The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health
Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians.
So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.
Unfounded Messaging on Urgency
The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.
The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?
Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.
This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.
Low Relative Burden
The burden (e.g. death rate or life years lost) of acute outbreaks is a fraction of the overall disease burden, far lower than many endemic infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and a rising burden of non-communicable disease. Few natural outbreaks over the past 20 years have resulted in more than 1,000 deaths – or 8 hours of tuberculosis mortality. Higher-burden diseases should dominate public health priorities, however dull or unprofitable they may seem.
With the development of modern antibiotics, major outbreaks from the big scourges of the past like Plague and typhus ceased to occur. Though influenza is caused by a virus, most deaths are also due to secondary bacterial infections. Hence, we have not seen a repeat of the Spanish flu in over a century. We are better at healthcare than we used to be and have improved nutrition (generally) and sanitation. Widespread travel has eliminated the risks of large immunologically naive populations, making our species more immunologically resilient. Cancer and heart disease may be increasing, but infectious diseases overall are declining. So where should we focus?
Lack of Evidence Base
Investment in public health requires both evidence (or high likelihood) that the investment will improve outcomes and an absence of significant harm. The WHO has demonstrated neither with their proposed interventions. Neither has anyone else. The lockdown and mass vaccination strategy promoted for Covid-19 resulted in a disease that predominantly affects elderly sick people leading to 15 million excess deaths, even increasing mortality in young adults. In past acute respiratory outbreaks, things got better after one or perhaps two seasons, but with Covid-19 excess mortality persisted.
Within public health, this would normally mean we check whether the response caused the problem. Especially if it’s a new type of response, and if past understanding of disease management predicted that it would. This is more reliable than pretending that past knowledge did not exist. So again, the WHO (and other public-private partnerships) are not following orthodox public health, but something quite different.
Centralization for a Highly Heterogeneous Problem
Twenty-five years ago, before private investors became so interested in public health, it was accepted that decentralization was sensible. Providing local control to communities that could then prioritize and tailor health interventions themselves can provide better outcomes. Covid-19 underlined the importance of this, showing how uneven the impact of an outbreak is, determined by population age, density, health status, and many other factors. To paraphrase the WHO, ‘Most people are safe, even when some are not.’
However, for reasons that remain unclear to many, the WHO decided that the response for a Toronto aged care resident and a young mother in a Malawian village should be essentially the same – stop them from meeting family and working, then inject them with the same patented chemicals. The WHO’s private sponsors, and even the two largest donor countries with their strong pharmaceutical sectors, agreed with this approach. So too did the people paid to implement it. It was really only history, common sense, and public health ethics that stood in the way, and they proved much more malleable.
Absence of Prevention Strategies Through Host Resilience
The WHO IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are all about detection, lockdowns, and mass vaccination. This would be good if we had nothing else. Fortunately, we do. Sanitation, better nutrition, antibiotics, and better housing halted the great scourges of the past. An article in the journal Nature in 2023 suggested that just getting vitamin D at the right level may have cut Covid-19 mortality by a third. We already knew this and can speculate on why it became controversial. It’s really basic immunology.
Nonetheless, nowhere within the proposed US$30+ billion annual budget is any genuine community and individual resilience supported. Imagine putting a few billion more into nutrition and sanitation. Not only would you dramatically reduce mortality from occasional outbreaks, but more common infectious diseases, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, would also go down. This would actually reduce the need for pharmaceuticals. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, or investor, promoting that. It would be great for public health, but a suicidal business approach.
Conflicts of Interest
All of which brings us, obviously, to conflicts of interest. The WHO, when formed, was essentially funded by countries through a core budget, to address high-burden diseases on country request. Now, with 80% of its use of funds specified directly by the funder, its approach is different. If that Malawian village could stump up tens of millions for a program, they would get what they ask for. But they don’t have that money; Western countries, Pharma, and software moguls do.
Most people on earth would grasp that concept far better than a public health workforce heavily incentivized to think otherwise. This is why the World Health Assembly exists and has the ability to steer the WHO in directions that don’t harm their populations. In its former incarnation, the WHO considered conflict of interest to be a bad thing. Now, it works with its private and corporate sponsors, within the limits set by its Member States, to mold the world to their liking.
