The World Health Organization and the Next Global Pandemic

With 2021 having been the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, let's close out this rather dystopic year with a look at what lies ahead for the world if the World Health Organization (aka the Bill Gates Health Organization) gets its way.

  

To very little fanfare, on November 28, 2021, the World Health Organization announced that a Special Session of the World Health Assembly had begun the process of establishing an intergovernmental body also known as an INB with the goal of addressing the gaps in preventing, preparing for and responding to health emergencies.  This was only the second time that the Health Assembly had met in a Special Section since the WHO was founded in 1948.   Here is the announcement:

 

Here's what the World Health Organization's Director-General had to say about the announcement:

 

"The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the many flaws in the global system to protect people from pandemics: the most vulnerable people going without vaccines; health workers without needed equipment to perform their life-saving work; and ‘me-first’ approaches that stymie the global solidarity needed to deal with a global threat.

 

But at the same time, we have seen inspiring demonstrations of scientific and political collaboration, from the rapid development of vaccines, to today’s commitment by countries to negotiate a global accord that will help to keep future generations safer from the impacts of pandemics.”

 

He also stated in his opening remarks to the meeting that:

 

"COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated fundamental weaknesses in the global architecture for pandemic preparedness and response: Complex and fragmented governance; Inadequate financing; and insufficient systems and tools. Voluntary mechanisms have not solved these challenges.

The best way we can address them is with a legally binding agreement between nations; an accord forged from the recognition that we have no future but a common future."

The agreement or convention will be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution which reads as follows:

 

"The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes..."

  

The only instrument established to date under Article 19 is the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which is dated in 2003 as shown here:

 

Let's now look at the Provisional Agenda from the World Health Assembly's Second Special Session as noted at the beginning of this posting:

Given the draconian response to the pandemic by certain nations, it isn't terribly surprising to see Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States among the nations proposing the establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.  It also is not surprising to see that the United Nations is using its World Health Organization to further promote its agenda of a global parliamentary body where national governments take a back seat to the diktats issued by a United Nations-led global government.

 

The INB will hold its first meeting by March 1, 2022 and its second by August 1, 2022 and will deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023

 

Here are some key excerpts from the establishing document:

 

1.) Acknowledging the need to address gaps in preventing, preparing for, and responding to health emergencies, including in development and distribution of, and unhindered, timely and equitable access to, medical countermeasures such as vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as strengthening health systems and their resilience with a view to achieving UHC (universal health care).

 

2.) Emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and coherent approach to strengthen the global health architecture, and recognizing the commitment of Member States to develop a new instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response with a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, prioritizing the need for equity.

 

3.) Stressing that Member States should guide their efforts to develop such an instrument by the principle of solidarity with all people and countries, that should frame practical actions to deal with both causes and consequences of pandemics and other health emergencies.

  

This legally binding treaty will give the World Health Organization unfettered powers during an outbreak of infectious disease.  We need to remember that the WHO is substantially funded by Bill Gates, the world's self-annointed czar of vaccines (not to mention purveyor of flawed and virus-prone software) as well as its close links to the World Economic Forum, the purveyor the Great Reset and promoter of a "great new contract in health and healthcare" and its mantra of "building a new immune system for the world", another version of the WHO's global health accord as announced here:

 

...and quoted here which looks very much like the aims of the WHO's health accord (my bold):

 

"We count on the commitment of all Forum stakeholders to embrace the Great New Contract for Health and Healthcare and join the collaborative platform we will remember years from now for the positive impact it will make in the fields of epidemic anticipation, preparedness and response."

 

Under the new global health reality proposed by the WHO, the world's response to a future pandemic will be dictated to the world by a group of unelected health bureaucrats who do not necessarily hold the best interests of humanity at the forefront.  It will be this group that will ultimately have control over the  response to a future pandemic including the shuttering of businesses and schools, preventing us from socializing with family and friends, restricting travel and, perhaps most frightening of all, be responsible for the issuance and further implementation of a digital identification which will be used to control every aspect of our lives.

Happy 2022!

The COVID-19 Vaccine Bribery Game

Let's start this posting by defining the word "bribery".  According to the Legal Information Institute, bribery is defined as:

  

"Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

  

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.

 

Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift."

