signed the “Call for urgent Agreement on International Deal to Prepare for and prevent future Pandemics” (whole text below) meanwhile World Health Organization is loosing many hopes that WHO Assembly will approve the Pandemic Treaty due to the opposition of Russia an many other nations.

    WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative: “Death Sentence for Millions”

    The appeal was launched by Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown, the website of former UK prime minister., who signed it as Tony Blair, the Former UN General Secretary Ban-ki Moon, New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Helen Cark and Italian former PM Mario Monti, life senator and former manager of New York bank Goldman Sachs in business with Pfizer, nominated as president of Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development, a body created by the World Health Organization during Covid-19 emergency despite his ties with Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    WUHAN-GATES – 68. THE SMOKING GUN OF MANMADE SARS-COV-2. Fauci, Wuhan & Chinese Military Scientists behind Research on Vaccine for Biodefense

    Indeed Monti was in the European Commission which financed the EPISARS project for the developing of dangerous research on Coronavirus SARS from which, in a huge affair among China and US, emerged the artificial SARS-Cov-2.

    WUHAN-GATES – 65. L’ANELLO MANCANTE DEL DIABOLICO COMPLOTTO NWO-UE: Dal SARS da Laboratorio di Monti al Vaccino COVID col Grafene di Capua

    Although WHO has not yet been able to prove the laboratory origin of the Covid-19 virus, also because it has entrusted the investigations to doctors with enormous conflicts of interest for having worked in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, today it continues to insist on launch the global agreement on pandemics thanks to those same people who supported Bill Gates’ global immunization plan and the “Covid-19 pandemic planned for decades” as declared by the lawyer Robert F. Kennedy jr and as demonstrated by the patents expert David Martin on the role of Anthony Fauci, and detailed by the Gospa News investigations of the “Wuhan-Gates” cycle.

    WHO claims to develop more and major researches on viruses when it is now well established that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by man precisely because of research on biological weapons.

    Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
    © COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS
    prohibition of reproduction without authorization
    follow Fabio Carisio Gospa News director on Twitter
    follow Gospa News on Telegram

    Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

    MAIN SOURCES

    GOSPA NEWS – WUHAN-GATES INVESTIGATIONS

    GOSPA NEWS – COVID, BIG PHARMA, VACCINES

    WHO: “Call for urgent Agreement on International Deal to Prepare for and prevent future Pandemics”

    Article originally published on World Health Organization

    All links to Gospa News articles have been added aftermath, in relation to the topics highlighted

    Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

    A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organizaion, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics.

    WUHAN-GATES – 69. How and Why the Spy of Biden & Gates Hid ManMade SARS-Cov-2 in US Intelligence Dossier

    Former UN General Secretary Ban-ki Moon, New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Helen Cark, former UK Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, former Malawi President Joyce Banda, former Peru President Franciso Sagasti, and 3 former Presidents of the UN General Assembly are amongst 100+ global leaders, from all continents and fields of politics, economics and health management who today issued a joint open letterurging accelerated progress in current negotiations to reach the world’s first ever multi-lateral agreement on pandemic preparedness and prevention.

    “A pandemic accord is critical to safeguard our collective future. Only a strong global pact on pandemics can protect future generations from a repeat of the COVID-19 crisis, which led to millions of deaths and caused widespread social and economic devastation, owing not least to insufficient international collaboration,” the leaders write in their joint letter.

    WUHAN-GATES – 60. NEW SCANDAL INTO WHO. French Co-Chair of Investigative Group on SARS-2 Worked in the China Bio-lab which Enhanced Coronavirus

    In the throes of the COVID-19 disaster which, officially, claimed 7 million lives and wiped $2 trillion from the world economy, inter-governmental negotiations to reach international agreement on future pandemic non-proliferation were begun in December 2021 between 194 of the world’s 196 nations. Nations set themselves the deadline of May 2024 by which they should reach agreement on what would be the world’s first ever Pandemic Accord.

    The Ninth round of Pandemic Accord negotiations are underway this week and next. Signatories of today’s open letter hope their combined influence willencourage all 194 nations to maintain the courage of their Covid-years conviction and make their own collective ambition of an international pandemic protocol a reality by the intended May deadline to enable ratification by the World Health Assembly at its May 2024 Annual General Assembly.

    And they urge negotiators “to redouble their efforts” to meet the imminent deadline and not let their efforts be blown off course by malicious misinformation campaigning against the WHO, the international organisation which would be tasked with implementing the new health accord.

    Taking a swipe at those who wrongly believe national sovereignty may be undermined by this major international step forward for public health the signatories say “there is no time to waste” and they call on the leaders of the 194 nations taking part in the current negotiations to “redouble their efforts to complete the accord by the May deadline.”

    WUHAN-GATES – 72. THE SUMMARY: WHO Intrigues on the SARS-Cov-2 Bioweapon & Vaccine Plots – McCullough reveals

    The letter, hosted on the website of The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown states, “Countries are doing this not because of some dictum from the WHO – like the negotiations, participation in any instrument would be entirely voluntary – but because they need what the accord can and must offer. In fact, a pandemic accord would deliver vast and universally shared benefits, including greater capacity to detect new and dangerous pathogens, access to information about pathogens detected elsewhere in the world, and timely and equitable delivery of tests, treatments, vaccines, and other lifesaving tools.

    “As countries enter what should be the final stages of the negotiations, governments must work to refute and debunk false claims about the accord. At the same time, negotiators must ensure that the agreement lives up to its promise to prevent and mitigate pandemic-related risks. This requires, for example, provisions aimed at ensuring that when another pandemic threat does arise, all relevant responses – from reporting the identification of risky pathogens to delivering tools like tests and vaccines on an equitable basis – are implemented quickly and effectively. As the COVID-19 pandemic showed, collaboration between the public and private sectors focused on advancing the public good is also essential.”

    WUHAN-GATES – 24. WHO & Pandemic in Gates-China’s Puppet Hands: Dr. Tedros Leader of TPLF, Islamic-Communist Rebels blamed of Last Massacre in Ethiopia by Amnesty

    “A new pandemic threat will emerge; there is no excuse not to be ready for it. It is thus imperative to build an effective, multisectoral, and multilateral approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Given the unpredictable nature of public-health risks, a global strategy must embody a spirit of openness and inclusiveness. There is no time to waste, which is why we are calling on all national leaders to redouble their efforts to complete the accord by the May deadline.”

    “Beyond protecting countless lives and livelihoods, the timely delivery of a global pandemic accord would send a powerful message: even in our fractured and fragmented world, international cooperation can still deliver global solutions to global problems.”

    Article originally published on World Health Organization

    Joint letter to leaders of WHO member states calling for an urgent agreement on a pandemic accord

    Originally published on the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown website on March, 20, 2024

    The overwhelming lesson we learned from COVID-19 is that no one is safe anywhere until everyone is safe everywhere – and that can only happen through collaboration. In response, the 194 countries which are members of the World Health Organization decided in December 2021 to launch negotiations for a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, a Pandemic Accord, as a “global framework” to work together to prepare for and stem any new pandemic threat, including by achieving equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

    WUHAN-GATES – 62. MANMADE SARS-Cov-2 FOR GOLDEN VACCINES: Metabiota, CIA, Biden, Gates, Rockefeller intrigued in Ukraine, China and Italy

    Negotiation of an effective pandemic accord is a much needed opportunity to safeguard the world we live in. Countries themselves have proposed this instrument, individual countries are negotiating it, and only countries will ultimately be responsible for its requirements and its success or failure.

    Establishing a strong global pact on pandemics will protect future generations from a repeat of the millions of deaths and the social and economic devastation which resulted from a lack of collaboration during theCOVID-19 pandemic. All countries need what the accord can offer: the capacity to detect and share pathogens presenting a risk, and timely access to tests, treatments and vaccines.

    An agreement is meant to be reached just two and a half months from now – countries imposed a deadline of May 2024, in time for the 77th World Health Assembly.

    WUHAN-GATES – 73. Half of Century of Covert Bioweapon Development Leading to Fauci’s SARS-Cov-2 and to mRNA Lethal Vaccines

    As countries now enter what should be the final stages of the negotiations, they must ensure that they are agreeing on actions which will do the job required: to prevent and mitigate pandemic threats. We urge solutions which ensure both speed in reporting and sharing pathogens, and in access – in every country – to sufficient tools like tests and vaccines to protect lives and minimise harm. The public and private sectors must work together towards the public good. This global effort is being threatened by misinformation and disinformation. Among the falsehoods circulating are allegations that the WHO intends to monitor people’s movements through digital passports; that it will take away the national sovereignty of countries; and that it will have the ability to deploy armed troops to enforce mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns. All of these claims are wholly false and governments must work to disavow them with clear facts.

    WUHAN-GATES – 47. SARS-2 BIOWEAPON. Pentagon’s DARPA Stopped a Risky Test in US but Funded a Secret one in UK with Gates

    It is imperative now to build an effective, multisectoral and multilateral approach to pandemic prevention,preparedness, and response marked by a spirit of openness and inclusiveness. In doing so we can send a message that even in this fractured and fragmented world, cross-border co-operation can deliver global solutions to global problems.

    We call on leaders of all countries to step up their efforts and secure an effective pandemic accord by May. A new pandemic threat will emerge – and there is no excuse not to be ready for it.

    Originally published on the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown website on March, 20, 2024

    Name Title
    Carlos Alvarado* President of Costa Rica (2018-2022)
    Michelle Bachelet* President of Chile (2006-2010)
    Jan Peter Balkenende* Prime Minister of The Netherlands (2002-2010)
    Ban Ki-moon* Eighth Secretary General of the United Nations
    Joyce Banda* President of Malawi (2012-2014)
    Kjell Magne Bondevik* Prime Minister of Norway (1997-2000; 2001-2005)
    Kim Campbell* Prime Minister of Canada (1993)
    Alfred Gusenbauer* Chancellor of Austria (2007-2008)
    Seung-Soo Han* Prime Minister of the Rep. of Korea (2008-2009)
    Mehdi Jomaa* Prime Minister of Tunisia (2014-2015)
    Horst Köhler* President of Germany (2004-2010)
    Rexhep Meidani* President of Albania (1997-2002)
    Mario Monti* Prime Minister of Italy (2011-2013)
    Francisco Sagasti* President of Peru (2020-2021)
    Jenny Shipley* Prime Minister of New Zealand (1997-1999)
    Juan Somavía* Ninth Director of the International Labour Organization
    Helen Clark** Former Prime Minister of New Zealand
    Micheline Calmy-Rey** Former President of the Swiss Confederation
    Baroness Lynda Chalker** Former Minister of Overseas Development of the UK
    Chester A. Crocker** Former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, USA
    Marzuki Darusman** Former Attorney General of Indonesia
    Mohamed ElBaradei** Former Vice President of Egypt
    Gareth Evans** Former Foreign Minister of Australia
    Lawrence Gonzi** Former Prime Minister of Malta
    Lord George Robertson** Former Secretary General of NATO
    Gordon Brown Former Prime Minister of the UK 2007-2010
    Vaira Vike-Freiberga*** Co-Chair, NGIC; President of Latvia 1999-2007
    Ismail Serageldin*** Co-Chair, NGIC; Vice President of the World Bank 1992-2000
    Kerry Kennedy*** President, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
    Rosen Plevneliev*** President of Bulgaria 2012-2017
    Petar Stoyanov*** President of Bulgaria 1997-2002
    Chiril Gaburici*** Prime Minister of Moldova 2015
    Mladen Ivanic*** Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2014-2018
    Zlatko Lagumdzija*** Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the UN; Prime Minister 2001-2002; Deputy Prime Minister 1993-1996, 2012-2015
    Rashid Alimov*** Secretary-General Shanghai Cooperation Organization 2016-2018
    Jan Fisher*** Prime Minister of the Czech Republic 2009-2010
    Sir Tony Blair Prime Minister of the UK 1997-2007
    Csaba Korossi*** 77th President of the UN General Assembly
    Maria Fernanda Espinosa*** 73rd President of the UN General Assembly
    Volkan Bozkir*** 75th President of the UN General Assembly
    Ameenah Gurib Fakim*** President of Mauritius 2015-2018
    Filip Vujanovic*** President of Montenegro 2003-2018
    Borut Pahor*** President of Slovenia 2012-2022; Prime Minister 2008-2012
    Ivo Josipovic*** President of Croatia 2010-2015
    Petru Lucinschi*** President of Moldova 1997-2001
    Boris Tadic*** President of Serbia 2004-2012
    Mirko Cvetkovic*** Prime Minister of Serbia 2008-2012
    Dumitru Bragish*** Prime Minister of Moldova 1999-2001
    Emil Constantinescu*** President of Romania 1996-2000
    Nambaryn Enkhbayar*** President of Mongolia 2005-2009
    Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic*** President of Croatia 2015-2020
    Gjorge Ivanov*** President of North Macedonia 2009-2019
    Valdis Zatlers*** President of Latvia 2007-2011
    Ana Birchall*** Deputy Prime Minister of Romania 2018-2019
    Hikmet Cetin*** Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey 1991-1994
    Jewel Howard Taylor*** Vice President of Liberia 2018-2024
    Djoomart Otorbayev*** Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan 2014-2015
    Julio Cobos*** Vice President of Argentina 2007-2011
    Ouided Bouchmani*** Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2015
    Abdul Rauf AlRawabdeh*** Prime Minister of Jordan 1999-2000
    Jadranka Kosor*** Prime Minister of Montenegro 2009-2011
    Milica Pejanovic*** Minister of Defense of Montenegro 2012-2016
    Mats Karlsson*** Former Vice-President of the World Bank
    Laimdota Straujuma*** Prime Minister of Latvia 2014-2016
    Eka Tkeshelashvili*** Deputy Prime Minister of Georgia 2010-2012, Minister of Foreign Affairs 2010
    Moushira Khattab*** Former Minister of State for Family and Population of Egypt
    Raimonds Vejonis*** President of Latvia 2015-2019
    Ilir Meta*** President of Albania 2017-2022
    Edmond Panariti*** Former Minister of Foreign affairs, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of Albania
    Andris Piebalgs*** European Commissioner for Development 2010-2014, European Commissioner for Energy 2004-2010
    Manuel Pulgar Vidal*** Climate and Energy Global Leader at the World Wide Fund for Nature, Minister of Environment of Peru 2011-2016, President of COP20
    Yves Leterme*** Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium 2008, 2009-201
    Rovshan Muradov*** Secretary-General of the Nizami Ganjavi International Center
    Professor Erik Berglof London School of Economics and Political Science
    Professor Justin Lin Beijing University
    Professor Bai Chong-En Tsinghua School of Economics and Management Studies
    Professor Robin Burgess London School of Economics and Political Science
    Professor Shang-jin Wei Columbia University
    Professor Harold James Princeton University
    Ahmed Galal Former Minister of Finance, Egypt
    Professor Jong-Wha Lee Korea University
    Professor Leonhard Wantchekon African School of Economics, Benin
    Professor Ernst-Ludwig von Thadden Mannheim University
    Professor Kaushik Basu Cornell University
    Professor Bengt Holmstrom Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Professor Mathias Dewatripont Université Libre de Bruxelles
    Professor Dalia Marin University of Munich
    Professor Richard Portes London Business School
    Professor Chris Pissarides London School of Economics and Political Science
    Professor Diane Coyle University of Cambridge
    Mustapha Nabli Former Governor, Central Bank of Tunisia
    Professor Wendy Carlin University College London
    Professor Gerard Roland University of California, Berkeley
    Professor Nora Lustig Tulane University
    Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi London School of Economics and Political Science
    Professor Philippe Aghion College de France
    Professor Devi Sridhar University of Edinburgh
    Yu Yongding Former President of China Society in the World Economy
    Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2006
    Kailash Satyarthe, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2014
    Sir Ivor Roberts Former UK Ambassador
    Sir Suma Chakrabarti Former EBRD President
    Sir Tim Hitchens Former UK Ambassador
    Alistair Burt Former Minister for Health/International Development
    Tom Fletcher Former UK Ambassador
    Julian Braithwaite Former UK Perm Rep to WHO
    John Casson Former UK Ambassador
    *indicates membership of Club de Madrid

    ** Indicates membership of Global Leadership Forum

    *** Indicates membership of NGIC

    (Visited 37 times, 3 visits today)

    FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailLinkedInTelegramCondividi


    https://www.gospanews.net/en/2024/03/28/who-never-discovered-sars-cov-2-artificial-origin-but-promotes-vips-calling-for-new-deal-on-future-pandemics/
    WHO never Discovered SARS-COV-2 Artificial Origin but Promotes VIPs Calling for New Deal on Future Pandemics 28 Marzo 2024 FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailLinkedInTelegramCondividi 12.285 Views by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio VERSIONE IN ITALIANO “I love my brother Bobby, but I do not share or endorse his opinions on many issues, including the COVID pandemic, vaccinations, and the role of social media platforms in policing false information,” she said at the time. “It is also important to note that Bobby’s views are not reflected in or influence the mission or work of our organization.” These were the sentences about Robert F. Kennedy jr statements released by Kerry Kennedy, former wife of New York Governor Andrea Cuomo and Chair of the Amnesty International USA Leadership Council. Nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. She serves on the board of directors of the United States Institute of Peace, as well as Human Rights First, and Inter Press Service (Rome, Italy). Zuckerberg Confession: “Establishment asked Facebook to ‘censor’ Covid posts” Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, is one of the VIPs who signed the “Call for urgent Agreement on International Deal to Prepare for and prevent future Pandemics” (whole text below) meanwhile World Health Organization is loosing many hopes that WHO Assembly will approve the Pandemic Treaty due to the opposition of Russia an many other nations. WHO, EU Launch New Global Vaccine Passport Initiative: “Death Sentence for Millions” The appeal was launched by Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown, the website of former UK prime minister., who signed it as Tony Blair, the Former UN General Secretary Ban-ki Moon, New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Helen Cark and Italian former PM Mario Monti, life senator and former manager of New York bank Goldman Sachs in business with Pfizer, nominated as president of Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development, a body created by the World Health Organization during Covid-19 emergency despite his ties with Wuhan Institute of Virology. WUHAN-GATES – 68. THE SMOKING GUN OF MANMADE SARS-COV-2. Fauci, Wuhan & Chinese Military Scientists behind Research on Vaccine for Biodefense Indeed Monti was in the European Commission which financed the EPISARS project for the developing of dangerous research on Coronavirus SARS from which, in a huge affair among China and US, emerged the artificial SARS-Cov-2. WUHAN-GATES – 65. L’ANELLO MANCANTE DEL DIABOLICO COMPLOTTO NWO-UE: Dal SARS da Laboratorio di Monti al Vaccino COVID col Grafene di Capua Although WHO has not yet been able to prove the laboratory origin of the Covid-19 virus, also because it has entrusted the investigations to doctors with enormous conflicts of interest for having worked in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, today it continues to insist on launch the global agreement on pandemics thanks to those same people who supported Bill Gates’ global immunization plan and the “Covid-19 pandemic planned for decades” as declared by the lawyer Robert F. Kennedy jr and as demonstrated by the patents expert David Martin on the role of Anthony Fauci, and detailed by the Gospa News investigations of the “Wuhan-Gates” cycle. WHO claims to develop more and major researches on viruses when it is now well established that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by man precisely because of research on biological weapons. Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio © COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS prohibition of reproduction without authorization follow Fabio Carisio Gospa News director on Twitter follow Gospa News on Telegram Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published MAIN SOURCES GOSPA NEWS – WUHAN-GATES INVESTIGATIONS GOSPA NEWS – COVID, BIG PHARMA, VACCINES WHO: “Call for urgent Agreement on International Deal to Prepare for and prevent future Pandemics” Article originally published on World Health Organization All links to Gospa News articles have been added aftermath, in relation to the topics highlighted Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organizaion, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics. WUHAN-GATES – 69. How and Why the Spy of Biden & Gates Hid ManMade SARS-Cov-2 in US Intelligence Dossier Former UN General Secretary Ban-ki Moon, New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Helen Cark, former UK Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, former Malawi President Joyce Banda, former Peru President Franciso Sagasti, and 3 former Presidents of the UN General Assembly are amongst 100+ global leaders, from all continents and fields of politics, economics and health management who today issued a joint open letterurging accelerated progress in current negotiations to reach the world’s first ever multi-lateral agreement on pandemic preparedness and prevention. “A pandemic accord is critical to safeguard our collective future. Only a strong global pact on pandemics can protect future generations from a repeat of the COVID-19 crisis, which led to millions of deaths and caused widespread social and economic devastation, owing not least to insufficient international collaboration,” the leaders write in their joint letter. WUHAN-GATES – 60. NEW SCANDAL INTO WHO. French Co-Chair of Investigative Group on SARS-2 Worked in the China Bio-lab which Enhanced Coronavirus In the throes of the COVID-19 disaster which, officially, claimed 7 million lives and wiped $2 trillion from the world economy, inter-governmental negotiations to reach international agreement on future pandemic non-proliferation were begun in December 2021 between 194 of the world’s 196 nations. Nations set themselves the deadline of May 2024 by which they should reach agreement on what would be the world’s first ever Pandemic Accord. The Ninth round of Pandemic Accord negotiations are underway this week and next. Signatories of today’s open letter hope their combined influence willencourage all 194 nations to maintain the courage of their Covid-years conviction and make their own collective ambition of an international pandemic protocol a reality by the intended May deadline to enable ratification by the World Health Assembly at its May 2024 Annual General Assembly. And they urge negotiators “to redouble their efforts” to meet the imminent deadline and not let their efforts be blown off course by malicious misinformation campaigning against the WHO, the international organisation which would be tasked with implementing the new health accord. Taking a swipe at those who wrongly believe national sovereignty may be undermined by this major international step forward for public health the signatories say “there is no time to waste” and they call on the leaders of the 194 nations taking part in the current negotiations to “redouble their efforts to complete the accord by the May deadline.” WUHAN-GATES – 72. THE SUMMARY: WHO Intrigues on the SARS-Cov-2 Bioweapon & Vaccine Plots – McCullough reveals The letter, hosted on the website of The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown states, “Countries are doing this not because of some dictum from the WHO – like the negotiations, participation in any instrument would be entirely voluntary – but because they need what the accord can and must offer. In fact, a pandemic accord would deliver vast and universally shared benefits, including greater capacity to detect new and dangerous pathogens, access to information about pathogens detected elsewhere in the world, and timely and equitable delivery of tests, treatments, vaccines, and other lifesaving tools. “As countries enter what should be the final stages of the negotiations, governments must work to refute and debunk false claims about the accord. At the same time, negotiators must ensure that the agreement lives up to its promise to prevent and mitigate pandemic-related risks. This requires, for example, provisions aimed at ensuring that when another pandemic threat does arise, all relevant responses – from reporting the identification of risky pathogens to delivering tools like tests and vaccines on an equitable basis – are implemented quickly and effectively. As the COVID-19 pandemic showed, collaboration between the public and private sectors focused on advancing the public good is also essential.” WUHAN-GATES – 24. WHO & Pandemic in Gates-China’s Puppet Hands: Dr. Tedros Leader of TPLF, Islamic-Communist Rebels blamed of Last Massacre in Ethiopia by Amnesty “A new pandemic threat will emerge; there is no excuse not to be ready for it. It is thus imperative to build an effective, multisectoral, and multilateral approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Given the unpredictable nature of public-health risks, a global strategy must embody a spirit of openness and inclusiveness. There is no time to waste, which is why we are calling on all national leaders to redouble their efforts to complete the accord by the May deadline.” “Beyond protecting countless lives and livelihoods, the timely delivery of a global pandemic accord would send a powerful message: even in our fractured and fragmented world, international cooperation can still deliver global solutions to global problems.” Article originally published on World Health Organization Joint letter to leaders of WHO member states calling for an urgent agreement on a pandemic accord Originally published on the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown website on March, 20, 2024 The overwhelming lesson we learned from COVID-19 is that no one is safe anywhere until everyone is safe everywhere – and that can only happen through collaboration. In response, the 194 countries which are members of the World Health Organization decided in December 2021 to launch negotiations for a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, a Pandemic Accord, as a “global framework” to work together to prepare for and stem any new pandemic threat, including by achieving equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. WUHAN-GATES – 62. MANMADE SARS-Cov-2 FOR GOLDEN VACCINES: Metabiota, CIA, Biden, Gates, Rockefeller intrigued in Ukraine, China and Italy Negotiation of an effective pandemic accord is a much needed opportunity to safeguard the world we live in. Countries themselves have proposed this instrument, individual countries are negotiating it, and only countries will ultimately be responsible for its requirements and its success or failure. Establishing a strong global pact on pandemics will protect future generations from a repeat of the millions of deaths and the social and economic devastation which resulted from a lack of collaboration during theCOVID-19 pandemic. All countries need what the accord can offer: the capacity to detect and share pathogens presenting a risk, and timely access to tests, treatments and vaccines. An agreement is meant to be reached just two and a half months from now – countries imposed a deadline of May 2024, in time for the 77th World Health Assembly. WUHAN-GATES – 73. Half of Century of Covert Bioweapon Development Leading to Fauci’s SARS-Cov-2 and to mRNA Lethal Vaccines As countries now enter what should be the final stages of the negotiations, they must ensure that they are agreeing on actions which will do the job required: to prevent and mitigate pandemic threats. We urge solutions which ensure both speed in reporting and sharing pathogens, and in access – in every country – to sufficient tools like tests and vaccines to protect lives and minimise harm. The public and private sectors must work together towards the public good. This global effort is being threatened by misinformation and disinformation. Among the falsehoods circulating are allegations that the WHO intends to monitor people’s movements through digital passports; that it will take away the national sovereignty of countries; and that it will have the ability to deploy armed troops to enforce mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns. All of these claims are wholly false and governments must work to disavow them with clear facts. WUHAN-GATES – 47. SARS-2 BIOWEAPON. Pentagon’s DARPA Stopped a Risky Test in US but Funded a Secret one in UK with Gates It is imperative now to build an effective, multisectoral and multilateral approach to pandemic prevention,preparedness, and response marked by a spirit of openness and inclusiveness. In doing so we can send a message that even in this fractured and fragmented world, cross-border co-operation can deliver global solutions to global problems. We call on leaders of all countries to step up their efforts and secure an effective pandemic accord by May. A new pandemic threat will emerge – and there is no excuse not to be ready for it. Originally published on the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown website on March, 20, 2024 Name Title Carlos Alvarado* President of Costa Rica (2018-2022) Michelle Bachelet* President of Chile (2006-2010) Jan Peter Balkenende* Prime Minister of The Netherlands (2002-2010) Ban Ki-moon* Eighth Secretary General of the United Nations Joyce Banda* President of Malawi (2012-2014) Kjell Magne Bondevik* Prime Minister of Norway (1997-2000; 2001-2005) Kim Campbell* Prime Minister of Canada (1993) Alfred Gusenbauer* Chancellor of Austria (2007-2008) Seung-Soo Han* Prime Minister of the Rep. of Korea (2008-2009) Mehdi Jomaa* Prime Minister of Tunisia (2014-2015) Horst Köhler* President of Germany (2004-2010) Rexhep Meidani* President of Albania (1997-2002) Mario Monti* Prime Minister of Italy (2011-2013) Francisco Sagasti* President of Peru (2020-2021) Jenny Shipley* Prime Minister of New Zealand (1997-1999) Juan Somavía* Ninth Director of the International Labour Organization Helen Clark** Former Prime Minister of New Zealand Micheline Calmy-Rey** Former President of the Swiss Confederation Baroness Lynda Chalker** Former Minister of Overseas Development of the UK Chester A. Crocker** Former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, USA Marzuki Darusman** Former Attorney General of Indonesia Mohamed ElBaradei** Former Vice President of Egypt Gareth Evans** Former Foreign Minister of Australia Lawrence Gonzi** Former Prime Minister of Malta Lord George Robertson** Former Secretary General of NATO Gordon Brown Former Prime Minister of the UK 2007-2010 Vaira Vike-Freiberga*** Co-Chair, NGIC; President of Latvia 1999-2007 Ismail Serageldin*** Co-Chair, NGIC; Vice President of the World Bank 1992-2000 Kerry Kennedy*** President, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Rosen Plevneliev*** President of Bulgaria 2012-2017 Petar Stoyanov*** President of Bulgaria 1997-2002 Chiril Gaburici*** Prime Minister of Moldova 2015 Mladen Ivanic*** Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2014-2018 Zlatko Lagumdzija*** Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the UN; Prime Minister 2001-2002; Deputy Prime Minister 1993-1996, 2012-2015 Rashid Alimov*** Secretary-General Shanghai Cooperation Organization 2016-2018 Jan Fisher*** Prime Minister of the Czech Republic 2009-2010 Sir Tony Blair Prime Minister of the UK 1997-2007 Csaba Korossi*** 77th President of the UN General Assembly Maria Fernanda Espinosa*** 73rd President of the UN General Assembly Volkan Bozkir*** 75th President of the UN General Assembly Ameenah Gurib Fakim*** President of Mauritius 2015-2018 Filip Vujanovic*** President of Montenegro 2003-2018 Borut Pahor*** President of Slovenia 2012-2022; Prime Minister 2008-2012 Ivo Josipovic*** President of Croatia 2010-2015 Petru Lucinschi*** President of Moldova 1997-2001 Boris Tadic*** President of Serbia 2004-2012 Mirko Cvetkovic*** Prime Minister of Serbia 2008-2012 Dumitru Bragish*** Prime Minister of Moldova 1999-2001 Emil Constantinescu*** President of Romania 1996-2000 Nambaryn Enkhbayar*** President of Mongolia 2005-2009 Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic*** President of Croatia 2015-2020 Gjorge Ivanov*** President of North Macedonia 2009-2019 Valdis Zatlers*** President of Latvia 2007-2011 Ana Birchall*** Deputy Prime Minister of Romania 2018-2019 Hikmet Cetin*** Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey 1991-1994 Jewel Howard Taylor*** Vice President of Liberia 2018-2024 Djoomart Otorbayev*** Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan 2014-2015 Julio Cobos*** Vice President of Argentina 2007-2011 Ouided Bouchmani*** Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2015 Abdul Rauf AlRawabdeh*** Prime Minister of Jordan 1999-2000 Jadranka Kosor*** Prime Minister of Montenegro 2009-2011 Milica Pejanovic*** Minister of Defense of Montenegro 2012-2016 Mats Karlsson*** Former Vice-President of the World Bank Laimdota Straujuma*** Prime Minister of Latvia 2014-2016 Eka Tkeshelashvili*** Deputy Prime Minister of Georgia 2010-2012, Minister of Foreign Affairs 2010 Moushira Khattab*** Former Minister of State for Family and Population of Egypt Raimonds Vejonis*** President of Latvia 2015-2019 Ilir Meta*** President of Albania 2017-2022 Edmond Panariti*** Former Minister of Foreign affairs, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of Albania Andris Piebalgs*** European Commissioner for Development 2010-2014, European Commissioner for Energy 2004-2010 Manuel Pulgar Vidal*** Climate and Energy Global Leader at the World Wide Fund for Nature, Minister of Environment of Peru 2011-2016, President of COP20 Yves Leterme*** Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium 2008, 2009-201 Rovshan Muradov*** Secretary-General of the Nizami Ganjavi International Center Professor Erik Berglof London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Justin Lin Beijing University Professor Bai Chong-En Tsinghua School of Economics and Management Studies Professor Robin Burgess London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Shang-jin Wei Columbia University Professor Harold James Princeton University Ahmed Galal Former Minister of Finance, Egypt Professor Jong-Wha Lee Korea University Professor Leonhard Wantchekon African School of Economics, Benin Professor Ernst-Ludwig von Thadden Mannheim University Professor Kaushik Basu Cornell University Professor Bengt Holmstrom Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Mathias Dewatripont Université Libre de Bruxelles Professor Dalia Marin University of Munich Professor Richard Portes London Business School Professor Chris Pissarides London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Diane Coyle University of Cambridge Mustapha Nabli Former Governor, Central Bank of Tunisia Professor Wendy Carlin University College London Professor Gerard Roland University of California, Berkeley Professor Nora Lustig Tulane University Piroska Nagy-Mohacsi London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Philippe Aghion College de France Professor Devi Sridhar University of Edinburgh Yu Yongding Former President of China Society in the World Economy Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2006 Kailash Satyarthe, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2014 Sir Ivor Roberts Former UK Ambassador Sir Suma Chakrabarti Former EBRD President Sir Tim Hitchens Former UK Ambassador Alistair Burt Former Minister for Health/International Development Tom Fletcher Former UK Ambassador Julian Braithwaite Former UK Perm Rep to WHO John Casson Former UK Ambassador *indicates membership of Club de Madrid ** Indicates membership of Global Leadership Forum *** Indicates membership of NGIC (Visited 37 times, 3 visits today) FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailLinkedInTelegramCondividi https://www.gospanews.net/en/2024/03/28/who-never-discovered-sars-cov-2-artificial-origin-but-promotes-vips-calling-for-new-deal-on-future-pandemics/
    WWW.GOSPANEWS.NET
    WHO never Discovered SARS-COV-2 Artificial Origin but Promotes VIPs Calling for New Deal on Future Pandemics
    by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo CarisioVERSIONE IN ITALIANO"I love my brother Bobby, but I do not share or endorse his opinions on many issues, including the COVID pandemic, vaccinations, and the role of social media platforms in policing false information," she said at the time. "It is also importa
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7621 Views
  • Firm helping Israel spy on Gaza includes genocide advocate
    Michael F. Brown Rights and Accountability 28 March 2024

    Palestinian children and adults try to secure food
    Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli major general, has pushed for a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a position which has contributed to desperate scenes of Palestinians trying to secure food.
    Mahmoud Issa DPA
    The Israeli military is using Corsight facial recognition technology to collect information about Palestinians in Gaza according to The New York Times.

    “The facial recognition program, which is run by Israel’s military intelligence unit, including the cyber-intelligence division Unit 8200, relies on technology from Corsight, a private Israeli company, four intelligence officers said.”


    The Israeli military also employs Google Photos.

    Israel’s apartheid army detained, interrogated and beat Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha, a graduate of Syracuse University, with the assistance of Corsight’s facial recognition technology. Other Palestinians have been similarly detained via Corsight technology.
    Abu Toha notes Palestinians have died in Israeli custody.