The Question Before Member States
To summarize, while it’s sensible to prepare for outbreaks and pandemics, it’s even more sensible to improve health. This involves directing resources to where the problems are and using them in a way that does more good than harm. When people’s salaries and careers become dependent on changing reality, reality gets warped. The new pandemic proposals are very warped. They are a business strategy, not a public health strategy. It is the business of wealth concentration and colonialism – as old as humanity itself.
The only real question is whether the majority of the Member States of the World Health Assembly, in their voting later this month, wish to promote a lucrative but rather amoral business strategy, or the interests of their people.
Economist Peter Schiff Predicts A Financial Crisis That Will Make The Great Depression Look Tame
Russia Is About To Overrun Ukraine’s Defenses – Why Are There No Peace Negotiations?
There are two classic propaganda narratives used by governments when it comes to keeping the public invested in any war campaign that does nothing to advance their national interests:
First, there’s the “commitment” lie, which says that once you step in to support a war effort you then must stay exponentially committed, even if that war effort is exposed as pointless. Anytime the public pulls back from that war in a bid to reconsider what purpose it serves they are ridiculed for potentially “risking lives” and setting the stage for defeat. In other words, you must support the effort blindly. You’re not allowed to examine the conflict rationally, because who wants to be blamed for losing a war?
Second, there’s the “domino effect” lie, which says that if you allow a particular “enemy” to win in one conflict, they will automatically be emboldened to invade other countries until they own the entire planet. It’s the same claim used to trick the American populace into supporting the war in Vietnam and it rarely turns out to be true. In fact, nations that engage in regional wars tend to be so weakened by the fighting that they don’t have the means to move on to another country even if they wanted to.
In the US we heard both of these narratives heading into the recent congressional vote for billions more in monetary and logistical aid to Ukraine. Neocons and Democrats worked together to force the bill through with a percentage of true conservatives fighting to stop it. Those conservatives were attacked relentlessly by the media for “helping the Russians”, but the reality that no one in the mainstream wants to talk about is that Ukraine has already lost the war.
No amount of additional funding or arms shipments are going to help them, and it has nothing to do with conservatives questioning the validity of war spending. Anyone who has a basic understanding of military strategy knows that the key to winning is ALWAYS manpower first, logistics second. Not superior technology or armaments, not superior cash and certainly not popular support from foreign interests.
This is especially true in a war of attrition, and attrition is in fact the method being used by Russia to systematically whittle down Ukraine’s forces. However, the western media refuses to discuss what’s really happening and has been acting as a hype machine for Ukraine instead.
In September of 2022 I noted that the Russian pullback to the Donbas was not the “retreat” the western media made it out to be. Many establishment talking heads claimed that this was the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin and that Ukrainian forces would be taking Crimea in the near future.
I argued that Russia was likely trying to consolidate its position as western artillery and tanks flooded into Ukraine. I also suggested that Russia wanted to avoid urban combat in major cities while thousands of combat seasoned mercenaries were rushing to the front from the US and Europe. I predicted that the Russian pullback was in preparation for surgical strikes on western Ukraine’s resources and grid infrastructure.
With Ukraine’s grid heavily damaged, a large portion of the population would leave the cities and head for Europe until the war played out. Putin has specifically avoided major fighting within larger urban centers for a reason. Driving civilians out of metropolitan areas would make it easier for Russia to strike Ukraine in a secondary offensive without risking extensive collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties. This is exactly what has happened.
Almost 7 million Ukrainians left the country outright in the past 2 years, with another 6 million displaced (mostly from larger cities). Currently, Russia is moving to push civilians out of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second biggest city, and they will probably be successful given their momentum and the destruction of water and power resources. With civilians out of the way a more aggressive attack can then be initiated.
Russia has been using an “artillery bubble” as a tool to protect ground forces as they push an advance. Meaning, troops will only attack as far as the artillery can reach. Artillery is vital to a large scale offensive. Coincidentally, Russia doubled its importation of explosive materials commonly used for artillery in the past several months. They are now reportedly producing triple the amount of artillery that NATO is providing to Ukraine.
Mainstream analysts claim the push towards Kharkiv move might be a feint, allowing Russia to increase the size of its buffer zone. They continue to assert that Russia doesn’t have the forces necessary for a major offensive. I would say it depends on how weak Ukraine’s defensive lines actually are. Russia has been consistently using large scale Pincer movements to envelop defensive positions and destroy them.