 

Here is a graphic that recently appeared on the Bring Back Louisiana Sleeves Up Twitter page:

 

 

According to Baton Rouge's NBC/Fox Proud website, the Shots for Santa event which is part of the Louisiana Department of Health's Bring Back Louisiana campaign, allowed children and adults aged 5 and up to receive their COVID-19 vaccination and, as an added incentive, receive a $100 Visa debit card if it was their first shot as shown here:

 

....and quoted here:

 

"And there is an added bonus if this is your first COVID-19 shot.

 

“We have 100-dollar gift cards for anybody who is receiving their first shot today,” said Sheree Taillon (the COVID-19 Incentives Coordinator for the Louisiana Department of Health). 

 

If you missed tonight’s events Taillon says there are many more.

 

“We actually have about forty to fifty events every single day where we are giving out the $100 gift cards,” Taillon said."

 

Oh yes, and children got to see Santa who I'm certain was fully vaccinated and along with getting their faces painted along with other giveaways. 

 

This is not Louisiana's first attempt at bribing its citizens into being vaccinated.  Back in June 2021, the Office of the Governor of Louisiana made this announcement:

 

 

"Louisianans who have taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and are age 18 or older may enter to win one of four $100,000 prizes and the grand prize of $1 million. Louisianans who have taken at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and are between the ages of 12 and 17 may enter to win one of nine $100,000 scholarships. Louisianans are eligible if they have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before the drawing date – regardless of when they were vaccinated.

 

Louisiana will have four weekly drawings for one $100,000 scholarship and one $100,000 cash prize. The final grand prize drawing on August 6, 2021 will award a $1 million cash award and five $100,000 scholarships. Overall awards will total $2.3 million, paid using federal COVID outreach dollars."

  

And, here are the winners of the cash and scholarships:

 

The skeptic in me wonders why governments are using bribery to get their citizens vaccinated.

Only time will tell whether it was worth getting the experimental vaccines that have not yet completed Phase 3 trials for the lottery win and the $100 debit card particularly since absolutely no long-term data on adverse events is available.

Fact Checking Facebook's Fact Checking

Over the past 20 months, it has become very apparent that social media outlets in specific and Big Technology in general have done their best to control the COVID-19 narrative, censoring any information that doesn't subscribe to their viewpoint, no matter how qualified the source of the information may be.

 

As a prime example of promoting the so-called "truth" , Twitter has recently amended its policies regarding COVID-19 "misleading information", noting in particular the highlighted section:

 

 

In fact, if you look back at an earlier version of the Twitter page from December 2, 2021, the entire section on vaccine disinformation is not present with the exception of three references which are forbidden as follows:

  

1.) The pandemic or COVID-19 vaccines that invoke a deliberate conspiracy by malicious and/or powerful forces.

  

2.) Vaccines and vaccination programs which suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations are part of a deliberate or intentional attempt to cause harm or control populations.

  

3.) How vaccines are developed, tested, and approved by official health agencies as well as information about government recommendations.

  

In fact and as an aside, Twitter is actually guilty of disinformation considering that this is a quote from a Science Brief that appears on the CDC website:

 

With this example of Big Technology censorship in mind, let's go to the main subject of this posting.  A recent open letter which appeared on the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website was submitted by two members of the editorial staff at the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg.  Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi's letter states the following:

"We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.

 

In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.

 

The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review."

 

Here is the November 2, 2021 article mentioned in the open letter:

 

 

Here are some quotes from the November 2, 2021 article with my bolds:

 

"In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open letter to the billions of people around the world who were investing their hopes in a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine to end the pandemic. “As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science,” Bourla wrote, explaining to the public when they could expect a Pfizer vaccine to be authorised in the United States.

 

But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails....

 

In a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” a Ventavia executive says. “We know that it’s significant.”

 

In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. She then listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:

 

Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff

Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events

Protocol deviations not being reported

Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures

Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and

Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems....

In Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to an FDA advisory committee meeting held on 10 December 2020 to discuss Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorisation of its covid-19 vaccine, the company made no mention of problems at the Ventavia site. The next day the FDA issued the authorisation of the vaccine.

 

In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug].”

 

Let's go back to the open letter.  The authors of the letter note the following with my bolds:

 

"But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”

 

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.

 

We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

 

-- It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong

 

-- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”

 

-- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”

 

-- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article

 

-- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert” 

 

We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.

 

We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform."

  

Here is the key sentence:

 

"There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence. Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ."

 

Here is a screen capture of the entire open letter should it happen to disappear from the internet as things are prone to do in the post-truth era:

  

As well, in case you were curious, here is Lead Story's webpage, showing the names of the fact checkers that the company employs, only one of which has any connection to "science" (a BSc in Science) with the majority of the remaining fact checkers having backgrounds in journalism which is clearly does not qualify them to ascertain the scientific validity of any research being provided to them for analysis:

So basically, if we boil it down to its essentials, fact checking is little more than the generation of propaganda that suits the narrative of the company/person that has hired the fact checkers.

 It is very clear that, over the past two years, so-called "fact checking" has become laughable.  People with absolutely no education or training in medical science are controlling the COVID-19 narrative, using the heavy hand of censorship to negate any viewpoints that do not follow the interests of their employers and those who employ their employers.

 

Scientific facts have clearly become one of the casualties of the pandemic thanks to the efforts by Big Technology whose mission seems to be to prevent us from learning about the truth as they don't see it.

Who Wants a War with Russia?

With politicians in Washington seemingly itching for a war with Russia (not to mention China), a recent poll shows that Americans are far from backing any military action against Russia over its recent moves along the Russia/Ukraine border.

 

Let's start with some background on the potential conflict.  Here is a map provided by a Ukrainian defines official showing the location of Russian forces on the Russia/Ukraine border regions:

 

According to the Ukraine military, Russia has moved approximately 150,000 troops against its borders with Ukraine on the Crimean peninsula and the two breakaway regions of Donestk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

 

In a recent article on the RAND website, the authors, William Courtney and Peter Wilson, note that Russia has undertaken a significant military buildup near Ukraine's border and in Crimea.  The United States has provided Ukraine with to types of assistance:

  

1.) nonlethal assistance including satellite imagery and analysis, combat medical equipment and counter-artillery radar.  

 

2.) lethal assistance including Mark VI armed patrol boats and advanced man-portable Javelin anti-tank missiles

 

According to the authors, the United States is weighing whether it should be supplying Ukraine with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which could be used to down surveillance drones as well as other airborne aircraft including helicopters.  Washington could also assist Ukraine by deploying truck-mounted Harpoon anti-ship missiles.  In addition, Washington could supply Iron Dome defences which would protect Ukraine from short-range Russian missiles.

  

As it stands now, Ukraine is not particularly highly ranked (25th out of 140 nations) when it comes to its overall military strength as shown on this graphic from Global Firepower:

 

...particularly when compared to Russia:

 

...so it is pretty obvious that the Ukrainian military will need outside assistance if it hopes to protect its territory if an invasion does take place.

  

Now, let's look at a recent poll of Americans taken between December 9,2021 and December 13, 2021 taken by YouGov in conjunction with the Charles Koch Institute regarding their views on Washington electing to go to war with Russia over Ukraine and other general questions regarding Washington's spending on defense and its willingness to enter conflicts around the world.  

  

Here are five of the key questions noting that 51 percent of respondents voted for Biden and 47 percent voted for Trump in 2020.  Let's start by looking at a selection of the general background questions first:

 

Should the United States be more or less militarily engaged in conflicts around the world, or stay about the same?

 

More engaged - 10% 

 

About the same level of engagement - 32% 

 

Less engaged - 40% 

 

Don’t know - 18%

 

A very slim majority of Americans believe that Washington should be more involved militarily in global conflicts.page1image1900632176

 

The U.S. accounts for about 70 percent of defense spending by all NATO countries. Do you think European countries should generally spend more or less on defense?

 

More - 60% 

 

Less - 8% 

 

Don’t know - 31%

 

Which sentence do you agree with most?

 

The U.S. should prioritize domestic issues over foreign policy issues - 73% 

 

The U.S. should prioritize foreign policy issues over domestic issues - 7% 

 

Don’t know - 19%

Now, let's look at the key question:

If Ukraine is invaded again by Russia, do you favor or oppose the US going to war with Russia to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity?

 

Strongly favor - 9% 

 

Somewhat favor - 18% 

 

Somewhat oppose - 20% 

 

Strongly oppose - 28% 

 

Don’t know - 24%

 

In total, only 27 percent favour going to war with Russia over Ukraine while 48 percent oppose the idea.

 

As you can see from this posting, Americans are definitely not interested in entering a war with Russia over Ukraine, believe that Washington should concentrate on domestic issues and are quite firm in their belief that European nations should be spending more on their own defense.  Most importantly, we all must keep in mind that the troops that Russia is sending to its border with Ukraine are still in Russian territory and as long as they remain on their side of the border region, it really is none of Washington's business.

Quashing the Right to Protest in the United States

Public protests are often the only way that citizens of a nation can express their sentiments to governments who seem incapable of hearing what the voting public wants.  In the United States, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans' right to assemble and express their collective viewpoints through protest even though those views may not be popular, particularly with the ruling class.  That said, the rights are under threat with both state and federal government proposing legislation that would suppress these rights as you will see in this posting.

 

The International Center for Not-For-Profit Law or ICNL has developed a US Protest Law Tracker which has followed state and federal initiatives that restrict the right to peaceful assembly since November 2017. Here is a quote from their website:

 

"Since January 2017, the U.S. has seen a wave of anti-protest bills introduced by state and federal lawmakers that would limit the right to protest. These bills are often introduced in response toprominent protest movements, including for racial justice, against the construction of oil and gas pipelines, campus demonstrations, and better working conditions for teachers.

This anti-protest legislation is not only unnecessary but undermines constitutional rights. The overwhelming majority of protests in the United States are non-violent, and it is already illegal to destroy property or engage in violence. Instead of refining or better targeting existing law to address legitimate needs, these bills can be used as blunt instruments against peaceful and constitutionally protected protest.

Recent anti-protest legislation restricts the freedom of assembly in a variety of ways. Some bills control the traditional elements of where, when, and how people can assemble; others create extreme penalties for common infractions connected with protests like blocking sidewalks or streets; some create liability for protesters or organizers for the criminal actions of others; and others limit liability for those who commit violent acts against protestors, such as hitting them with their vehicle. Many bills include multiple types of these provisions that undermine peaceful demonstrations."

 

According to ICNL, there are several common means that anti-protest bills use to undermine peaceful protests:

 

1.) Extreme penalties for offences commonly related to protesting:  In one example, trespassing near a pipeline in Louisiana can result in a prison sentence of five years.

 

2.) Vague and overly broad provisions that can capture peaceful protests: bills that include activities that would not normally be considered as "rioting".  In one example, rioting in Florida can result in the capture of peaceful protestors who are part of a larger crowd where a small number of individuals engage in property destruction which can include kicking over trash cans.  Under this law, the "imminent danger" of damage can be used as a reason for arrest.

 

3.) Expanding liability: In one example, organizations that conspire with trespassers near an oil and natural gas pipeline can result in liability of up to $1 million under a 2017 bill enacted in Oklahoma.

 

4.) Encouraging violence against protestors: In one example, drivers in Iowa are shielded from civil liability if the injure or kill an individual who is unlawfully blocking a road during a demonstration, riot or unlawful assembly.  A bill in Florida provides an exemption from civil liability to anyone who injures or kills a victim if that victim was most likely participating in a "riot".

 

Here is a graphic showing the total number of bills (by status) in the United States that will impact the right to protest by year noting the very significant increase in 2021:

 

Here is a graphic which tracks protest laws by state:

 

 

Let's look at four examples of bills that are pending to show just how broad the definition of protesting has become:

 

1.) Florida:

 

2.) Indiana:

3.) Iowa:

4.) Federal:

Here are three examples of bills that have recently been enacted:

 

1.) Arkansas:

 

2.) Louisiana:

3.) Missouri:

 

When looking at the total number of protest laws being enacted, North Dakota, South Dakota and Tennessee lead the pack with each state enacting four bills which restrict the right to peaceful assembly followed by Arkansas and Oklahoma at three each.  In some cases, states have defined an "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people and a"riot" as a group of two or more people assembled "in a violent manner" that "disturb[s]" other people, with any unlawful force by anyone in the group and the definition of "disturb" left up to the discretion of the police system.

 

Throughout U.S. history, protests have played a key role in the shaping of the nation.  Without protests, the suffrage and racial justice movements would not have taken place.  In the 21st century, it is becoming increasingly clear that governments wish to quash this aspect of American society because it threatens their monopoly on power and that simply will not be acceptable in this age totalitarianism.