    There is little complaint from western politicians. Corsight’s complicity isn’t seen as an urgent matter.

    Nor, for that matter, do most of these politicians give sufficient attention to Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza.

    Board of directors

    Unmentioned by the Times is that Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli major general, serves on the board of directors of Corsight.

    When Eiland joined the board in January 2021, Igal Raichelgauz, chairman and founder of the Cortica Group, stated, “We are excited to add Giora to the company board, we believe that due to his extensive experience in the national security field, Corsight will continue growing into new markets and territories and lead the face recognition market in Israel and in the world.” Corsight is a subsidiary of Cortica, a firm focused on artificial intelligence.

    Eiland is a proponent of the ethnic cleansing of the occupied territory of Gaza.

    He wrote for the Israeli publication Ynet on 12 October that “One option is a massive and complex ground operation, with no regard to duration and cost, while the second option is to create conditions where life in Gaza becomes unsustainable.”

    In fact, Israel has done both.

    Eiland noted, without voicing dissent, that “Israel has already begun suspending the supply of diesel, fuel, electricity and water, as well as closing the border crossings. Yet, it remains uncertain whether these measures are enough.”

    He then moved to ethnic cleansing.

    “Israel issued a stern warning to Egypt and made it clear that it would not permit humanitarian aid from Egypt to enter Gaza. Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf.”

    He said nothing of wanting such an arrangement to be temporary.

    Eiland then jumped beyond an ethnic cleansing of “tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.” He wrote: “The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf.”

    The retired general also recommended targeting civilian vehicles in Gaza.

    “Every vehicle in Gaza is considered a military vehicle transporting combatants. Therefore, there is no vehicular traffic, and it does not matter whether it is transporting water or other critical supplies.”

    Such rhetoric amounts to abetting war crimes and has had real consequences for Palestinian children such as 6-year-old Hind Rajab who, according to the Palestine Red Crescent, the Israeli military killed earlier this year in a car along with other family members.

    Eiland pushed collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza as well.

    “The UN secretary-general has initiated humanitarian aid to Gaza. The Israeli condition for any aid should be a visit by the Red Cross to Israeli hostages and especially the civilians among them. Until this happens, no aid of any kind will be permitted to enter into Gaza.”

    Hinting at the overwhelming violence to come against Palestinian civilians, Eiland wrote of the developing Israeli attack: “It is comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to the launch of an atomic bomb in Japan.”

    The Israeli military has killed over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza since 7 October, including more than 13,000 children. The International Court of Justice deems it plausible that Israel is engaged in genocidal actions in the small coastal territory.

    Eiland wrapped up his opinion piece by declaring, “As a result, Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist, and I say this as a means rather than an end. I say this because there is no other option for ensuring the security of the state of Israel. We are fighting an existential war.”

    This goes beyond ethnic cleansing to genocide talk when speaking of “a place where no human being can exist.”


    Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, documented this and more from Eiland in a November opinion piece in The New York Times.
    He cited a column Eiland wrote in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The Brown University professor quoted Eiland as writing, “The state of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.”

    Bartov also quoted Eiland for maintaining, “Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal.”

    Then he cited the same Ynet quote noted above that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.”

    Bartov commented, “Apparently, no army representative or politician denounced this statement.”

    Eiland continued with the genocidal talk in November when he wrote, “The international community warns of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from it, as hard as it is. After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Strip will hasten victory.”


    Corsight, with its invasive technology against a largely refugee population dispossessed in 1948, should expect heavy criticism with a board member calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and to make the place uninhabitable.
    Of course, Democratic Majority for Israel received scant attention when it came to light that its board member Archie Gottesman once issued her own genocidal call against Palestinians in Gaza when she tweeted: “Gaza is full of monsters. Time to burn the whole place.”

    Ethnic cleansing and genocide against Palestinians don’t properly register with most western politicians who, of course, are providing weapons to Israel to carry out the devastation in Gaza.

    That Corsight carries out “global operations and support in the US, UK, Singapore, Australia, and R&D in Israel” with the backing of a board member proponent of ethnic cleansing and genocide will not be a significant concern in Washington.

    Popular concern, however, may prove to be a different matter.


    Corsight
    The New York Times
    Google Photos
    Mosab Abu Toha
    Syracuse University
    Igal Raichelgauz
    Cortica Group
    Giora Eiland
    Ynet
    ethnic cleansing
    Hind Rajab
    Palestine Red Crescent Society
    collective punishment
    International Court of Justice
    Gaza genocide
    Omer Bartov
    Brown University
    Democratic Majority for Israel
    Archie Gottesman
    Yediot Ahronot

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/firm-helping-israel-spy-gaza-includes-genocide-advocate
    Firm helping Israel spy on Gaza includes genocide advocate Michael F. Brown Rights and Accountability 28 March 2024 Palestinian children and adults try to secure food Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli major general, has pushed for a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a position which has contributed to desperate scenes of Palestinians trying to secure food. Mahmoud Issa DPA The Israeli military is using Corsight facial recognition technology to collect information about Palestinians in Gaza according to The New York Times. “The facial recognition program, which is run by Israel’s military intelligence unit, including the cyber-intelligence division Unit 8200, relies on technology from Corsight, a private Israeli company, four intelligence officers said.” The Israeli military also employs Google Photos. Israel’s apartheid army detained, interrogated and beat Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha, a graduate of Syracuse University, with the assistance of Corsight’s facial recognition technology. Other Palestinians have been similarly detained via Corsight technology. Abu Toha notes Palestinians have died in Israeli custody. There is little complaint from western politicians. Corsight’s complicity isn’t seen as an urgent matter. Nor, for that matter, do most of these politicians give sufficient attention to Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza. Board of directors Unmentioned by the Times is that Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli major general, serves on the board of directors of Corsight. When Eiland joined the board in January 2021, Igal Raichelgauz, chairman and founder of the Cortica Group, stated, “We are excited to add Giora to the company board, we believe that due to his extensive experience in the national security field, Corsight will continue growing into new markets and territories and lead the face recognition market in Israel and in the world.” Corsight is a subsidiary of Cortica, a firm focused on artificial intelligence. Eiland is a proponent of the ethnic cleansing of the occupied territory of Gaza. He wrote for the Israeli publication Ynet on 12 October that “One option is a massive and complex ground operation, with no regard to duration and cost, while the second option is to create conditions where life in Gaza becomes unsustainable.” In fact, Israel has done both. Eiland noted, without voicing dissent, that “Israel has already begun suspending the supply of diesel, fuel, electricity and water, as well as closing the border crossings. Yet, it remains uncertain whether these measures are enough.” He then moved to ethnic cleansing. “Israel issued a stern warning to Egypt and made it clear that it would not permit humanitarian aid from Egypt to enter Gaza. Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf.” He said nothing of wanting such an arrangement to be temporary. Eiland then jumped beyond an ethnic cleansing of “tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.” He wrote: “The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf.” The retired general also recommended targeting civilian vehicles in Gaza. “Every vehicle in Gaza is considered a military vehicle transporting combatants. Therefore, there is no vehicular traffic, and it does not matter whether it is transporting water or other critical supplies.” Such rhetoric amounts to abetting war crimes and has had real consequences for Palestinian children such as 6-year-old Hind Rajab who, according to the Palestine Red Crescent, the Israeli military killed earlier this year in a car along with other family members. Eiland pushed collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza as well. “The UN secretary-general has initiated humanitarian aid to Gaza. The Israeli condition for any aid should be a visit by the Red Cross to Israeli hostages and especially the civilians among them. Until this happens, no aid of any kind will be permitted to enter into Gaza.” Hinting at the overwhelming violence to come against Palestinian civilians, Eiland wrote of the developing Israeli attack: “It is comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to the launch of an atomic bomb in Japan.” The Israeli military has killed over 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza since 7 October, including more than 13,000 children. The International Court of Justice deems it plausible that Israel is engaged in genocidal actions in the small coastal territory. Eiland wrapped up his opinion piece by declaring, “As a result, Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist, and I say this as a means rather than an end. I say this because there is no other option for ensuring the security of the state of Israel. We are fighting an existential war.” This goes beyond ethnic cleansing to genocide talk when speaking of “a place where no human being can exist.” Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, documented this and more from Eiland in a November opinion piece in The New York Times. He cited a column Eiland wrote in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The Brown University professor quoted Eiland as writing, “The state of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” Bartov also quoted Eiland for maintaining, “Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal.” Then he cited the same Ynet quote noted above that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.” Bartov commented, “Apparently, no army representative or politician denounced this statement.” Eiland continued with the genocidal talk in November when he wrote, “The international community warns of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from it, as hard as it is. After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Strip will hasten victory.” Corsight, with its invasive technology against a largely refugee population dispossessed in 1948, should expect heavy criticism with a board member calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and to make the place uninhabitable. Of course, Democratic Majority for Israel received scant attention when it came to light that its board member Archie Gottesman once issued her own genocidal call against Palestinians in Gaza when she tweeted: “Gaza is full of monsters. Time to burn the whole place.” Ethnic cleansing and genocide against Palestinians don’t properly register with most western politicians who, of course, are providing weapons to Israel to carry out the devastation in Gaza. That Corsight carries out “global operations and support in the US, UK, Singapore, Australia, and R&D in Israel” with the backing of a board member proponent of ethnic cleansing and genocide will not be a significant concern in Washington. Popular concern, however, may prove to be a different matter. Corsight The New York Times Google Photos Mosab Abu Toha Syracuse University Igal Raichelgauz Cortica Group Giora Eiland Ynet ethnic cleansing Hind Rajab Palestine Red Crescent Society collective punishment International Court of Justice Gaza genocide Omer Bartov Brown University Democratic Majority for Israel Archie Gottesman Yediot Ahronot https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/firm-helping-israel-spy-gaza-includes-genocide-advocate
    ELECTRONICINTIFADA.NET
    Firm helping Israel spy on Gaza includes genocide advocate
    Retired general Giora Eiland has promoted making Gaza “a place where no human being can exist.”
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2743 Views
  • Secret Email System Review | How I Built A 7-Figure

    The Secret Email System is a counterintuitive approach to creating and running an online business, specifically the freedom lifestyle business model, that allows you to build a sustainable and profitable long-term business that gives you freedom, fun, and adventure.

    Read Full Review From Here >>
    https://dilip-review.com/secret-email-system-review/

    #HowDoesSecretEmailSystemWork
    #HowtoMakeMoneywithSecretEmailSystem
    #HowtoSecretEmailSystemTraffic
    #MakeMoneywithSecretEmailSystem
    #SecretEmailSystemApp
    #SecretEmailSystemBonus
    #SecretEmailSystemBonuses
    #SecretEmailSystembymbacak
    #SecretEmailSystemDemo
    #SecretEmailSystemDownload
    #SecretEmailSystemHonestReview
    #SecretEmailSystemLegit
    #SecretEmailSystemLiveDemo
    #SecretEmailSystemOTO
    #SecretEmailSystemPreview
    #SecretEmailSystemReview
    #SecretEmailSystemReviews
    #SecretEmailSystemScam
    #SecretEmailSystemScamorLegit
    #SecretEmailSystemSoftware
    #SecretEmailSystemUpgrades
    #SecretEmailSystemUpsells
    Secret Email System Review | How I Built A 7-Figure The Secret Email System is a counterintuitive approach to creating and running an online business, specifically the freedom lifestyle business model, that allows you to build a sustainable and profitable long-term business that gives you freedom, fun, and adventure. Read Full Review From Here >> https://dilip-review.com/secret-email-system-review/ #HowDoesSecretEmailSystemWork #HowtoMakeMoneywithSecretEmailSystem #HowtoSecretEmailSystemTraffic #MakeMoneywithSecretEmailSystem #SecretEmailSystemApp #SecretEmailSystemBonus #SecretEmailSystemBonuses #SecretEmailSystembymbacak #SecretEmailSystemDemo #SecretEmailSystemDownload #SecretEmailSystemHonestReview #SecretEmailSystemLegit #SecretEmailSystemLiveDemo #SecretEmailSystemOTO #SecretEmailSystemPreview #SecretEmailSystemReview #SecretEmailSystemReviews #SecretEmailSystemScam #SecretEmailSystemScamorLegit #SecretEmailSystemSoftware #SecretEmailSystemUpgrades #SecretEmailSystemUpsells
    DILIP-REVIEW.COM
    Secret Email System Review|How I Built A 7-Figure
    Secret Email System is a counterintuitive approach to creating and running an online business, specifically the freedom lifestyle business
    1 Comments 0 Shares 1327 Views
  • ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 169: Israel kills 7 aid-seekers in northern Gaza, 4 children in Rafah as siege of al-Shifa Hospital enters sixth day
    Israel continued its airstrikes on Rafah, killing four children, while in northern Gaza Israel turned back food aid for the second time in a week and killed at least 7 Palestinian aid-seekers near the Kuwaiti roundabout.

    Mondoweiss Palestine BureauMarch 23, 2024
    Injured Palestinians, including children, brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza following Israeli attacks on March 23, 2024. (Photo: Ali Hamad/APA Images)
    Injured Palestinians, including children, brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza following Israeli attacks on March 23, 2024. (Photo: Ali Hamad/APA Images)
    Casualties

    32,070+ killed* and at least 74,412 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
    435+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.**
    Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147.
    590 Israeli soldiers have been killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.***
    *Gaza’s Ministry of Health confirmed this figure on its Telegram channel on March 22, 2024. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 35,000 when accounting for those presumed dead.

    ** The death toll in West Bank and Jerusalem is not updated regularly. According to PA’s Ministry of Health on March 6, this is the latest figure.

    *** This figure is released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.”

    Advertisement

    Subscribe to the Mondoweiss YouTube Channel!
    Key Developments

    Israeli airstrikes on Rafah continue, killing four children in a residential home and injuring several others.
    UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres visits Rafah, calls blocking of aid “moral outrage.”
    Israeli siege of al-Shifa Hospital enters sixth day, army reportedly sets buildings on fire around hospital, tortures and kills civilians who attempt to evacuate.
    Israeli army kills at least 7 Palestinian aid-seekers at aid distribution point near Kuwaiti roundabout in northern Gaza.
    New UN Security Council resolution calling for immediate ceasefire postponed to Monday, March 25.
    Martyred Palestinian, who injured 7 Israeli soldiers near Kufr Ni’ma ambushed soldiers after chase, targeted soldiers with sniper fire during five-hour standoff, according to Ynet.
    136 Palestinian journalists in Gaza killed since October, says Gaza media office.
    Siege of al-Shifa enters sixth day, airstrikes on Rafah kill 4 children

    Israel’s siege on al-Shifa Hospital has entered its sixth consecutive day. The government media office in Gaza released a statement saying it holds the U.S. and the international community responsible for Israel’s “crime” perpetrated against al-Shifa’s doctors, staff, patients, and the displaced people sheltering at the medical compound. As reported by Al Jazeera, the media office said that the Israeli army was bombing buildings inside the medical complex and engaging in acts of torture and extrajudicial field executions.

    The Israeli army claims it has arrested over 170 Hamas fighters and 800 suspects at al-Shifa. Moreover, according to Al Jazeera, the Israeli army has reportedly set fire to the buildings around the hospital.

    The siege on al-Shifa comes in the context of Israel’s attempt to target civil employees and members of the police in Gaza who were based in al-Shifa, in an attempt to sow civil unrest and cause a breakdown in social order in the north. Claiming these civil employees to be “top Hamas operatives,” Israel assassinated the Director of the Operations of the Gaza Police, Faiq Mabhouh, on March 18. Mabhouh was an instrumental figure in successfully coordinating the delivery of humanitarian aid to northern Gaza in cooperation with international organizations, local tribes, and UNRWA. In light of the widespread compliance of the populace with the directives of Gaza’s civil employees, Israel has laid siege to al-Shifa, where many of them are based. Israel continues to claim that these civil and police employees are Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters, despite offering no evidence to back up its claims.

    The Gaza government media office said that the Israeli army has threatened al-Shifa’s hospital’s staff and displaced civilians that the buildings they are staying in will be bombed in the event that they do not evacuate. The media office based its statement on testimonies from people who remain stranded inside the medical compound as Israel lays siege to it, asserting that those who have evacuated the buildings are either arrested, tortured, or killed, as reported by Middle East Eye.

    MEE also reported that six wounded patients in the hospital died amid the Israeli siege due to the lack of medical care, quoting the Gaza Ministry of Health as saying that “besieged medical teams and patients are appealing to UN institutions and the international community to intervene urgently to save their lives.”

    In southern Gaza, Israel continued its airstrikes on Rafah and Khan Younis, killing several civilians. In one airstrike on the north of the city of Rafah, five civilians were killed, four of them children, following the bombing of a two-story residential building in the Mirage area, reports Wafa.

    The number of casualties from Israeli airstrikes and shelling in the last 24 hours has risen to 72 people killed and 114 injured.

    Meanwhile, on Friday, the Israeli army released a statement on X saying that it had opened an investigation into the incident of the deliberate killing of four unarmed Palestinian men in civilian clothing in Khan Younis last February by an Israeli attack drone, the footage of which recently came to light after Al Jazeera obtained from sources in Gaza. The footage of the deliberate killing of the unarmed men made shockwaves, highlighting Israel’s deliberate policy of killing civilians.