In the past two weeks alone Russia has gained considerable ground. Russian troops recently made confirmed advances northwest of Svatove (Luhansk Oblast), near Avdiivka (Donetsk Oblast), in Robotyne (Zaporizhzhya Oblast), and in east (left) bank Kherson Oblast, U.S.-based think tank Institute for the Study of War reported on May 6th. The reason for this is relatively simple – Ukraine lacks the manpower to effectively establish defense in-depth. All the reports coming from the front support this theory.
That is to say, Ukraine’s defensive lines are a facade with no secondary positions or trenches to stall Russian breakthroughs. Once the Russians cut the main line there’s nothing much stopping them from gaining large stretches of ground. Some analysts have blamed this development on a lack of Ukrainian foresight or strategic preparedness, but I would argue that they just don’t have enough people to defend more than a single forward line.
My position is backed by numerous reports of the government’s desperate struggles with conscription. For the past six months the average age of Ukraine recruits is 43 years old. Meaning, youth recruitment is waning, either because younger people don’t want to fight and are avoiding the draft by leaving the country, or too many have died.
The conscription problem has been hidden by the western media for many months now, but even corporate news platforms are starting to admit that there is a severe lack of new recruits. Front line fighters have been complaining for months that they need to be cycled away from the trenches and given rest.
Another bad sign is the fact that Ukraine has been using Special Forces soldiers for trench duty. These units are trained specifically for asymmetric hit-and-run warfare, not sitting in mud holes waiting for artillery strikes to rain down on their fixed and exposed positions. It seems like pure stupidity, but it makes sense if Ukraine is actually running out of people to hold their only defensive line.
The cover-up of massive casualties is something I mentioned in past articles on the war and I think it bears repeating: Western warhawks continue to claim that it will be “cheaper” to use Ukrainian soldiers to fight Russia than to fight a larger war down the road with American and European lives.
The sociopathy behind this rationale is disturbing. The lack of manpower in Ukraine cannot be solved. It is a product of endless death paid for with our tax dollars. NATO has prolonged the fighting with funding and arms, but not to win, only to sacrifice more people in a bloody conflict Ukraine is destined to lose.
Their argument also assumes that Americans and Europeans are going to jump blindly into military service in a war against Russia. I don’t know about Europeans, but I do know for a fact that most Americans are not going to buy in and will refuse a draft. The majority of the US public doesn’t even want to send further aid to Ukraine; they certainly aren’t going to go die for Ukraine. The arrogance of the warhawks is mind boggling.
The bottom line is this: Ukraine is about to be overrun. They didn’t have the manpower to effectively launch a counteroffensive. They don’t have the manpower to establish defense in-depth. And, they are using their most seasoned soldiers as cannon fodder in the trenches.
This dynamic demands that diplomatic solutions be entertained, but no one seems to be talking about that. Why?
As I theorized in my article ‘World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided’, the underlying plan may very well be to try to force Americans and Europeans to accept an expanding war with Russia. The western public has been bombarded with lies about Ukraine’s ability to win; when they lose people will be shocked and incensed by the outcome.
Maybe the elites hope that the populace will be so angry about the loss that they will rally around a larger war effort by NATO? The French government has already asserted that they are willing to send troops to Ukraine in direct confrontation with Russia, while Lithuania and Poland have said they will not rule out the possibility.
Now is the time for peace negotiations, BEFORE Ukraine is overrun. Will this happen? Probably not. But when diplomacy is removed from the table completely the only conclusion we can come to is that a greater war is desired. And when greater war is desired, we also have to conclude that our leadership has something substantial to gain by putting the world at risk.
You might be on the side of Ukraine, you might be on the side of Russia, you might not care about either side, but there’s no denying that this war is being escalated by special interests and we need to ask why?
Dr. Naomi Wolf Joins Alex Jones And Exposes The Globalist Blueprint To End Humanity
ABC’s Stephanopoulos Declares ‘The Deep State Is Packed with Patriots’
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos proclaimed Tuesday that the “Deep State is packed with patriots” who “don’t care about political parties.”
What an odd thing to say, especially considering the media and Democrats for years had dismissed the existence of the Deep State as a conspiracy theory.
Stephanopoulos made the remarks on The View while discussing his book where he interviewed many bureaucrats in the intelligence agencies and military.
“Some people like to call those people the Deep State. Well, the big thing I learned doing this book is that the Deep State is packed with patriots,” he said.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos proclaims “The Deep State is packed with patriots…they don’t care about political parties…serve in silence.” pic.twitter.com/fdfzNkYNpg
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2024
“People who go to work every single day on the frontlines of the most intense crises the country faces and do it to serve their country and to serve the presidency — not the president — they don’t care about political parties. They’re there to serve the presidency and the institution.”
The media has been more open about its defense of the Deep State AKA the Administrative State in recent months since former President Donald Trump announced his intention to purge “rogue bureaucrats” in the Deep State if elected in November.
Biden in response issued a new rule last month that would make it harder to fire unelected government employees.
In March, the New York Times published a piece insisting “the Deep State is actually kind of awesome.”
In a classic straw man fallacy, the NYT portrayed the Deep State as a group of nerdy, innocent and well-to-do government workers performing important functions for humanity, like working at NASA sending satellites into space, decontaminating water for the Environmental Protection Agency or ensuring safe workplaces for the Department of Labor.
But anyone who pays attention to politics or Trump’s remarks on the Deep State understands Trump is referring to rogue intelligence agency officials and Democrat bureaucrats carrying out the whims of the Biden administration.
The documentary Chasing Trump highlights this point by exposing the politically motivated anti-Trump Democrats who’ve brought charges against Trump during an election year and even campaigned on doing so.
Additionally, a CIA cyber operations project manager recently admitted in undercover video that intelligence agencies deliberately withheld information from President Donald Trump while he was in office and regularly spied on him and his family.
That doesn’t even begin to touch on the Russia collusion hoax or the impeachment hoaxes against Trump that were generated by intelligence agencies and media manipulation.
The targeting of Republicans, Trump supporters and conservatives by the federal government and lack of accountability for lawbreaking Democrats had become so obvious and pervasive that House Republicans formed the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government.
That Weaponization Committee released a report this month showing the federal government routinely tasked Big Tech companies to censor conservatives on a range of topics from COVID vaccines to the Hunter Biden Laptop From Hell.
Former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss even penned an op-ed last month warning the Deep State plans to sabotage Trump’s second term.
“Even if President Trump is re-elected, his battle will have only begun,” Truss wrote in her piece “The Deep State Lies in Wait for Trump.”
“Across the West—especially the English-speaking world—there has been a shift of power away from democratically accountable officeholders to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats.”
“His second term will be much like my time in office if he doesn’t confront the entrenched bureaucracy,” she added.
Aaron Rodgers & Tucker Carlson Talk COVID Jabs, Propaganda & More
Quarterback of the NFL’s New York Jets, Aaron Rodgers, joined Tucker Carlson for a discussion released Tuesday that went on for over two hours and covered topics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the mRNA shots, censorship, propaganda and much more.
Aaron Rodgers pic.twitter.com/sYBCtOVNU2
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 14, 2024
Criticized by the establishment for speaking out against the government’s authoritarian measures during the Covid pandemic, Rodgers has refused to back down in the face of an organized disinformation campaign targeting his public image.
Instead of staying silent, Rodgers joined Carlson to gameplan how We The People can come together and have national conversations that heal the nation while uniting citizens against the globalist agenda that seeks to divide and conquer America.
Also, don’t miss the time Rodgers and Joe Rogan discussed the “Alex Jones was right” meme:
Vaccine-Injured Teacher Files First U.S. Lawsuit Against AstraZeneca, Claims Covid Jab Caused Permanent Disability
A former teacher in Utah launched a lawsuit against pharma giant AstraZeneca alleging she suffered permanent harm from the company’s Covid jab and had not received compensation for treatment.
Brianne Dressen, a 42-year-old mother-of-two, says her life has been upended since she agreed to “do her part” and participate in a 2020 clinical trial for AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine, which was recently pulled from EU countries after being linked to 80 UK deaths.
Vaccine trial patient files first US lawsuit against AstraZeneca
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) May 14, 2024
“An American woman who took part in the US clinical trial of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is suing the company, claiming it left her “permanently disabled”.