    Gaza drone video shows killing of Palestinians in Israeli air attack | Al Jazeera Newsfeed
    ‘The unbearable cannot become the new normal’

    In a statement on X, Philippe Lazzarini, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), said that food aid had been denied to northern Gaza for the second time in a week.

    “Today, the Israeli Authorities denied another UNRWA convoy with much needed food supplies from going to the north where people are on the verge of famine,” the UNRWA chief said. “The last time UNRWA was able to send food aid to the north was nearly 2 month [sic] ago.”

    Lazzarini went on to say that Israel the “man made hunger & looming famine” in Gaza could still be averted if Israel allowed “delivering food aid at scale to the north including via UNRWA, the largest humanitarian organisation in Gaza.”

    “Meanwhile, children will continue to die of malnutrition & dehydration under our watch,” he added. “The unbearable cannot become the new normal.”

    By late afternoon, Al Jazeera correspondents reported that Israeli shelling on Palestinian aid-seekers at the Kuwaiti roundabout had killed at least seven people. This latest attack on civilians at aid distribution points comes after the assassination of Faiq Mabhouh and Gaza’s civil employees, who were instrumental in organizing orderly deliveries of aid to Gaza without resulting in these Israeli attacks on starving Palestinians. The most infamous of such attacks was the “Flour Massacre” on March 3, which killed over 100 people.

    Meanwhile, 7,000 trucks carrying humanitarian aid and food aid are currently stationed outside the Rafah crossing, waiting to enter the besieged Gaza Strip. As reported by Al Jazeera, the governor of North Sinai, Muhammad Shousha, said that the Israeli inspection procedures are holding up the flow of trucks into Gaza.

    Shousha received UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres at al-Arish Airport in the Egyptian Sinai for the UN chief’s planned visit to the Rafah border crossing later today. During his press conference at the Rafah crossing, Guterres lambasted the blocking of aid to Gaza as a “moral outrage” and said that he had made his trip to the border to shed light on the pain of Palestinians in Gaza.

    New UN Security Council resolution postponed to Monday

    Following China and Russia’s vetoing of the U.S.-led draft resolution for a Gaza ceasefire at the UN Security Council, a new resolution demanding an “immediate ceasefire” during Ramadan in advance of a more “permanent sustainable ceasefire” has been postponed to Monday, March 25, according to diplomatic sources that spoke to AFP, as reported on Al Mayadeen.

    In the earlier U.S.-led draft, China and Russia used their veto against the resolution, with Russia citing it as a “hypocritical spectacle” that contained an “effective green light” for Israel to continue its invasion of Rafah, while China believed that the resolution “dodged the most central issue, that of a ceasefire” through the use of nebulous language.”

    The ambiguous language to which Russia and China referred was the resolution’s emphasis on the “imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire,” instead of demanding its implementation in the short term. The U.S. resolution also condemned the Hamas-led attacks on October 7.

    West Bank: resistance operation and record settlement expansion

    In the West Bank, Israeli settlement building has reached a record high. As reported by Middle East Eye, the United Nations and Israeli rights group Peace Now have asserted that in 2023, Israel expanded its settlements at a record pace in the occupied West Bank. According to Peace Now, ten out of the 26 illegal outposts established in the West Bank were built after October 7, resulting in the forcible displacement of 21 Palestinian communities (16 of which were uprooted since the outbreak of the war). Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Volker Turk asserted that the record expansion of settlements risks eliminating the chances for a Palestinian state, and that 24,300 new settlement housing units were built in 2023, a record high since the UN began monitoring in 2017.

    Yesterday, a Palestinian man from the village of Kufr Ni’ma, west of Ramallah, launched a shooting operation against Israeli soldiers, injuring seven soldiers before an Israeli attack helicopter fired missiles on his position in the hills, killing him. New details have emerged since the incident that shed light on the nature of the resistance operation and detail the expertise of the shooter, identified as Mujahid Mansour.

    According to reports by Ynet and Quds News Network, Mansour had opened fire on a settler bus, resulting in no fatalities, before retreating and being chased by Israeli army vehicles. It would seem that Mansour was leading the soldiers into an ambush, perching himself on top of a hill and hiding behind trees and bushes. Mansour then proceeded to intermittently engage the forces with a sniper rifle from a distance, resulting in a standoff that lasted for five hours due to the inability of Israeli drones and helicopters to identify him as a result of poor weather. Mansour was able to down an Israeli drone with his rifle during the standoff, while at other times, he fell silent and maintained his cover, while the Israeli troops were reluctant to advance. An Israeli helicopter eventually launched a missile where he was hiding when the weather cleared. Reports have since emerged that Mansour was a member of the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces.

    In preparation for the punitive demolition of Mansour’s family home, the Israeli army took measurements for the house on Saturday, Wafa reported. This is part of Israel’s larger policy of punitive home demolitions, in which the Israeli army destroys the homes of the families of Palestinians who launched attacks against Israel, which has been described as a policy of collective punishment.

    BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever.

    Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses.

    Support our journalists with a donation today.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-169-israel-kills-7-aid-seekers-in-northern-gaza-4-children-in-rafah-as-siege-of-al-shifa-hospital-enters-sixth-day/
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 169: Israel kills 7 aid-seekers in northern Gaza, 4 children in Rafah as siege of al-Shifa Hospital enters sixth day Israel continued its airstrikes on Rafah, killing four children, while in northern Gaza Israel turned back food aid for the second time in a week and killed at least 7 Palestinian aid-seekers near the Kuwaiti roundabout. Mondoweiss Palestine BureauMarch 23, 2024 Injured Palestinians, including children, brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza following Israeli attacks on March 23, 2024. (Photo: Ali Hamad/APA Images) Injured Palestinians, including children, brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza following Israeli attacks on March 23, 2024. (Photo: Ali Hamad/APA Images) Casualties 32,070+ killed* and at least 74,412 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 435+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.** Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147. 590 Israeli soldiers have been killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.*** *Gaza’s Ministry of Health confirmed this figure on its Telegram channel on March 22, 2024. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 35,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. ** The death toll in West Bank and Jerusalem is not updated regularly. According to PA’s Ministry of Health on March 6, this is the latest figure. *** This figure is released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.” Advertisement Subscribe to the Mondoweiss YouTube Channel! Key Developments Israeli airstrikes on Rafah continue, killing four children in a residential home and injuring several others. UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres visits Rafah, calls blocking of aid “moral outrage.” Israeli siege of al-Shifa Hospital enters sixth day, army reportedly sets buildings on fire around hospital, tortures and kills civilians who attempt to evacuate. Israeli army kills at least 7 Palestinian aid-seekers at aid distribution point near Kuwaiti roundabout in northern Gaza. New UN Security Council resolution calling for immediate ceasefire postponed to Monday, March 25. Martyred Palestinian, who injured 7 Israeli soldiers near Kufr Ni’ma ambushed soldiers after chase, targeted soldiers with sniper fire during five-hour standoff, according to Ynet. 136 Palestinian journalists in Gaza killed since October, says Gaza media office. Siege of al-Shifa enters sixth day, airstrikes on Rafah kill 4 children Israel’s siege on al-Shifa Hospital has entered its sixth consecutive day. The government media office in Gaza released a statement saying it holds the U.S. and the international community responsible for Israel’s “crime” perpetrated against al-Shifa’s doctors, staff, patients, and the displaced people sheltering at the medical compound. As reported by Al Jazeera, the media office said that the Israeli army was bombing buildings inside the medical complex and engaging in acts of torture and extrajudicial field executions. The Israeli army claims it has arrested over 170 Hamas fighters and 800 suspects at al-Shifa. Moreover, according to Al Jazeera, the Israeli army has reportedly set fire to the buildings around the hospital. The siege on al-Shifa comes in the context of Israel’s attempt to target civil employees and members of the police in Gaza who were based in al-Shifa, in an attempt to sow civil unrest and cause a breakdown in social order in the north. Claiming these civil employees to be “top Hamas operatives,” Israel assassinated the Director of the Operations of the Gaza Police, Faiq Mabhouh, on March 18. Mabhouh was an instrumental figure in successfully coordinating the delivery of humanitarian aid to northern Gaza in cooperation with international organizations, local tribes, and UNRWA. In light of the widespread compliance of the populace with the directives of Gaza’s civil employees, Israel has laid siege to al-Shifa, where many of them are based. Israel continues to claim that these civil and police employees are Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters, despite offering no evidence to back up its claims. The Gaza government media office said that the Israeli army has threatened al-Shifa’s hospital’s staff and displaced civilians that the buildings they are staying in will be bombed in the event that they do not evacuate. The media office based its statement on testimonies from people who remain stranded inside the medical compound as Israel lays siege to it, asserting that those who have evacuated the buildings are either arrested, tortured, or killed, as reported by Middle East Eye. MEE also reported that six wounded patients in the hospital died amid the Israeli siege due to the lack of medical care, quoting the Gaza Ministry of Health as saying that “besieged medical teams and patients are appealing to UN institutions and the international community to intervene urgently to save their lives.” In southern Gaza, Israel continued its airstrikes on Rafah and Khan Younis, killing several civilians. In one airstrike on the north of the city of Rafah, five civilians were killed, four of them children, following the bombing of a two-story residential building in the Mirage area, reports Wafa. The number of casualties from Israeli airstrikes and shelling in the last 24 hours has risen to 72 people killed and 114 injured. Meanwhile, on Friday, the Israeli army released a statement on X saying that it had opened an investigation into the incident of the deliberate killing of four unarmed Palestinian men in civilian clothing in Khan Younis last February by an Israeli attack drone, the footage of which recently came to light after Al Jazeera obtained from sources in Gaza. The footage of the deliberate killing of the unarmed men made shockwaves, highlighting Israel’s deliberate policy of killing civilians. Gaza drone video shows killing of Palestinians in Israeli air attack | Al Jazeera Newsfeed ‘The unbearable cannot become the new normal’ In a statement on X, Philippe Lazzarini, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), said that food aid had been denied to northern Gaza for the second time in a week. “Today, the Israeli Authorities denied another UNRWA convoy with much needed food supplies from going to the north where people are on the verge of famine,” the UNRWA chief said. “The last time UNRWA was able to send food aid to the north was nearly 2 month [sic] ago.” Lazzarini went on to say that Israel the “man made hunger & looming famine” in Gaza could still be averted if Israel allowed “delivering food aid at scale to the north including via UNRWA, the largest humanitarian organisation in Gaza.” “Meanwhile, children will continue to die of malnutrition & dehydration under our watch,” he added. “The unbearable cannot become the new normal.” By late afternoon, Al Jazeera correspondents reported that Israeli shelling on Palestinian aid-seekers at the Kuwaiti roundabout had killed at least seven people. This latest attack on civilians at aid distribution points comes after the assassination of Faiq Mabhouh and Gaza’s civil employees, who were instrumental in organizing orderly deliveries of aid to Gaza without resulting in these Israeli attacks on starving Palestinians. The most infamous of such attacks was the “Flour Massacre” on March 3, which killed over 100 people. Meanwhile, 7,000 trucks carrying humanitarian aid and food aid are currently stationed outside the Rafah crossing, waiting to enter the besieged Gaza Strip. As reported by Al Jazeera, the governor of North Sinai, Muhammad Shousha, said that the Israeli inspection procedures are holding up the flow of trucks into Gaza. Shousha received UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres at al-Arish Airport in the Egyptian Sinai for the UN chief’s planned visit to the Rafah border crossing later today. During his press conference at the Rafah crossing, Guterres lambasted the blocking of aid to Gaza as a “moral outrage” and said that he had made his trip to the border to shed light on the pain of Palestinians in Gaza. New UN Security Council resolution postponed to Monday Following China and Russia’s vetoing of the U.S.-led draft resolution for a Gaza ceasefire at the UN Security Council, a new resolution demanding an “immediate ceasefire” during Ramadan in advance of a more “permanent sustainable ceasefire” has been postponed to Monday, March 25, according to diplomatic sources that spoke to AFP, as reported on Al Mayadeen. In the earlier U.S.-led draft, China and Russia used their veto against the resolution, with Russia citing it as a “hypocritical spectacle” that contained an “effective green light” for Israel to continue its invasion of Rafah, while China believed that the resolution “dodged the most central issue, that of a ceasefire” through the use of nebulous language.” The ambiguous language to which Russia and China referred was the resolution’s emphasis on the “imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire,” instead of demanding its implementation in the short term. The U.S. resolution also condemned the Hamas-led attacks on October 7. West Bank: resistance operation and record settlement expansion In the West Bank, Israeli settlement building has reached a record high. As reported by Middle East Eye, the United Nations and Israeli rights group Peace Now have asserted that in 2023, Israel expanded its settlements at a record pace in the occupied West Bank. According to Peace Now, ten out of the 26 illegal outposts established in the West Bank were built after October 7, resulting in the forcible displacement of 21 Palestinian communities (16 of which were uprooted since the outbreak of the war). Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Volker Turk asserted that the record expansion of settlements risks eliminating the chances for a Palestinian state, and that 24,300 new settlement housing units were built in 2023, a record high since the UN began monitoring in 2017. Yesterday, a Palestinian man from the village of Kufr Ni’ma, west of Ramallah, launched a shooting operation against Israeli soldiers, injuring seven soldiers before an Israeli attack helicopter fired missiles on his position in the hills, killing him. New details have emerged since the incident that shed light on the nature of the resistance operation and detail the expertise of the shooter, identified as Mujahid Mansour. According to reports by Ynet and Quds News Network, Mansour had opened fire on a settler bus, resulting in no fatalities, before retreating and being chased by Israeli army vehicles. It would seem that Mansour was leading the soldiers into an ambush, perching himself on top of a hill and hiding behind trees and bushes. Mansour then proceeded to intermittently engage the forces with a sniper rifle from a distance, resulting in a standoff that lasted for five hours due to the inability of Israeli drones and helicopters to identify him as a result of poor weather. Mansour was able to down an Israeli drone with his rifle during the standoff, while at other times, he fell silent and maintained his cover, while the Israeli troops were reluctant to advance. An Israeli helicopter eventually launched a missile where he was hiding when the weather cleared. Reports have since emerged that Mansour was a member of the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces. In preparation for the punitive demolition of Mansour’s family home, the Israeli army took measurements for the house on Saturday, Wafa reported. This is part of Israel’s larger policy of punitive home demolitions, in which the Israeli army destroys the homes of the families of Palestinians who launched attacks against Israel, which has been described as a policy of collective punishment. BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-169-israel-kills-7-aid-seekers-in-northern-gaza-4-children-in-rafah-as-siege-of-al-shifa-hospital-enters-sixth-day/
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 169: Israel kills 7 aid-seekers in northern Gaza, 4 children in Rafah as siege of al-Shifa Hospital enters sixth day
    Israel continued its airstrikes on Rafah, killing four children, while in northern Gaza Israel turned back food aid for the second time in a week and killed at least 7 Palestinian aid-seekers near the Kuwaiti roundabout.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4488 Views
  • 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
    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
    1 Comments 0 Shares 8259 Views
  • Chimaeras and interspecies hybrids; the sinister agenda hiding behind covid
    Rhoda WilsonMarch 20, 2024
    There is something that has quietly slipped through the din of the murderously phoney episode called covid-19, Dr. Mathew Maavak writes. “If the covid-19 vaccines were ‘experimental gene therapies’, what other genetic experimentations continue unhindered out there?” he asks.

    In May 2020, Dr. Maavak wrote an article about how SARS-CoV-2 was not germinated in a vacuum. The Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted research with alarming global parallels including the pursuit of superintelligence and the development of chimaeras, or interspecies hybrids.

    What he wrote in May 2020 is still relevant today, he says. So yesterday, Dr. Maavak reposted his now four-year-old article.

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    Coronavirus in a Time of Chimaeras and Beyond

    By Dr. Mathew Maavak

    In May 2020, just as the coronavirus made hourly headlines, I had suspected that the virus was part of a much more sinister agenda. What I wrote back then remains just as relevant today. Here it is.

    Genetically-Enhanced Competitiveness

    The Sars-Cov-2 virus, which allegedly causes covid-19, was not germinated in a vacuum. The type of research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had ominous analogues worldwide. These included the quest for super intelligence and the development of interspecies hybrids or chimaeras.

    What began as a scientific mission to remedy congenital defects has rapidly morphed into a global race to create designer babies, super soldiers and transhumans through the aid of biotechnology, artificial intelligence and/or machine-neuralinking. 21st century eugenics is tacitly justified by the need to boost “national competitiveness.”

    China leads the way here. In one revealing episode, genome sequencing giant BGI Shenzhen had procured and sequenced the DNA of more than 2,000 people – mostly Americans – with IQ scores of at least 160. According to Stephen Hsu, a theoretical physicist from Michigan State University and scientific adviser to BGI:

    An exceptional person gets you an order of magnitude more statistical power than if you took random people from the population …

    BGI Shenzhen intends to become a “bio-Google” that will collate the “world’s biological information and make it universally accessible and useful.” From 2012 onwards, it began collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”). No surprises there.

    Scientific endeavours like these are based on the assumption that an assemblage of smart samples can help in the identification and transplantation of optimal bits of genetic material into future generations.

    Can a virus or vaccine perform this transplantation? Or will such agencies be used to cull the majority of the human population before a “genetic antidote” emerges to reverse their lethal effects? It will be too late for the vast majority of mankind by then. artificial selection, backed by artificial intelligence, may decide who gets this new booster. But is such a hypothetical scenario even realistic? There are too many imponderables here but viruses, nasal swabs and “vaccines” will surely deliver vital data for the “New Human Genome Project.”

    New Eugenics Zeitgeist

    The science of eugenics is not dissuaded by the nurture over nature debate, even after exhaustive studies had failed to establish genetic variants associated with intelligence. For example, a 2010 study led by Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist at King’s College London, had probed over 350,000 variations in single DNA letters across the genomes of 7,900 children but found no prized variant. Curiously, most of the smart samples procured by BGI Shenzhen were sourced from Plomin’s research activities.

    Periodic setbacks did not deter the proponents of “procreative beneficence” who argue that it is a human duty to augment the genetic codes of future generations. Failure to do so is couched in terms of “genetic neglect” and even child abuse. If this sounds eerily familiar, look no further than the worldview which once animated the Western world before the Nazis elevated it to a whole new level altogether.

    The eugenics zeitgeist has gripped China in a big way. Under its Maternal and Infant Health Care Law (1994), foetuses with potential hereditary diseases or deformities are recommended for abortion. At the rate Beijing is building its eugenics utopia, the definition of deformity may ultimately include a genetically pre-diagnosed average IQ.

    Instead of inciting public outrage, the law precipitated a headlong rush to select “intelligent” babies through methods like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (“PGD”). The idea behind PGD is to screen and identify the most promising embryos for implantation and birth. Combined with CRISPR gene-editing tools, next-generation Chinese citizens are expected to exhibit remarkably higher IQs – at least according to bioethicists who fret over a future marked by the “genetic haves” and “genetic have-nots.” China already has three CRISPR-edited babies whose current fate remains unknown.

    In the aftermath of the corona psychosis, the availability of “smart samples” would have increased exponentially and may dovetail nicely with the eugenics agenda of the Rockefeller Foundation and BMGF. Incidentally, Bill Gates grew up in a household that was heavily invested in population control and eugenics.

    Our smart societies may inevitably face the existential question of “live-lets” and “live-nots” down the line. The orchestrated rebellion towards selective extinction, if it occurs, has a tragicomical public face: An autistic Swede who parrots the “listen to the science” and “listen to the experts” mantra.

    How will future designer babies contribute to society? For one thing, we will be missing individuals like Beethoven (deaf); Albert Einstein (learning disability/late development); John Nash (schizophrenia); Andrea Boccelli (congenital glaucoma) and Vincent van Gogh (chronic depression/anxiety) and a host of others like them. A future Stephen Hawking (motor neurone disease) and Greta Thunberg (Asperger’s Syndrome – allegedly) will be genetically disqualified before birth.

    It is now inconvenient to consider intelligence as a result of peer interactions, human environment and ingenious reactions to adversity. (I personally define intelligence as an ability to nip the bullsh*t in its foetid bud).

    Mapping out the complex and sometimes unpredictable interplay between 100 trillion synaptic connections in a human brain may take centuries to accomplish but that does not deter the utopians of today.

    After all, genetic manipulation is the eugenic wormhole that promises to accelerate the emergence of a super society at warp speed. The late billionaire paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was a prominent proponent of this philosophy. Epstein intended to breed a “super race of humans with his DNA by impregnating women at his New Mexico ranch, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.” Welcome to Lebensborn 2.0!

    Prominent scientists linked to Epstein’s transhumanist fantasies included “molecular engineer George Church; Murray Gell-Mann, the discoverer of the quark; the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks; and the theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek.” The late Stephen Hawking – who will ironically flunk the genetic pre-screenings of tomorrow – was another Epstein associate.

    Forget about Mars missions; major powers see eugenics as the next great frontier. Its hyper-materialistic focus is encapsulated by the following analogy from Russian scientist Denis Rebrikov:

    It currently costs about a million roubles (US$15,500 at that time) to genetically change an embryo – more than a lot of cars – but prices will fall with greater use … I can see the billboard now: “You Choose: a Hyundai Solaris or a Super-Child?”

    You are comparing a child, super or not, with a Hyundai? I mean a Hyundai, really? Sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions but most of the time, it begins with a diabolically silly proposition.

    But why stop at children? From genetically engineered horses in Argentina that are supposedly faster, stronger and better jumpers to super-dogs in China that are comprehensively superior to the average mutt, the DNA of the entire natural world is being slated for a revolutionary redesign.

    Crouching Chimaeras, Hideous Hybrids

    The masters of our universe however cannot create future generations of superhumans without being adept at recombining genetic sequences across species. That is the logic guiding eugenicists. As a result, a slew of chimaeras or interspecies hybrids have been spawned with the aid of CRISPR technology. These include ghastly human-monkey hybrids, monkey-pig hybrids, human-rabbit hybrids and a host of other lab-manufactured monstrosities.

    Chimaeras are created when human embryonic stem cells are injected into embryos of other species. The goal, for the time being, is to induce growth of targeted human organs. Those facing terminal illnesses will no longer have to worry about long organ waiting lists. Chinese scientists have just transplanted a modified pig liver into a brain-dead human and it seems to have worked.

    A less controversial approach to human organ replacement is 3D bioprinting or its 4D bioprinting iteration. These techniques involve the “printing” of a replacement organ from the stem cells of a transplant recipient, thereby eliminating the odds of organ rejection.

    But why stop at replacement organs when we can have “replacement humans” altogether? Future generations must think like Einsteins, be as nimble as leopards and possess owl-like night visions. And, of course, be virus-resistant as well!

    The manipulation of the human genome is the new “grand response” to the venerable set of “grand challenges” for 2030 and beyond. China is the go-to place for such genetic tinkering as some of these undertakings are technically illegal in the West. And this is where the utility of covid-19 comes into the picture. It provides the perfect pretext to remove such ethical constraints. After all, “Disease X” is just waiting to escape from the belly of some bat or pangolin …

    Since 2014, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been the recipient of a two-stage grant worth $7.2 million from the United States government for gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses. According to a Newsweek report in April 2020:

    Many scientists have criticised gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

    Such caution has not deterred a flurry of research into microbial gene manipulation. The Wuhan experiments may have either spawned the Sars-Cov-2 virus or it may have provided a fraudulent context for future tyrannical mandates.

    But to solely blame China for the coronavirus “pandemic” is a tad unfair. Just as China is the factory of the world for foreign corporations, it is also the genetic incubator for a variety of viruses and chimaeras for foreign governments and foundations. Even so, the human-pig chimaera was the creation of the Salk Institute in California. Research into the world’s first human-mouse hybrid was largely a Japanese affair. The Portuguese in the meantime had created a virus chimaera.

    The United Kingdom, on their end, had spawned a human-cow hybrid embryo in 2008 – perhaps in keeping with the bovine disposition of those glued to the BBC. It was in Britain where the game-changing Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996.

    The transition from sheep to sheeple may turn out to be a short 21st century Jurassic Park ride.

    Coincidences and Consequences

    Before the advent of gene-editing tools and supercomputing, it would have been impossible to create a viable chimaera. The Biotech-Industrial Complex and contact tracing-type panopticons constitute a new growth area for Tech Titans that were once facing bankruptcy.

    The dangers of genome editing were in fact included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment reports submitted to the United States Congress in 2016 and 2017. These risks were either omitted or glossed over in the 2018 and 2019 reports – just as such risks gravitated to the high impact-high likelihood quadrant.

    Is it a coincidence that the nations most affected by covid-19 – at least during the first two years of its alleged spread – were the very ones that had either promoted or encouraged a variety of genetic experimentations that are contrary to nature? If – and that is a big “if” – these nations succeed in their quest for “designer babies” and “superhumans,” the rest of mankind will be rendered redundant. Some mass extermination event may transpire under the guise of World War III, food shortages, Disease X or a combination thereof.


    If everything goes according to plan, however, there will be 500 million potential specimens left for The Great Reset. The Third World, whose leaders are being monetarily incentivised to focus on unattainable Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”), will be consigned to the ash heaps of history.

    It is quite ironic that a new generation of cerebrally deficient “thought leaders” and “experts” are being groomed to promote the demises of their societies and themselves.

    About the Author

    Mathew Maavak, with a PhD in Policy Studies, specialises in systems science, global risks, strategic foresight, geopolitics and governance. He is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance.

    Dr. Maavak has published numerous op-eds on a variety of eclectic subjects for over 20 years – by ‘connecting the dots’ in a disjointed world. He is the author of a Substack page titled ‘The Eye Opener’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.



    https://expose-news.com/2024/03/20/chimaeras-and-interspecies-hybrids/
    Chimaeras and interspecies hybrids; the sinister agenda hiding behind covid Rhoda WilsonMarch 20, 2024 There is something that has quietly slipped through the din of the murderously phoney episode called covid-19, Dr. Mathew Maavak writes. “If the covid-19 vaccines were ‘experimental gene therapies’, what other genetic experimentations continue unhindered out there?” he asks. In May 2020, Dr. Maavak wrote an article about how SARS-CoV-2 was not germinated in a vacuum. The Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted research with alarming global parallels including the pursuit of superintelligence and the development of chimaeras, or interspecies hybrids. What he wrote in May 2020 is still relevant today, he says. So yesterday, Dr. Maavak reposted his now four-year-old article. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Coronavirus in a Time of Chimaeras and Beyond By Dr. Mathew Maavak In May 2020, just as the coronavirus made hourly headlines, I had suspected that the virus was part of a much more sinister agenda. What I wrote back then remains just as relevant today. Here it is. Genetically-Enhanced Competitiveness The Sars-Cov-2 virus, which allegedly causes covid-19, was not germinated in a vacuum. The type of research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had ominous analogues worldwide. These included the quest for super intelligence and the development of interspecies hybrids or chimaeras. What began as a scientific mission to remedy congenital defects has rapidly morphed into a global race to create designer babies, super soldiers and transhumans through the aid of biotechnology, artificial intelligence and/or machine-neuralinking. 21st century eugenics is tacitly justified by the need to boost “national competitiveness.” China leads the way here. In one revealing episode, genome sequencing giant BGI Shenzhen had procured and sequenced the DNA of more than 2,000 people – mostly Americans – with IQ scores of at least 160. According to Stephen Hsu, a theoretical physicist from Michigan State University and scientific adviser to BGI: An exceptional person gets you an order of magnitude more statistical power than if you took random people from the population … BGI Shenzhen intends to become a “bio-Google” that will collate the “world’s biological information and make it universally accessible and useful.” From 2012 onwards, it began collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”). No surprises there. Scientific endeavours like these are based on the assumption that an assemblage of smart samples can help in the identification and transplantation of optimal bits of genetic material into future generations. Can a virus or vaccine perform this transplantation? Or will such agencies be used to cull the majority of the human population before a “genetic antidote” emerges to reverse their lethal effects? It will be too late for the vast majority of mankind by then. artificial selection, backed by artificial intelligence, may decide who gets this new booster. But is such a hypothetical scenario even realistic? There are too many imponderables here but viruses, nasal swabs and “vaccines” will surely deliver vital data for the “New Human Genome Project.” New Eugenics Zeitgeist The science of eugenics is not dissuaded by the nurture over nature debate, even after exhaustive studies had failed to establish genetic variants associated with intelligence. For example, a 2010 study led by Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist at King’s College London, had probed over 350,000 variations in single DNA letters across the genomes of 7,900 children but found no prized variant. Curiously, most of the smart samples procured by BGI Shenzhen were sourced from Plomin’s research activities. Periodic setbacks did not deter the proponents of “procreative beneficence” who argue that it is a human duty to augment the genetic codes of future generations. Failure to do so is couched in terms of “genetic neglect” and even child abuse. If this sounds eerily familiar, look no further than the worldview which once animated the Western world before the Nazis elevated it to a whole new level altogether. The eugenics zeitgeist has gripped China in a big way. Under its Maternal and Infant Health Care Law (1994), foetuses with potential hereditary diseases or deformities are recommended for abortion. At the rate Beijing is building its eugenics utopia, the definition of deformity may ultimately include a genetically pre-diagnosed average IQ. Instead of inciting public outrage, the law precipitated a headlong rush to select “intelligent” babies through methods like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (“PGD”). The idea behind PGD is to screen and identify the most promising embryos for implantation and birth. Combined with CRISPR gene-editing tools, next-generation Chinese citizens are expected to exhibit remarkably higher IQs – at least according to bioethicists who fret over a future marked by the “genetic haves” and “genetic have-nots.” China already has three CRISPR-edited babies whose current fate remains unknown. In the aftermath of the corona psychosis, the availability of “smart samples” would have increased exponentially and may dovetail nicely with the eugenics agenda of the Rockefeller Foundation and BMGF. Incidentally, Bill Gates grew up in a household that was heavily invested in population control and eugenics. Our smart societies may inevitably face the existential question of “live-lets” and “live-nots” down the line. The orchestrated rebellion towards selective extinction, if it occurs, has a tragicomical public face: An autistic Swede who parrots the “listen to the science” and “listen to the experts” mantra. How will future designer babies contribute to society? For one thing, we will be missing individuals like Beethoven (deaf); Albert Einstein (learning disability/late development); John Nash (schizophrenia); Andrea Boccelli (congenital glaucoma) and Vincent van Gogh (chronic depression/anxiety) and a host of others like them. A future Stephen Hawking (motor neurone disease) and Greta Thunberg (Asperger’s Syndrome – allegedly) will be genetically disqualified before birth. It is now inconvenient to consider intelligence as a result of peer interactions, human environment and ingenious reactions to adversity. (I personally define intelligence as an ability to nip the bullsh*t in its foetid bud). Mapping out the complex and sometimes unpredictable interplay between 100 trillion synaptic connections in a human brain may take centuries to accomplish but that does not deter the utopians of today. After all, genetic manipulation is the eugenic wormhole that promises to accelerate the emergence of a super society at warp speed. The late billionaire paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was a prominent proponent of this philosophy. Epstein intended to breed a “super race of humans with his DNA by impregnating women at his New Mexico ranch, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.” Welcome to Lebensborn 2.0! Prominent scientists linked to Epstein’s transhumanist fantasies included “molecular engineer George Church; Murray Gell-Mann, the discoverer of the quark; the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks; and the theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek.” The late Stephen Hawking – who will ironically flunk the genetic pre-screenings of tomorrow – was another Epstein associate. Forget about Mars missions; major powers see eugenics as the next great frontier. Its hyper-materialistic focus is encapsulated by the following analogy from Russian scientist Denis Rebrikov: It currently costs about a million roubles (US$15,500 at that time) to genetically change an embryo – more than a lot of cars – but prices will fall with greater use … I can see the billboard now: “You Choose: a Hyundai Solaris or a Super-Child?” You are comparing a child, super or not, with a Hyundai? I mean a Hyundai, really? Sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions but most of the time, it begins with a diabolically silly proposition. But why stop at children? From genetically engineered horses in Argentina that are supposedly faster, stronger and better jumpers to super-dogs in China that are comprehensively superior to the average mutt, the DNA of the entire natural world is being slated for a revolutionary redesign. Crouching Chimaeras, Hideous Hybrids The masters of our universe however cannot create future generations of superhumans without being adept at recombining genetic sequences across species. That is the logic guiding eugenicists. As a result, a slew of chimaeras or interspecies hybrids have been spawned with the aid of CRISPR technology. These include ghastly human-monkey hybrids, monkey-pig hybrids, human-rabbit hybrids and a host of other lab-manufactured monstrosities. Chimaeras are created when human embryonic stem cells are injected into embryos of other species. The goal, for the time being, is to induce growth of targeted human organs. Those facing terminal illnesses will no longer have to worry about long organ waiting lists. Chinese scientists have just transplanted a modified pig liver into a brain-dead human and it seems to have worked. A less controversial approach to human organ replacement is 3D bioprinting or its 4D bioprinting iteration. These techniques involve the “printing” of a replacement organ from the stem cells of a transplant recipient, thereby eliminating the odds of organ rejection. But why stop at replacement organs when we can have “replacement humans” altogether? Future generations must think like Einsteins, be as nimble as leopards and possess owl-like night visions. And, of course, be virus-resistant as well! The manipulation of the human genome is the new “grand response” to the venerable set of “grand challenges” for 2030 and beyond. China is the go-to place for such genetic tinkering as some of these undertakings are technically illegal in the West. And this is where the utility of covid-19 comes into the picture. It provides the perfect pretext to remove such ethical constraints. After all, “Disease X” is just waiting to escape from the belly of some bat or pangolin … Since 2014, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been the recipient of a two-stage grant worth $7.2 million from the United States government for gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses. According to a Newsweek report in April 2020: Many scientists have criticised gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release. Such caution has not deterred a flurry of research into microbial gene manipulation. The Wuhan experiments may have either spawned the Sars-Cov-2 virus or it may have provided a fraudulent context for future tyrannical mandates. But to solely blame China for the coronavirus “pandemic” is a tad unfair. Just as China is the factory of the world for foreign corporations, it is also the genetic incubator for a variety of viruses and chimaeras for foreign governments and foundations. Even so, the human-pig chimaera was the creation of the Salk Institute in California. Research into the world’s first human-mouse hybrid was largely a Japanese affair. The Portuguese in the meantime had created a virus chimaera. The United Kingdom, on their end, had spawned a human-cow hybrid embryo in 2008 – perhaps in keeping with the bovine disposition of those glued to the BBC. It was in Britain where the game-changing Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996. The transition from sheep to sheeple may turn out to be a short 21st century Jurassic Park ride. Coincidences and Consequences Before the advent of gene-editing tools and supercomputing, it would have been impossible to create a viable chimaera. The Biotech-Industrial Complex and contact tracing-type panopticons constitute a new growth area for Tech Titans that were once facing bankruptcy. The dangers of genome editing were in fact included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment reports submitted to the United States Congress in 2016 and 2017. These risks were either omitted or glossed over in the 2018 and 2019 reports – just as such risks gravitated to the high impact-high likelihood quadrant. Is it a coincidence that the nations most affected by covid-19 – at least during the first two years of its alleged spread – were the very ones that had either promoted or encouraged a variety of genetic experimentations that are contrary to nature? If – and that is a big “if” – these nations succeed in their quest for “designer babies” and “superhumans,” the rest of mankind will be rendered redundant. Some mass extermination event may transpire under the guise of World War III, food shortages, Disease X or a combination thereof. If everything goes according to plan, however, there will be 500 million potential specimens left for The Great Reset. The Third World, whose leaders are being monetarily incentivised to focus on unattainable Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”), will be consigned to the ash heaps of history. It is quite ironic that a new generation of cerebrally deficient “thought leaders” and “experts” are being groomed to promote the demises of their societies and themselves. About the Author Mathew Maavak, with a PhD in Policy Studies, specialises in systems science, global risks, strategic foresight, geopolitics and governance. He is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance. Dr. Maavak has published numerous op-eds on a variety of eclectic subjects for over 20 years – by ‘connecting the dots’ in a disjointed world. He is the author of a Substack page titled ‘The Eye Opener’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE. https://expose-news.com/2024/03/20/chimaeras-and-interspecies-hybrids/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Chimaeras and interspecies hybrids; the sinister agenda hiding behind covid
    There is something that has quietly slipped through the din of the murderously phoney episode called covid-19, Dr. Mathew Maavak writes. “If the covid-19 vaccines were ‘experimental gene therapies…
    1 Comments 0 Shares 7923 Views
  • EndoPeak
    Supplements - Health.
    https://shorturl.at/GHQUV
    Endopeak

    Endopeak is a cutting-edge natural supplement that has been specifically formulated to enhance men's stamina, energy levels, and overall health. This advanced formula is carefully crafted using a combination of eight high-quality ingredients, each chosen for their potent properties and ability to target the root cause of declining energy and vitality.

    By addressing these underlying issues, Endopeak aims to provide men with the sustainable energy boost they need to thrive in their daily lives. Whether it's improving athletic performance or simply tackling everyday tasks with vigor, Endopeak offers a holistic approach to improving men's overall wellbeing.
    EndoPeak Supplements - Health. https://shorturl.at/GHQUV Endopeak Endopeak is a cutting-edge natural supplement that has been specifically formulated to enhance men's stamina, energy levels, and overall health. This advanced formula is carefully crafted using a combination of eight high-quality ingredients, each chosen for their potent properties and ability to target the root cause of declining energy and vitality. By addressing these underlying issues, Endopeak aims to provide men with the sustainable energy boost they need to thrive in their daily lives. Whether it's improving athletic performance or simply tackling everyday tasks with vigor, Endopeak offers a holistic approach to improving men's overall wellbeing.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1961 Views
  • UN - Agenda 2030 - "Sustainable Development"

    PART 1 OF 2

    In 2015 the leaders of 193 countries signed their population up to Agenda 2030

    What is Sustainable Development (SD)?
    SD is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

    Core Principles:

    Universality (all countries committed to whole Agenda regardless of any unique factors)

    Leaving No One Behind (all people will be included; “with unprecedented need for data to ensure this principle is met”)

    Interconnectedness and Indivisibility – no pick and mix approach to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – all to be followed

    Inclusiveness – the entire population must follow

    Multi Stakeholder Partnerships – establishment seen as essential to deliver all SDG’s

    Dimensions of the Agenda (the 5Ps)
    People, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership and Peace

    Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
    Used to focus on areas necessary to achieve SD

    Each SDG has 8-12 targets & 1-4 indicators of progress

    SDG'S:

    Goal 1: End poverty
    Goal 2: End hunger
    Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives
    Goal 4: Quality education
    Goal 5: Gender equality
    Goal 6: Water/sanitation for all
    Goal 7: Affordable clean energy for all
    Goal 8: Economic growth/full + productive employment
    Goal 9: Resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization/innovation
    Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries
    Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient & sustainable
    Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption + production patterns
    Goal 13: Combat climate change
    Goal 14: Conserve/sustainably use oceans, seas & marine resources
    Goal 15: Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, forests, deserts & land
    Goal 16: Promote inclusive societies, access to justice + accountable institutions
    Goal 17: Strengthen/revitalise the Global Partnership for SD

    Link
    UN - Agenda 2030 - "Sustainable Development" PART 1 OF 2 In 2015 the leaders of 193 countries signed their population up to Agenda 2030 What is Sustainable Development (SD)? SD is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” Core Principles: Universality (all countries committed to whole Agenda regardless of any unique factors) Leaving No One Behind (all people will be included; “with unprecedented need for data to ensure this principle is met”) Interconnectedness and Indivisibility – no pick and mix approach to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – all to be followed Inclusiveness – the entire population must follow Multi Stakeholder Partnerships – establishment seen as essential to deliver all SDG’s Dimensions of the Agenda (the 5Ps) People, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership and Peace Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Used to focus on areas necessary to achieve SD Each SDG has 8-12 targets & 1-4 indicators of progress SDG'S: Goal 1: End poverty Goal 2: End hunger Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives Goal 4: Quality education Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 6: Water/sanitation for all Goal 7: Affordable clean energy for all Goal 8: Economic growth/full + productive employment Goal 9: Resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization/innovation Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient & sustainable Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption + production patterns Goal 13: Combat climate change Goal 14: Conserve/sustainably use oceans, seas & marine resources Goal 15: Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, forests, deserts & land Goal 16: Promote inclusive societies, access to justice + accountable institutions Goal 17: Strengthen/revitalise the Global Partnership for SD Link
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6344 Views
  • What the Sustainable Development Goals really mean for humanity

    -PART 2 OF 2

    1. Zero Poverty
    UBI's, Centralised Banking, IMF / World Bank, CBDC's

    2. Zero Hunger
    Fake Meat, GMO's, Eat Insects

    3. Good Health/Well-being
    Mass Injections, "Vaccine Passports" , Codex Alimentarius, Masks, State monitoring, Limit or eliminate access to natural remedies

    4. Good Education
    State controlled propaganda from birth. Ignorance of basic information to support independence from the system

    5. Gender Equality
    Transgenderism, Population Control, Breakdown of the family

    6. Clean Water and Sanitation
    State control of water supply and chemicals added (e.g. fluoride)

    7. Affordable and Clean Energy
    SMART grid, SMART metres, Peak Pricing, Electric Cars, raising gas/ energy prices, Green Taxes

    8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
    Mega-corporations, Crash Economies, Control of means of production , Destroy small businesses-PART 4

    9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
    Restrictions on travel,closure of airports, 15 min cities

    10. Reduce Inequality within and between countries
    Crash economies, CBDC'S, UBI

    11. Safe + Sustainable Human Settlements + Cities
    15 mins cities, ULEZ, Big Brother surveillance, Digital ID's, 5g

    12. Responsible Consumption and Production
    Limits on consumption (including via CBDC's), Taxes

    13. Stop Climate Change
    Climate Lockdowns, carbon taxes, control via CBDC'S, control on travel

    14. Sustainable Use of Life Below Water
    Control of oceans + mineral rights, GMO'S

    15. Sustainable Use of Life On Land
    Control of land + mineral rights, GMO'S

    16. Peace, Justice, Inclusion and Strong Institutions
    Remove rights of individual, use of CBDC's, "Online Safety Bills", Hate Speech Laws, Social isolation

    17. Global Partnerships
    Remove national sovereignty, WEF, Civil Society, Corporatocracy, NGO's
    What the Sustainable Development Goals really mean for humanity -PART 2 OF 2 1. Zero Poverty UBI's, Centralised Banking, IMF / World Bank, CBDC's 2. Zero Hunger Fake Meat, GMO's, Eat Insects 3. Good Health/Well-being Mass Injections, "Vaccine Passports" , Codex Alimentarius, Masks, State monitoring, Limit or eliminate access to natural remedies 4. Good Education State controlled propaganda from birth. Ignorance of basic information to support independence from the system 5. Gender Equality Transgenderism, Population Control, Breakdown of the family 6. Clean Water and Sanitation State control of water supply and chemicals added (e.g. fluoride) 7. Affordable and Clean Energy SMART grid, SMART metres, Peak Pricing, Electric Cars, raising gas/ energy prices, Green Taxes 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth Mega-corporations, Crash Economies, Control of means of production , Destroy small businesses-PART 4 9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Restrictions on travel,closure of airports, 15 min cities 10. Reduce Inequality within and between countries Crash economies, CBDC'S, UBI 11. Safe + Sustainable Human Settlements + Cities 15 mins cities, ULEZ, Big Brother surveillance, Digital ID's, 5g 12. Responsible Consumption and Production Limits on consumption (including via CBDC's), Taxes 13. Stop Climate Change Climate Lockdowns, carbon taxes, control via CBDC'S, control on travel 14. Sustainable Use of Life Below Water Control of oceans + mineral rights, GMO'S 15. Sustainable Use of Life On Land Control of land + mineral rights, GMO'S 16. Peace, Justice, Inclusion and Strong Institutions Remove rights of individual, use of CBDC's, "Online Safety Bills", Hate Speech Laws, Social isolation 17. Global Partnerships Remove national sovereignty, WEF, Civil Society, Corporatocracy, NGO's
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9742 Views
  • Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians
    [email protected] January 26, 2024 greater israel, hamas, Nakba, settler colonialism, zionism
    Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians
    Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, discusses Gaza, the most transparent genocide in human history (photo)
    All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza

    Hamas had publicly and by back channels pushed for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel

    Ray McGovern: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran…

    Reposted from Ray McGovern’s website, January 18, 2024, excerpts from In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most Transparent Genocide in Human History, by Richard Falk

    Hamas and a Second Nakba

    While I [Richard Falk] was special rapporteur for the U.N. on Israeli violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, I had the opportunity to meet and talk in detail with several of the Hamas leaders who are living either in Doha or Cairo and also in Gaza.

    In the period between 2010 and 2014, Hamas was publicly and by back channels pushing for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel. It was conditioned on Israel carrying out the unanimous 1967 Security Council mandate in SC Res 242 to withdraw its forces to the pre-war boundaries of “the green line.” Hamas had also sought a long-range cease-fire with Israel after its 2006 electoral victory for up to 50 years.

    Neither Israel nor the U.S. would respond to those diplomatic initiatives. Hamas, Machel particularly who was perhaps the most intellectual of the Hamas leaders, told me that he warned Washington of the tragic consequences for both peoples if the conflict was allowed to go on without a cease-fire, which was confirmed by independent sources.

    Where can Palestinians go as the population suffers from famine and continued bombing? What is Israel’s goal?

    All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza.

    I see the so-called commitment to thinning the Palestinian presence in Gaza and to a functional second Nakba. This is a criminal policy. I don’t know that it has to have a formal name. It is not a policy designed to achieve anything but the decapitation of the Palestinian population. Israel seeks to move Gazans to the Egyptian Sinai, and the Egyptians have already indicated that they don’t welcome this.

    This is not a policy. This is some kind of a threat of elimination. The Israeli campaign after October 7 was not directed toward Hamas’ terrorism nearly as much as it was directed toward the forced evacuation of the Palestinians from Gaza and for the related dispossession of Palestine in the West Bank.

    If Israel really wanted to deal with its security in an effective way, much more efficient and effective methods would have been relied upon. There was no reason to treat the entire civilian population of Gaza as if it were implicated in the Hamas attack, and there was certainly no justification for the genocidal response.

    The Israeli motivations seem more related to completing the Zionist Project than to restoring territorial security.

    For a proper perspective we should remember that before October 7, the Netanyahu coalition government that took power at the start of 2023 was known as the most extreme government ever to govern the country since its establishment in 1948. The new Netanyahu government in Israel immediately gave a green light to settler violence in the Occupied West Bank and appointed overtly racist religious leaders to administer the parts of Palestine still occupied.

    This was part of the end game of the whole Zionist project of claiming territorial sovereignty over the whole of the so-called promised land, enabling Greater Israel to come into existence.

    The Need for a Different Context

    We need to establish a different context than the one that exists now. That means a different outlook on the part of the Western supporters of Israel. And a different internal Israeli sense of their own interests, their own future. And it’s only when substantive pressure is brought to bear on an elite that has gone to these lengths that it can shake commitments to this orientation.

    The lengths that the Israeli government has gone to are characteristic of settler colonial states. All of them, including the U.S. and Canada, have acted violently to neutralize or exterminate the resident Indigenous people. That is what this genocidal interlude is all about. It is an effort to realize the goals of maximal versions of Zionism, which can only succeed by eliminating the Palestinians as rightful claimants.

    It should not be forgotten that in the weeks before the Hamas attack, including at the U.N., Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was waving a map of “the new Middle East” that had erased the existence of Palestine.

    Undoubtedly, one of Hamas’ motivations was to negate the view that Palestine had given up its right to self-determination, and that Palestine could be erased. Recall the old delusional pre-Balfour Zionist slogan: “A people without land for a land without people.” Such utterances of this early Zionist utopian phase literally erased the Palestinians who for generations lived in Palestine as an entitled Indigenous population. With the Balfour Declaration of 1917, this settler colonial vision became a political project with the blessings of the leading European colonial power. …

    This may turn out to be a moment of clarity with respect not only to Gaza, but to the overall prospects for sustainable peace and justice between these two embattled peoples.

    (The above are excerpts from: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/west-enabling-genocide-gaza January 17, 2024 [Emphasis added])

    Ray Comment: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran. So far, the Iranians have been clever not to rise to the bait. So … watch for an Israeli FALSE FLAG attack on US troops or simply on US “interests” blamed on Iran. Brace yourself. Remember: Iran is still the main Israeli-cum-neocon target.

    Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and served as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine and is currently co-convener of SHAPE (Save Humanity and Planet Earth).

    Ray McGovern is was an Army intelligence officer and then served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. Ray’s duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief, which he briefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan’s five most senior national security advisers from 1981 to 1985.

    RELATED READING – RICHARD FALK:

    Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel
    Experts: Israeli System Constitutes Apartheid, Crime against Humanity
    The Politics of Hunger Strikes
    CURRENT SITUATION:

    12 Essential Facts for Understanding the Current Israel-Gaza Violence
    The West’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten
    Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Unlike Any War in Recent Memory
    US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year
    Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war
    VIDEOS:

    Facts about the Israel Gaza War essential for Americans to know – Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh
    What was happening in Gaza BEFORE the Hamas attack that the media didn’t tell you?
    Professor Richard Falk speech at the First Global Conference on Israeli Apartheid

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/falk-israel-used-oct-7-attack-as-a-pretext-for-its-plan-to-expel-palestinians/
    Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians [email protected] January 26, 2024 greater israel, hamas, Nakba, settler colonialism, zionism Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, discusses Gaza, the most transparent genocide in human history (photo) All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza Hamas had publicly and by back channels pushed for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel Ray McGovern: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran… Reposted from Ray McGovern’s website, January 18, 2024, excerpts from In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most Transparent Genocide in Human History, by Richard Falk Hamas and a Second Nakba While I [Richard Falk] was special rapporteur for the U.N. on Israeli violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, I had the opportunity to meet and talk in detail with several of the Hamas leaders who are living either in Doha or Cairo and also in Gaza. In the period between 2010 and 2014, Hamas was publicly and by back channels pushing for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel. It was conditioned on Israel carrying out the unanimous 1967 Security Council mandate in SC Res 242 to withdraw its forces to the pre-war boundaries of “the green line.” Hamas had also sought a long-range cease-fire with Israel after its 2006 electoral victory for up to 50 years. Neither Israel nor the U.S. would respond to those diplomatic initiatives. Hamas, Machel particularly who was perhaps the most intellectual of the Hamas leaders, told me that he warned Washington of the tragic consequences for both peoples if the conflict was allowed to go on without a cease-fire, which was confirmed by independent sources. Where can Palestinians go as the population suffers from famine and continued bombing? What is Israel’s goal? All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza. I see the so-called commitment to thinning the Palestinian presence in Gaza and to a functional second Nakba. This is a criminal policy. I don’t know that it has to have a formal name. It is not a policy designed to achieve anything but the decapitation of the Palestinian population. Israel seeks to move Gazans to the Egyptian Sinai, and the Egyptians have already indicated that they don’t welcome this. This is not a policy. This is some kind of a threat of elimination. The Israeli campaign after October 7 was not directed toward Hamas’ terrorism nearly as much as it was directed toward the forced evacuation of the Palestinians from Gaza and for the related dispossession of Palestine in the West Bank. If Israel really wanted to deal with its security in an effective way, much more efficient and effective methods would have been relied upon. There was no reason to treat the entire civilian population of Gaza as if it were implicated in the Hamas attack, and there was certainly no justification for the genocidal response. The Israeli motivations seem more related to completing the Zionist Project than to restoring territorial security. For a proper perspective we should remember that before October 7, the Netanyahu coalition government that took power at the start of 2023 was known as the most extreme government ever to govern the country since its establishment in 1948. The new Netanyahu government in Israel immediately gave a green light to settler violence in the Occupied West Bank and appointed overtly racist religious leaders to administer the parts of Palestine still occupied. This was part of the end game of the whole Zionist project of claiming territorial sovereignty over the whole of the so-called promised land, enabling Greater Israel to come into existence. The Need for a Different Context We need to establish a different context than the one that exists now. That means a different outlook on the part of the Western supporters of Israel. And a different internal Israeli sense of their own interests, their own future. And it’s only when substantive pressure is brought to bear on an elite that has gone to these lengths that it can shake commitments to this orientation. The lengths that the Israeli government has gone to are characteristic of settler colonial states. All of them, including the U.S. and Canada, have acted violently to neutralize or exterminate the resident Indigenous people. That is what this genocidal interlude is all about. It is an effort to realize the goals of maximal versions of Zionism, which can only succeed by eliminating the Palestinians as rightful claimants. It should not be forgotten that in the weeks before the Hamas attack, including at the U.N., Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was waving a map of “the new Middle East” that had erased the existence of Palestine. Undoubtedly, one of Hamas’ motivations was to negate the view that Palestine had given up its right to self-determination, and that Palestine could be erased. Recall the old delusional pre-Balfour Zionist slogan: “A people without land for a land without people.” Such utterances of this early Zionist utopian phase literally erased the Palestinians who for generations lived in Palestine as an entitled Indigenous population. With the Balfour Declaration of 1917, this settler colonial vision became a political project with the blessings of the leading European colonial power. … This may turn out to be a moment of clarity with respect not only to Gaza, but to the overall prospects for sustainable peace and justice between these two embattled peoples. (The above are excerpts from: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/west-enabling-genocide-gaza January 17, 2024 [Emphasis added]) Ray Comment: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran. So far, the Iranians have been clever not to rise to the bait. So … watch for an Israeli FALSE FLAG attack on US troops or simply on US “interests” blamed on Iran. Brace yourself. Remember: Iran is still the main Israeli-cum-neocon target. Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and served as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine and is currently co-convener of SHAPE (Save Humanity and Planet Earth). Ray McGovern is was an Army intelligence officer and then served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. Ray’s duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief, which he briefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan’s five most senior national security advisers from 1981 to 1985. RELATED READING – RICHARD FALK: Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel Experts: Israeli System Constitutes Apartheid, Crime against Humanity The Politics of Hunger Strikes CURRENT SITUATION: 12 Essential Facts for Understanding the Current Israel-Gaza Violence The West’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Unlike Any War in Recent Memory US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war VIDEOS: Facts about the Israel Gaza War essential for Americans to know – Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh What was happening in Gaza BEFORE the Hamas attack that the media didn’t tell you? Professor Richard Falk speech at the First Global Conference on Israeli Apartheid https://israelpalestinenews.org/falk-israel-used-oct-7-attack-as-a-pretext-for-its-plan-to-expel-palestinians/
    ISRAELPALESTINENEWS.ORG
    Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians
    Hamas had publicly pushed for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel... Israel instead wanted a Greater Israel rid of Palestinians
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9589 Views
  • Thanks to a subscriber with an appropriate handle, Chaos, I’ve been alerted to this lickspittle memo of appalling treachery from our government in U.K. to that crook running the criminal operation aka the WHO.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/who-executive-board-22-27-january-2024

    “2024 is an important year for WHO. The UK looks forward to a successful Investment Round underpinned by a new General Programme of Work (GPW) that sets out clearly WHO’s priorities. WHO’s unique added value in the global health architecture will help accelerate progress towards the SDGs, taking a gender-responsive approach”.

    Means we’ve sold you down the river to the UN2030 sustainable development goals, which imply things like no private transportation, little meat, very few new clothes, no “fossil fuel” heating and rare, if any, short haul flights. That’s imprisonment.

    “The UK underlines our commitment to agreement of a new Pandemic Accord and targeted amendments of the International Health Regulations, which together ensure our preparedness for future health threats with stronger prevention, and response, whilst respecting national sovereignty”.

    Signing up to the IHR effectively makes Tedros “World King”, or rather, his financial backers, like Gates, will hold the power to lock us down for no reason and prescribe mass poisoning via mRNA injections that definitely won’t be vaccines. Failure to comply would precipitate as best a civil war & at worst, a form of martial law.

    “The UK welcomes this week’s focus on climate and health. At COP28, leaders noted that climate change is now a health crisis, as you have said many times DG. One we can only face collectively with WHO playing a key role”.

    What can I say? It’s a pack of lies.

    It’s little more than a page. Please don’t let them get away with it. Show to everyone who’ll listen. We’re going to need all the peaceful but irresistible opposition to this nonsense.

    Best wishes
    Mike
    Thanks to a subscriber with an appropriate handle, Chaos, I’ve been alerted to this lickspittle memo of appalling treachery from our government in U.K. to that crook running the criminal operation aka the WHO. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/who-executive-board-22-27-january-2024 “2024 is an important year for WHO. The UK looks forward to a successful Investment Round underpinned by a new General Programme of Work (GPW) that sets out clearly WHO’s priorities. WHO’s unique added value in the global health architecture will help accelerate progress towards the SDGs, taking a gender-responsive approach”. Means we’ve sold you down the river to the UN2030 sustainable development goals, which imply things like no private transportation, little meat, very few new clothes, no “fossil fuel” heating and rare, if any, short haul flights. That’s imprisonment. “The UK underlines our commitment to agreement of a new Pandemic Accord and targeted amendments of the International Health Regulations, which together ensure our preparedness for future health threats with stronger prevention, and response, whilst respecting national sovereignty”. Signing up to the IHR effectively makes Tedros “World King”, or rather, his financial backers, like Gates, will hold the power to lock us down for no reason and prescribe mass poisoning via mRNA injections that definitely won’t be vaccines. Failure to comply would precipitate as best a civil war & at worst, a form of martial law. “The UK welcomes this week’s focus on climate and health. At COP28, leaders noted that climate change is now a health crisis, as you have said many times DG. One we can only face collectively with WHO playing a key role”. What can I say? It’s a pack of lies. It’s little more than a page. Please don’t let them get away with it. Show to everyone who’ll listen. We’re going to need all the peaceful but irresistible opposition to this nonsense. Best wishes Mike
    WWW.GOV.UK
    WHO Executive Board 22-27 January 2024
    The United Kingdom's National Statement delivered at the World Health Organization's Executive Board in Geneva.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4039 Views
  • Son of man killed in ITV News Gaza video says family 'can't believe it'
    Thursday 25 January 2024 at 9:27pm


    The son of the man who was shot dead while holding a white flag in Gaza has spoken to ITV News after the fatal attack, as Senior Correspondent John Irvine reports

    The son of an innocent Palestinian man who was shot dead amongst a group waving a white flag in Gaza, told ITV News he cannot believe what happened.

    On Tuesday, footage filmed by Mohammed Abu Safia, a cameraman working for ITV News, showed a group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, who wanted to rescue their family after being forced to evacuate their homes.

    Minutes later, one of the men, Ramzi Abu Sahloul, was fatally shot in the chest.

    In the video, his son Mohammed Abu Sahoul is seen screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground.

    Speaking ITV News on Thursday, the young boy said he "couldn't believe it happened."

    "How was he shot? He was carrying a white flag, a symbol of peace, not of killing or violence," he added.

    Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says
    A group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, told ITV News they wanted to rescue their family members - minutes later one was shot dead, as Senior International Correspondent John Irvine reports

    This video contains distressing images


    Israeli soldiers are suspected of carrying out the attack which - since ITV News aired the video - some campaigners have described as a "war crime".

    Top UN advisor Francesca Albanese said: "Waving a white flag, posing no danger, surrendering, cannot be shot at, otherwise this is a summary execution, and this is what happens, made all the more serious because this was a civilian who was going to rescue his family - shocking.

    "I think it is a televised war crime, there is no justification for killing a civilian.

    "What kind of danger were those people posing? They were just talking to some journalist."

    NHS doctor urges Government to evacuate injured dad from Gaza

    Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says

    The IDF dismissed the video in a statement to ITV News, saying it is "not aware of this incident."

    "The video is clearly edited and we have no way to comment," a spokesperson said.

    On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Sir David Cameron visited Jerusalem to speak to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The former prime minister told broadcasters: “What I was saying is, look, it’s time for an immediate pause in the fighting because we’ve got to not only get the aid in, but, crucially, we’ve got to get those hostages out.

    “And what I think we can do now is plan for how you turn that pause into a permanent, sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting. That’s what I was pushing him on. And that’s what I’ll be talking about here today.”

    He said the Hamas leadership must leave Gaza for a cessation, but that the Palestinians must also be shown there is a “route to having a Palestinian state, to having a new future”.

    Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know...

    https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-25/gaza-son-of-man-killed-in-itv-news-clip-says-family-cant-believe-it
    Son of man killed in ITV News Gaza video says family 'can't believe it' Thursday 25 January 2024 at 9:27pm The son of the man who was shot dead while holding a white flag in Gaza has spoken to ITV News after the fatal attack, as Senior Correspondent John Irvine reports The son of an innocent Palestinian man who was shot dead amongst a group waving a white flag in Gaza, told ITV News he cannot believe what happened. On Tuesday, footage filmed by Mohammed Abu Safia, a cameraman working for ITV News, showed a group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, who wanted to rescue their family after being forced to evacuate their homes. Minutes later, one of the men, Ramzi Abu Sahloul, was fatally shot in the chest. In the video, his son Mohammed Abu Sahoul is seen screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground. Speaking ITV News on Thursday, the young boy said he "couldn't believe it happened." "How was he shot? He was carrying a white flag, a symbol of peace, not of killing or violence," he added. Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says A group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, told ITV News they wanted to rescue their family members - minutes later one was shot dead, as Senior International Correspondent John Irvine reports This video contains distressing images Israeli soldiers are suspected of carrying out the attack which - since ITV News aired the video - some campaigners have described as a "war crime". Top UN advisor Francesca Albanese said: "Waving a white flag, posing no danger, surrendering, cannot be shot at, otherwise this is a summary execution, and this is what happens, made all the more serious because this was a civilian who was going to rescue his family - shocking. "I think it is a televised war crime, there is no justification for killing a civilian. "What kind of danger were those people posing? They were just talking to some journalist." NHS doctor urges Government to evacuate injured dad from Gaza Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says The IDF dismissed the video in a statement to ITV News, saying it is "not aware of this incident." "The video is clearly edited and we have no way to comment," a spokesperson said. On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Sir David Cameron visited Jerusalem to speak to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The former prime minister told broadcasters: “What I was saying is, look, it’s time for an immediate pause in the fighting because we’ve got to not only get the aid in, but, crucially, we’ve got to get those hostages out. “And what I think we can do now is plan for how you turn that pause into a permanent, sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting. That’s what I was pushing him on. And that’s what I’ll be talking about here today.” He said the Hamas leadership must leave Gaza for a cessation, but that the Palestinians must also be shown there is a “route to having a Palestinian state, to having a new future”. Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know... https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-25/gaza-son-of-man-killed-in-itv-news-clip-says-family-cant-believe-it
    WWW.ITV.COM
    Gaza: Son of man killed in ITV News clip says family 'can't believe it' | ITV News
    Footage shot by ITV News shows Mohammed Abu Sahoul screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground in Gaza. | ITV National News
    Sad
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4241 Views
  • ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 111: Hospitals under siege, UNRWA shelter bombed in southern Gaza
    Leila WarahJanuary 25, 2024
    A view of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school in Nuseirat, used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images)
    A view of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school in Nuseirat, used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images)
    Casualties

    25,700+ killed* and at least 63,740 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
    387+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem
    Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147.
    556 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.**
    *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. Some rights groups put the death toll number at more than 33,000 when accounting for those presumed dead.

    ** This figure is released by the Israeli military.

    Key Developments

    Israeli forces are bombing Gaza’s perimeter in order to facilitate future land grab, buffer zone.
    ICJ: Verdict on South Africa genocide case against Israel to be announced Friday.
    Palestinian man shot dead at point blank-range south of Jenin in occupied West Bank.
    Israeli forces re-arrest 17-year-old Youssef al-Khatib, whom Israel freed in November swap deal with Hamas.
    Nasser Hospital and al-Amal hospitals in Khan Younis subjected to siege by Israeli military, hundreds of lives at risk.
    UN: Israel bombs UNRWA Shelter, killing at least 12, injuring 75
    Egypt’s President accuses Israel of delaying Gaza aid deliveries as a pressure tactic.
    5,000 Israeli protestors call for immediate deal to return all Israeli captives.
    Netanyahu allegedly criticizes Qatar mediating role as “problematic,” despite facilitating return of over 100 Israeli captives.
    Gaza Hospitals have a target on their back.

    In Khan Younis, Palestinians continue to face constant Israeli attacks, including those on medical centers, further crippling Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure and institutions.

    Advertisement

    Help Mondoweiss reach 100,000 subscribers on YouTube!
    The Israeli military has put several medical complexes under siege in Khan Younis, the second-largest city in Gaza, located in the southern district.

    At Nasser Hospital, The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reports that “no one can enter or exit” because of the nearby bombardment .

    In addition to about 400 dialysis patients at Nasser Hospital who cannot access treatment, hundreds of wounded people, sick patients, and maternity cases are facing serious complications as a result of the lack of access to the hospital.

    “Health staff is reported to be digging graves on hospital grounds due to the large numbers of fatalities anticipated and the need to manage burials,” the UNOCHA report continued.

    The Israeli army has also surrounded the al-Amal Hospital and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) headquarters in Khan Younis. Israeli troops are “enforcing restrictions on movement around both the building and the hospital,” PRCS said in a post on X.

    “The intense shelling around the hospital, gunfire, and the military vehicles approaching from all directions are ongoing violations of international laws and the Geneva Conventions,” PRCS added.

    “The occupation prohibits the movement of humanitarian teams, including ambulances, in blatant disregard for established norms.”

    In al-Amal Hospital, medical staff are running out of blood due to the inability to access the blood bank as a result of the ongoing siege. To combat the shortage, groups of displaced people sheltering at the hospital are donating blood.

    William Schomburg, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), warns that immediate action is required to prevent a complete shutdown of medical services in Gaza.

    “Every functioning hospital in the Gaza Strip is overcrowded and short on medical supplies, fuel, food and water. Many are housing thousands of displaced families. And now two more facilities risk being lost due to the fighting,” Schomburg said in a statement.

    “The cumulative impact on the health system is devastating and urgent action must be taken.”

    Israel attacks UN shelter, kills 12

    Israeli forces attacked a UN shelter housing thousands of displaced people in the city of Khan Younis on Wednesday during the intensified fighting at and around the center.

    According to UNOCHA, at least 12 people were killed and 75 wounded, including 15 people who are in critical condition.

    “It seems that three shells have been landed inside the…training centre of Khan Younis that belongs to UNRWA,” UNRWA spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna, who is based in Rafah, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

    “The building has been set on fire,” he said, adding that “there are many casualties.”

    Asked if there had been any warning, he replied: “No.”

    “We have not been able to get in and from the compound in the last 48 hours because the Israeli tanks actually [were] very close to the compound,” he said, describing the situation as “very dangerous.”

    Abu Hasna said this was far from the first time that an UNRWA facility in Gaza had been hit, but noted that it was “maybe the first time that we see such a huge fire.”

    “People are screaming, crying, asking for help. We hope that we will not find so many people to have been killed and injured.”

    “Another horrific day in Gaza. The number of those killed is likely higher. Khan Younis vocational training centre is one of the largest UNRWA facilities sheltering nearly 30,000 displaced people,” UNRWA leader Philippe Lazzarini said in a social media post.

    “The compound is a clearly marked UN facility and its coordinates were shared with Israeli Authorities as we do for all our facilities. Once again a blatant disregard of basic rules of war.”

    “Persistent attacks on civilian sites in Khan Younis are utterly unacceptable and must stop immediately,” Thomas White, the Director of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, said in a statement on behalf of UNOCHA.

    “The situation in Khan Younis underscores a consistent failure to uphold the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law: distinction, proportionality, and precautions in carrying out attacks. This is unacceptable and abhorrent and must stop,” stated White.

    About 800 displaced people were sheltering in the center, White added. Teams from UNRWA and the WHO are trying to reach the building via a route agreed upon with the Israeli army, but they have been blocked, he continued.

    Food used as a ‘weapon of war’

    As the situation in Gaza continued to deteriorate amid Israel’s ongoing attacks on civilians, residents of the enclave are still facing extreme shortages of basic necessities due to the Israeli ongoing blockade.

    Although the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza is open 24/7, Israeli procedures hamper the entrance of lifesaving humanitarian aid.

    Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has accused Israel of delaying aid deliveries into Gaza as a pressure tactic.

    “This is a form of pressure on the Gaza Strip and its people over the conflict and the release of hostages. They are using this as a pressure tool on the people of the Strip,” Sisi said, as cited by Reuters.

    Meanwhile, at the Israel-controlled Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) between Gaza and Israel, Israeli protests, including family members of captives in Gaza, gathered on Wednesday to prevent aid trucks from entering Gaza.

    The protestors, who are part of a group known as Order Nine Movement, are calling for an end to all aid from entering Gaza, including medical supplies, until all Israeli captives are released, reported Al Jazeera.

    Over the last two weeks, only 80 trucks a day have been allowed to enter the Gaza Strip due to Israel’s lengthy process of clearance and security checks, Al Jazeera added.

    UN agencies and humanitarian organizations working on the ground say that the aid that gets through is “a drop in the ocean” of what is needed amid the unfolding crisis in Gaza, which is said to be on the brink of famine.

    For context, before October 7, about 500 delivery trucks would enter Gaza every day.

    Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian physician and humanitarian activist, told Al Jazeera that Israel is weaponizing aid restrictions against Gaza.

    “It is a deliberate governmental plan to eradicate the people of Gaza — through disease, through bombing and through non-availability of medical supplies and medical services, and famine and the lack of water,” Gilbert said.

    “This is one of the most gruesome, concerted attacks on public health that I have ever seen.”

    He added that the humanitarian catastrophe is man-made. “This is a war crime. This is a weapon of mass destruction used deliberately by Israel.”

    British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said he told Netanyahu that more aid trucks must be able to enter Gaza and that an immediate “humanitarian pause” is needed to help those trapped in a “desperate situation.”

    “The scale of suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. More must be done faster to help people trapped in this desperate situation,” Cameron continued.

    “We have trebled our assistance for Gaza…But our efforts will only make a difference if aid gets to those who need it most.

    “As I said to Netanyahu … far more trucks need to be able to enter Gaza and more crossings need to open. We need an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, followed by a sustainable ceasefire.”

    UN chief Guterres has once again called for “rapid, safe, unhindered, expanded & sustained humanitarian access throughout Gaza” in a post on X.

    Netanyahu disparages Qatari mediating role in prisoner exchange negotiations

    As Israel’s attacks on Gaza continue, Israeli society is growing increasingly frustrated with the Netanyahu administration’s lack of regard for the Israeli captives held in Gaza.

    On Wednesday night in Tel Aviv, 5,000 Israeli anti-government protestors gathered to call for an immediate deal to return all the hostages and chanting, “Stop the world, our brothers are there.”

    “We came to say to the government, ‘It’s enough. We want all the hostages back home, we want a ceasefire now,'” said protester Sapir Sluzker Amran, Al Jazeera reported.

    “There is no military solution, only a diplomatic solution — only agreements will bring the hostages back,” Amran continued.

    However, Netanyahu is adamant the war will continue.

    The Israeli Prime Minister said on Tuesday that Israel “will not stop fighting until absolute victory,” advocating for an additional six months of Israel’s aggression on Gaza.

    In response, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Foreign Ministry has said Israel is demonstrating a disregard for the UN and international calls for an immediate ceasefire.

    In a statement on Wednesday, the PA Foreign Ministry said Netanyahu’s comments mean “the continuation of genocide and forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.”

    “Netanyahu derives his courage from the failure of the international institutions to bear their legal and moral responsibilities to end the occupation,” the statement added.

    The Israeli Prime Minister has also allegedly criticized Qatar’s role as a mediator between Israel and Hamas as “problematic,” despite the Gulf country’s facilitation of the return of over 100 Israeli captives.

    In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Majed al-Ansari, said, “We are appalled by the alleged remarks attributed to the Israeli Prime Minister in various media reports about Qatar’s mediation role. These remarks, if validated, are irresponsible and destructive to the efforts to save innocent lives, but are not surprising.”

    “If the reported remarks are found to be true, the Israeli PM would only be obstructing and undermining the mediation process, for reasons that appear to serve his political career instead of prioritizing saving innocent lives, including Israeli hostages,” al-Ansari added.

    On Wednesday, Israeli forces rearrested 17-year-old Youssef al-Khatib, whom Israel freed in a swap deal with Hamas in November, sparking outrage by Palestinian groups.

    The Palestinian Prisoners’ Society called the arrest a “blatant violation” of the terms of the swap agreement and a “dangerous” indicator that Israel is willing to re-arrest freed prisoners, according to Al Jazeera.

    Hamas has warned of the “ramifications” of the teen’s rearrest while also calling on the mediators of the November deal to interfere and pressure Israel to “live up to what was agreed upon.”

    Preparing for land grabs

    As the death toll in Gaza rises, the Israeli military is making space for its occupation of Gaza.

    The army demolished hundreds of buildings in Gaza within 1km of the fence, seeking to create a buffer zone, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a new Hebrew University study.

    According to the study, about 40 percent of the 2,824 buildings in Gaza located within 1km of the border have been razed since October 7.

    “Everything has been flattened. It was mostly agriculture. Now it’s a military zone, a complete no man’s land,” one soldier is quoted as saying.

    Around Khan Younis city in southern Gaza, which has been under constant Israeli attacks for weeks, 67 percent of buildings within 1km of the border have been destroyed.

    Al Jazeera’s Stefanie Dekker says Israel claims the plan is needed to “establish security” and prevent attacks. But this risks “diminishing an already tiny strip of Gaza, whose population has been stuck between walls and the sea” for years.

    The United States has opposed the creation of a buffer zone, saying there should be no permanent change to Palestinian territory.

    “However, it’s happening, Israel is executing it, and this of course is something the Palestinians and the wider international community does see as a land grab,” said Dekker.

    BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever.

    Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses.

    Support our journalists with a donation today.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-111-hospitals-under-siege-unrwa-shelter-bombed-in-southern-gaza/
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 111: Hospitals under siege, UNRWA shelter bombed in southern Gaza Leila WarahJanuary 25, 2024 A view of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school in Nuseirat, used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images) A view of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school in Nuseirat, used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images) Casualties 25,700+ killed* and at least 63,740 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 387+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147. 556 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.** *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. Some rights groups put the death toll number at more than 33,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. ** This figure is released by the Israeli military. Key Developments Israeli forces are bombing Gaza’s perimeter in order to facilitate future land grab, buffer zone. ICJ: Verdict on South Africa genocide case against Israel to be announced Friday. Palestinian man shot dead at point blank-range south of Jenin in occupied West Bank. Israeli forces re-arrest 17-year-old Youssef al-Khatib, whom Israel freed in November swap deal with Hamas. Nasser Hospital and al-Amal hospitals in Khan Younis subjected to siege by Israeli military, hundreds of lives at risk. UN: Israel bombs UNRWA Shelter, killing at least 12, injuring 75 Egypt’s President accuses Israel of delaying Gaza aid deliveries as a pressure tactic. 5,000 Israeli protestors call for immediate deal to return all Israeli captives. Netanyahu allegedly criticizes Qatar mediating role as “problematic,” despite facilitating return of over 100 Israeli captives. Gaza Hospitals have a target on their back. In Khan Younis, Palestinians continue to face constant Israeli attacks, including those on medical centers, further crippling Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure and institutions. Advertisement Help Mondoweiss reach 100,000 subscribers on YouTube! The Israeli military has put several medical complexes under siege in Khan Younis, the second-largest city in Gaza, located in the southern district. At Nasser Hospital, The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reports that “no one can enter or exit” because of the nearby bombardment . In addition to about 400 dialysis patients at Nasser Hospital who cannot access treatment, hundreds of wounded people, sick patients, and maternity cases are facing serious complications as a result of the lack of access to the hospital. “Health staff is reported to be digging graves on hospital grounds due to the large numbers of fatalities anticipated and the need to manage burials,” the UNOCHA report continued. The Israeli army has also surrounded the al-Amal Hospital and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) headquarters in Khan Younis. Israeli troops are “enforcing restrictions on movement around both the building and the hospital,” PRCS said in a post on X. “The intense shelling around the hospital, gunfire, and the military vehicles approaching from all directions are ongoing violations of international laws and the Geneva Conventions,” PRCS added. “The occupation prohibits the movement of humanitarian teams, including ambulances, in blatant disregard for established norms.” In al-Amal Hospital, medical staff are running out of blood due to the inability to access the blood bank as a result of the ongoing siege. To combat the shortage, groups of displaced people sheltering at the hospital are donating blood. William Schomburg, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), warns that immediate action is required to prevent a complete shutdown of medical services in Gaza. “Every functioning hospital in the Gaza Strip is overcrowded and short on medical supplies, fuel, food and water. Many are housing thousands of displaced families. And now two more facilities risk being lost due to the fighting,” Schomburg said in a statement. “The cumulative impact on the health system is devastating and urgent action must be taken.” Israel attacks UN shelter, kills 12 Israeli forces attacked a UN shelter housing thousands of displaced people in the city of Khan Younis on Wednesday during the intensified fighting at and around the center. According to UNOCHA, at least 12 people were killed and 75 wounded, including 15 people who are in critical condition. “It seems that three shells have been landed inside the…training centre of Khan Younis that belongs to UNRWA,” UNRWA spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna, who is based in Rafah, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday. “The building has been set on fire,” he said, adding that “there are many casualties.” Asked if there had been any warning, he replied: “No.” “We have not been able to get in and from the compound in the last 48 hours because the Israeli tanks actually [were] very close to the compound,” he said, describing the situation as “very dangerous.” Abu Hasna said this was far from the first time that an UNRWA facility in Gaza had been hit, but noted that it was “maybe the first time that we see such a huge fire.” “People are screaming, crying, asking for help. We hope that we will not find so many people to have been killed and injured.” “Another horrific day in Gaza. The number of those killed is likely higher. Khan Younis vocational training centre is one of the largest UNRWA facilities sheltering nearly 30,000 displaced people,” UNRWA leader Philippe Lazzarini said in a social media post. “The compound is a clearly marked UN facility and its coordinates were shared with Israeli Authorities as we do for all our facilities. Once again a blatant disregard of basic rules of war.” “Persistent attacks on civilian sites in Khan Younis are utterly unacceptable and must stop immediately,” Thomas White, the Director of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, said in a statement on behalf of UNOCHA. “The situation in Khan Younis underscores a consistent failure to uphold the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law: distinction, proportionality, and precautions in carrying out attacks. This is unacceptable and abhorrent and must stop,” stated White. About 800 displaced people were sheltering in the center, White added. Teams from UNRWA and the WHO are trying to reach the building via a route agreed upon with the Israeli army, but they have been blocked, he continued. Food used as a ‘weapon of war’ As the situation in Gaza continued to deteriorate amid Israel’s ongoing attacks on civilians, residents of the enclave are still facing extreme shortages of basic necessities due to the Israeli ongoing blockade. Although the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza is open 24/7, Israeli procedures hamper the entrance of lifesaving humanitarian aid. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has accused Israel of delaying aid deliveries into Gaza as a pressure tactic. “This is a form of pressure on the Gaza Strip and its people over the conflict and the release of hostages. They are using this as a pressure tool on the people of the Strip,” Sisi said, as cited by Reuters. Meanwhile, at the Israel-controlled Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) between Gaza and Israel, Israeli protests, including family members of captives in Gaza, gathered on Wednesday to prevent aid trucks from entering Gaza. The protestors, who are part of a group known as Order Nine Movement, are calling for an end to all aid from entering Gaza, including medical supplies, until all Israeli captives are released, reported Al Jazeera. Over the last two weeks, only 80 trucks a day have been allowed to enter the Gaza Strip due to Israel’s lengthy process of clearance and security checks, Al Jazeera added. UN agencies and humanitarian organizations working on the ground say that the aid that gets through is “a drop in the ocean” of what is needed amid the unfolding crisis in Gaza, which is said to be on the brink of famine. For context, before October 7, about 500 delivery trucks would enter Gaza every day. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian physician and humanitarian activist, told Al Jazeera that Israel is weaponizing aid restrictions against Gaza. “It is a deliberate governmental plan to eradicate the people of Gaza — through disease, through bombing and through non-availability of medical supplies and medical services, and famine and the lack of water,” Gilbert said. “This is one of the most gruesome, concerted attacks on public health that I have ever seen.” He added that the humanitarian catastrophe is man-made. “This is a war crime. This is a weapon of mass destruction used deliberately by Israel.” British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said he told Netanyahu that more aid trucks must be able to enter Gaza and that an immediate “humanitarian pause” is needed to help those trapped in a “desperate situation.” “The scale of suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. More must be done faster to help people trapped in this desperate situation,” Cameron continued. “We have trebled our assistance for Gaza…But our efforts will only make a difference if aid gets to those who need it most. “As I said to Netanyahu … far more trucks need to be able to enter Gaza and more crossings need to open. We need an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, followed by a sustainable ceasefire.” UN chief Guterres has once again called for “rapid, safe, unhindered, expanded & sustained humanitarian access throughout Gaza” in a post on X. Netanyahu disparages Qatari mediating role in prisoner exchange negotiations As Israel’s attacks on Gaza continue, Israeli society is growing increasingly frustrated with the Netanyahu administration’s lack of regard for the Israeli captives held in Gaza. On Wednesday night in Tel Aviv, 5,000 Israeli anti-government protestors gathered to call for an immediate deal to return all the hostages and chanting, “Stop the world, our brothers are there.” “We came to say to the government, ‘It’s enough. We want all the hostages back home, we want a ceasefire now,'” said protester Sapir Sluzker Amran, Al Jazeera reported. “There is no military solution, only a diplomatic solution — only agreements will bring the hostages back,” Amran continued. However, Netanyahu is adamant the war will continue. The Israeli Prime Minister said on Tuesday that Israel “will not stop fighting until absolute victory,” advocating for an additional six months of Israel’s aggression on Gaza. In response, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Foreign Ministry has said Israel is demonstrating a disregard for the UN and international calls for an immediate ceasefire. In a statement on Wednesday, the PA Foreign Ministry said Netanyahu’s comments mean “the continuation of genocide and forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.” “Netanyahu derives his courage from the failure of the international institutions to bear their legal and moral responsibilities to end the occupation,” the statement added. The Israeli Prime Minister has also allegedly criticized Qatar’s role as a mediator between Israel and Hamas as “problematic,” despite the Gulf country’s facilitation of the return of over 100 Israeli captives. In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Majed al-Ansari, said, “We are appalled by the alleged remarks attributed to the Israeli Prime Minister in various media reports about Qatar’s mediation role. These remarks, if validated, are irresponsible and destructive to the efforts to save innocent lives, but are not surprising.” “If the reported remarks are found to be true, the Israeli PM would only be obstructing and undermining the mediation process, for reasons that appear to serve his political career instead of prioritizing saving innocent lives, including Israeli hostages,” al-Ansari added. On Wednesday, Israeli forces rearrested 17-year-old Youssef al-Khatib, whom Israel freed in a swap deal with Hamas in November, sparking outrage by Palestinian groups. The Palestinian Prisoners’ Society called the arrest a “blatant violation” of the terms of the swap agreement and a “dangerous” indicator that Israel is willing to re-arrest freed prisoners, according to Al Jazeera. Hamas has warned of the “ramifications” of the teen’s rearrest while also calling on the mediators of the November deal to interfere and pressure Israel to “live up to what was agreed upon.” Preparing for land grabs As the death toll in Gaza rises, the Israeli military is making space for its occupation of Gaza. The army demolished hundreds of buildings in Gaza within 1km of the fence, seeking to create a buffer zone, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a new Hebrew University study. According to the study, about 40 percent of the 2,824 buildings in Gaza located within 1km of the border have been razed since October 7. “Everything has been flattened. It was mostly agriculture. Now it’s a military zone, a complete no man’s land,” one soldier is quoted as saying. Around Khan Younis city in southern Gaza, which has been under constant Israeli attacks for weeks, 67 percent of buildings within 1km of the border have been destroyed. Al Jazeera’s Stefanie Dekker says Israel claims the plan is needed to “establish security” and prevent attacks. But this risks “diminishing an already tiny strip of Gaza, whose population has been stuck between walls and the sea” for years. The United States has opposed the creation of a buffer zone, saying there should be no permanent change to Palestinian territory. “However, it’s happening, Israel is executing it, and this of course is something the Palestinians and the wider international community does see as a land grab,” said Dekker. BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-111-hospitals-under-siege-unrwa-shelter-bombed-in-southern-gaza/
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 111: Hospitals under siege, UNRWA shelter bombed in southern Gaza
    Israeli forces bomb Gaza’s perimeter to prepare for a “buffer zone” as medical staff in Nasser Hospital dig graves in anticipation of a large number of fatalities due to Israel’s ongoing siege on the hospital.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7866 Views
More Results