Brianne Dressen, a 42-year-old former teacher from Utah,… pic.twitter.com/uuVYOQH7PS
The Daily Mail reports:
But within days of receiving the vaccine – which was recently removed due to its links to deadly side effects – Ms Dressen developed a severe neurological condition and was hospitalized with painful sensation of pins and needles across her body.
Dressen, who now co-chairs the vaccine adverse reaction advocacy group React19, resigned from her job as a teacher after debilitating medical complications made her life a living hell, and, according to her complaint, left her “a shadow of her former self.”
“[I am] unable to work, unable to do any athletic activity, unable to parent the way [I] had, and unable to drive more than a few blocks at a time,” the complaint filed in a US District Court in Utah notes.
“I still have that horrific nightmare of the pins and needles sensation coursing through my body, head to toe, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” she described to the UK Telegraph.
“This thing took me out of my job — I’m still permanently disabled.”
Doctors say Dressen now suffers from peripheral neuropathy, meaning nerves near her brain and spinal cord are damaged, which they classified as “post-vaccine neuropathy.”
In the first lawsuit of its kind in the US, Dressen is suing AstraZeneca for breach of contract after the company failed to reimburse her for her medical bills, which are mounting to the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Dressen claims in an agreement she signed prior to the clinical trial AstraZeneca said it would “pay the costs of medical treatment for research injuries, provided that the costs are reasonable, and you did not cause the injury yourself.”
However, the company has reportedly not paid up and has instead offered a small settlement which also contained an indemnification clause.
The Mail reports: “Utah law allows those who sue for breach of contract to claim for costs resulting from the breach and for damages — which could result in a significant payout for Ms Dressen.”
According to the Telegraph, Dressen’s lawsuit does not specify an amount, but she’s reportedly seeking compensation for medical and legal expenses, emotional distress, transportation and lost income.
Earlier this year, AstraZeneca admitted their jab led to “very rare cases” of thrombosis, life-threatening blood clots tied to over 80 deaths.
The Mail reports Dressen is one of over 50 victims currently suing AstraZeneca for compensation.
An AstraZeneca spokesperson declined to comment on the litigation, instead stating, “Patient safety is our highest priority. From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.”
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.
Follow the author on X, Facebook, Gab, Minds, Truth Social and Gettr.
Consumers Are in Big Trouble
On Friday, Don Ma interviewed Peter on NTD’s Business Matters. Their conversation focuses on declining consumer sentiment. With GDP and unemployment figures also signaling a recession, a worsening consumer outlook bodes poorly for the economy.
Peter points out that consumers aren’t pessimistic enough:
“If consumers only knew just how much worse it’s going to get, confidence would be even lower. They’re actually a little bit too optimistic about the future. What they’re really concerned about is rising inflation and high interest rates, and the problem is, interest rates aren’t really high yet. And unless the Fed raises rates even more, inflation’s going much higher! So the Fed is in a box if it tries to raise consumer confidence.”
The Federal Reserve is constrained by the absurd amount of debt both consumers and the government are carrying:
“The Fed is planning on reducing rates despite the fact that rates are still too low. But the problem is, Americans have so much debt that even these low rates are too high! That’s the main reason the Fed stopped hiking— because we started to see another financial crisis as the banks started to fail. And the U.S. government is in a bind fiscally. You know, everytime the Fed raises rates, it causes the budget deficit to widen.”
Average, ordinary Americans are not doing well:
“He’s on life support right now. The consumer’s in a lot of trouble. He’s got a record amount of debt— credit card debt, household debt. Savings are totally depleted. The cost of living has skyrocketed and is going much higher, and a lot of Americans are now holding down multiple jobs just to make ends meet. … You need two or three jobs now to pay for what one job used to provide for just a few years ago.”
To top it all off, establishment economists and politicians have their heads firmly planted in the sand:
“They’re blind. We’re probably already in a recession. A lot of the numbers that we’re getting that indicate otherwise are probably going to be revised lower—probably after the election. … Powell just said at the last press conference that he doesn’t see any signs of stagnation or inflation, and he’s wrong on both counts!”
The Fed is in a tough spot: does it fight inflation at all costs, even at the expense of the financial special interests, or does it sacrifice the consumer to stave off a catastrophic banking crisis? Neither choice is pleasant, but the Fed will be forced to choose when recessionary pressures finally catch up to the American economy.
EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression