Tag: who

Ebola Was Identified Nearly 50 Years Ago — Why Are There No Treatments for the Latest Outbreak?

As health officials work to contain a growing Ebola outbreak in Central Africa, questions are resurfacing about why some strains of the virus still lack approved treatments nearly 50 years after Ebola was first identified.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported 900 suspected infections and 220 deaths through ongoing transmission of the Ebola virus in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda.

The agency warned that outbreaks in conflict-affected and resource-deprived regions can escalate quickly if containment efforts falter.

The virus was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in Zaire, now the DRC. Licensed vaccines such as Merck’s Ervebo have since shown strong protection against the Zaire strain of Ebola, responsible for major outbreaks in West Africa from 2014-2016 and the DRC from 2018-2020.

However, no approved vaccine or specific antiviral treatment yet exists for the Bundibugyo strain, which is responsible for the latest outbreak.

Public health experts say the gap reflects long-standing research priorities that have centered on the most extensive and lethal Ebola variants, leaving less common strains with fewer medical remedies.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, said Ebola vaccine development initially focused on the Zaire strain due to both its outbreak history and biodefense interest.

“Vaccines targeted to the Zaire species of Ebola were developed first because this species was the most common form of Ebola and also was the subject of Soviet bioweapons development efforts,” Adalja said.

“In recent years there have been programs developed to target the second most common form of Ebola, Sudan, and there is interest in Bundibugyo countermeasures as well.”

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., author of “Ebola: An Evolving Story,” said any countermeasures taken to combat Bundibugyo have lagged due to delayed diagnostics and overall lack of preparedness.

“Everyone pretends the pathogen surprised them,” Lyons-Weiler said. “Bundibugyo did not appear from nowhere. The time to act is before, not after.”

Keep reading

The Pandemic Agreement Fails Again

Finalization of the much-heralded Pandemic Agreement, the flagship of the World Health Organization’s pandemic agenda, has just been postponed again after another failure to resolve disagreements. Despite heavy pressure from the WHO and European Union in yet another meeting, in Geneva, Switzerland, a large bloc of African states are refusing to sign on to what they consider a clear colonialist agenda. Which of course it is, aimed at putting Covid-era wealth transfers on a more permanent footing.

The WHO, for reasons explained below, is doing what it is paid to do. Major financial sponsors of the WHO have much to gain from getting this Agreement through. It has fallen on African leaders, attuned to the model of rich countries and their corporations imposing rules designed for wealth extraction, to protect the rest of us from the farce that the current public health approach to pandemics has become.

The fact that the agency tasked with building capacity and promoting sustainability of low-income health systems is instead doing the opposite now needs to become the center issue of this whole shabby episode. It is time for the international public health community to face itself and decide on which side, people or profit, it should stand.

The Modern Basis of Multilateral Health Cooperation

There are obvious reasons for countries to cooperate in matters of health, as there are for neighbors on a suburban street. Mutual interest in facing common threats where action by neighboring States, or access to their resources, helps protect your own. Moral reasons based on the generally accepted ‘good’ of helping neighbors when they are in difficulty or lack resources through no fault of their own. Or because a stable and more prosperous neighborhood (world) is good for business, and a sick one may not be.

Cooperation is not submission, and few self-respecting people would opt for that. Mutual interests and morality all dissolve fairly quickly when cooperation becomes coercion, and the interests of the most powerful player then become the goal. Health is well-defined in the WHO’s constitution as physical, mental, and social well-being. Accordingly, it rests on economics and social capital and is degraded by poverty and inequality. Neither aspect of well-being – mental, social, or physical – is supported by forced compliance or slavery.

The basis of modern medical ethics hinges on Hippocrates’ assertions on physician conduct from around 400BC, commonly summarized as to do good rather than harm and respect a patient’s privacy (confidentiality). As a counter to fascism since the Second World War, we added voluntary informed consent (i.e. absence of coercion). This means the final decision in any aspect of medical care or intervention must rest with the individual concerned.

These basic medical ethics rest on the concept that all people are equal and their individual sovereignty (i.e. bodily autonomy) is inviolable. Accordingly, it is obviously unethical to force a person to be injected or undergo some other procedure just because someone else wants them to, or for a third person’s benefit. Unethical, that is, outside a medico-fascist or similarly authoritarian approach that post-World War Two human rights law was supposed to suppress. There were very good reasons why we stopped all that, even if it makes the streets look cleaner and we are assured it is for a “greater good.”

Keep reading

Media Spreads Hantavirus Hysteria In Attempt To Save Disgraced WHO

The establishment media has been drumming up fear after a recent outbreak of Hantavirus on a cruise liner traveling from Argentina to West Africa.  The Guardian has used the opportunity to assert that the US is currently ill equipped to deal with future pandemic threats, largely because of Donald Trump (of course) and the dramatic US exit from the now disgraced World Health Organization. 

Is Hantavirus a serious danger to the world, or, is it another hyped up virus like Covid being used to trigger public hysteria?  And if it is being hyped, who (or WHO) stands to benefit? 

For decades the WHO constructed its image as a global angel of benevolence; the primary line of defense against what they said was the inevitable invasion of a population rending plague.  However, when the time finally came in the form of a mutated Coronavirus (Covid), they dropped the ball, and evidence suggests they may have done it deliberately.

During the initial outbreak in China, the WHO echoed CCP propaganda suggesting that human-to-human contact was unlikely and, knowingly or unknowingly, aided China in hiding details behind the outbreak.  Details surrounding the involvement of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the largest dangerous disease lab in Asia, were actively dismissed (or suppressed).  Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus even praised China’s “transparency”. 

The WHO then set up a joint task force to determine the origins of Covid, only to let the Chinese dominate the investigation and lead it away from the activities at the Level 4 lab in Wuhan.  The Chinese wanted to push the theory of animal-to-animal mutation instead of the gain of function research that was ongoing at the lab (partially funded by US interests in the Obama Administration). 

Today, evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Covid originated in the Wuhan Lab.  In January 2025, the CIA assessed that a lab-related origin is more likely than natural spillover.  This determination matched with similar FBI assessments. 

In 2025, German Intelligence also reported their findings, indicating a 90% likelihood that Covid was engineered and originated at the Wuhan Lab in China.   

Of course, anyone who made this claim online during the pandemic response was called a dangerous “conspiracy theorist” and was deplatformed (much like Zero Hedge).

The WHO would go on to exaggerate the death rate of the virus, claiming an initial Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of 3.4%.  This data was based on studies which ignored mild cases as well as asymptomatic cases, thus artificially pumping up the death rate.    

Keep reading

As People Worry About the Hantavirus, Some Recall This Scary Story Out of Australia

An outbreak of the hantavirus on a cruise ship has many worried we’re about to experience COVID 2.0. The WHO said the other day that this is different, and that the hantavirus — a rat-borne illness — is better known than SARS-CoV-2 was. But with reports that almost two dozen of the cruise ship passengers have returned home, many are worried there’s another pandemic on the horizon.

This writer’s older sons, who were 13 and ten during COVID, both expressed such concerns.

We’ll see what happens, but someone raised a very interesting connection. Two years ago, more than 300 vials containing deadly viruses went missing from an Australian lab. 

Keep reading

The WHO Is Building A Supranational Vaccine Authorization Mechanism

“I need to ask someone else to take responsibility for the second part of the approvals process, so that I won’t have a conflict of interest. I’m also working with Bill Gates and the World Health Organization on the vaccine itself.”

This admission of a conflict of interest was made by Prof. Lester Schulman, secretary of the Ministry of Health’s polio committee, in March 2023, during an internal discussion about approving the importation into Israel of a new polio vaccine. The vaccine was developed and promoted by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and its approval pathway relied on a new emergency authorization mechanism the WHO has developed in recent years: the EUL (Emergency Use Listing).

Although the remark was framed as a technical aside, it was an unusual confession of a conflict of interest by the committee’s secretary. Its seriousness is compounded by the fact that it was made only after the committee had already voted by an overwhelming majority to initiate the process of bringing the vaccine to Israel, and after it had already worked vigorously to persuade the Pharmaceutical Division to cooperate.

The quotation does not appear in the official minutes of the meeting that were provided to us. It is heard on an audio recording of the session, one of several recordings passed on to us by a whistleblower. The minutes were provided only following a Freedom of Information request and subsequent litigation.

The episode is serious in its own right. But it goes far beyond a local episode of personal conflict of interest or an administrative failure within Israel’s health system. The materials point to something more consequential: the use of an international emergency authorization pathway to shape regulatory decisions inside a sovereign state, advanced through overlapping professional networks, without the organization assuming the legal responsibilities borne by national regulators. 

Keep reading

US States Are Rejoining the WHO

While the majority of Americans have undoubtedly grown weary of unelected global authorities wielding unchecked tyrannical power in the name of “health,” California Governor Gavin Newsom has just rolled out the red carpet for more of the same. In a move that would be laughable if it weren’t so brazenly dangerous, Newsom just announced that California has become the first state (not country, mind you, but state) to formally join the World Health Organization’s (WHO) international disease platform to coordinate international response to emerging public health threats known as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, or GOARN. Newsom’s move isn’t diplomacy. Instead, it’s allegiance to a pre-scripted future that is far from any voter ballot box. And the implications are staggering.

The January 23rd press release from Newsom’s office could just as easily have come straight from WHO headquarters. After personally meeting with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in Geneva to finalize the deal, California sealed its role as a “subnational leader” in global health collaboration. As expected, notably absent was any mention of voter input, legislative debate, or accountability. Why? Because in Newsom’s California, sovereignty is not something he tends to consult his people about. Instead, he effortlessly trades it in Davos.

While the Trump administration formally withdrew the United States from the WHO in January 2026—finally ending 78 years of membership and substantial financial contribution—apparently, Newsom couldn’t wait to get to the front of the line. Why? Maybe because He has long aspired to be more than just a governor. Indeed, he wants a global portfolio, and what better way than to outsource California’s health autonomy to the very same shady group behind the lockdowns, massive censorship, mask mandates, and unprecedented compliance coercion of an experimental, untested gene-therapy “vaccine”? Make no mistake. None of these decisions were founded on protecting public health.

Despite pushback from nations like the United States, the WHO is working feverishly to finalize a new set of international health regulations and a pandemic accord that would give it sweeping control over the response to future crises. And not just during pandemics. Instead, these overlord rules would apply to anything it deems to be a “public health emergency.” Such as climate change, misinformation, disobedient states, and so on. Essentially, a choose-your-own-emergency standard of governance that, instead of resisting, Newsom is volunteering California to participate.

Again, at a time when countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and even members of the African Union are pushing back against WHO overreach, one of the most powerful states in our nation is diving headfirst into a globalist experiment with no democratic oversight. In no way is this leadership by Newsom. It is obedience in disguise.

And who exactly is orchestrating this dutiful allegiance? Undoubtedly, Newsom’s friend Sir Jeremy Farrar played a role. For years, Farrar and Newsom have often joined forces on significant issues that the WHO has used to support its dictatorship. Now the WHO’s Chief Scientist, Farrar, played a starring role during COVID in pushing the lockdown narrative while also downplaying lab-leak concerns and dissenting scientific voices. Following the pandemic, Farrar and his cadre moved on to warn of future pandemics. Undoubtedly, they’re not just preparing; they are also rehearsing.

Keep reading

IT’S OFFICIAL! After 77 Years, U.S. Finally WITHDRAWS from the Globalist World Health Organization — Reclaims National Sovereignty from Unelected Bureaucrats

After 77 years, the United States has officially severed ties with the corrupt, China-influenced, and globalist-controlled World Health Organization (WHO).

President Donald Trump, fulfilling a promise he made to the American people, completed the withdrawal on Thursday, exactly one year after signing the executive order that set the wheels in motion.

The controversial Ethiopian politician and Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, practically begged the United States to rejoin the UN-run agency after Trump signed the executive order.

This bold move strips away the shackles of globalist control, ending decades of U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for an organization riddled with incompetence, bias, and failures that cost countless lives during the COVID-19 catastrophe.

The WHO, long criticized as a puppet of Communist China, bungled the early response to the Wuhan virus, parroting Beijing’s lies and pushing the experimental vaccines to the entire world.

For decades, the WHO has demanded billions of American taxpayer dollars while pushing radical agendas, failed pandemic treaties, and draconian lockdowns. They wanted to control your doctor, your medications, and your ability to travel.

Keep reading

World Health Organization Won’t Ease Coca Leaf Ban, Even As Review Found Prohibition Is More Dangerous Than The Plant

The World Health Organization had a historic opportunity to ease a strict global ban on the coca leaf—a prohibition, campaigners said, with “racist and colonial” roots. But the agency has chosen not to do so.

The WHO’s own expert review had detailed in September how millions of people across the Andes consume the coca leaf daily as part of a longstanding cultural practice without any significant negative effects—and that, conversely, coca control strategies are associated with substantial public health harms.

And yet on December 2, the WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) recommended that the plant be kept in Schedule I of United Nations drug treaties—the most restrictive category of control—because coca leaves can relatively easily be converted into cocaine.

“The simplicity of extracting cocaine from coca leaf and its high yield and profitability are well known,” the ECDD wrote. “The Committee also reviewed evidence of a marked increase in coca leaf cultivation and in the production of cocaine-related substances, in the context of significant, increasing public health concern about cocaine use. In that context, the Committee considered that reducing or removing existing international controls on coca leaf could pose an especially serious risk to public health.”

The committee noted that a 34 percent year-on-year increase in cocaine production was reported in 2023, with some countries reporting historically high levels. But reform advocates emphasize that coca is not cocaine. They insist that the WHO’s review acknowledged both the plant’s medical potential and the lack of evidence of problematic coca leaf use anywhere in the world—two key criteria a drug must satisfy to be placed in a less restrictive schedule.

“It’s unacceptable for humanity to demonize a sacred medicinal plant,” Jaison Perez Villafaña, a wisdom keeper or mamo from Colombia’s Arhuaco community, told Filter. “It was more of a political decision than a scientific one. The coca leaf (el ayu) is not itself to blame for being converted into cocaine by humans with economic interests.”

The ECDD said it recognized that “coca leaf has an important cultural and therapeutic significance for Indigenous peoples and other communities and that there are exemptions for traditional use of coca leaf in certain national frameworks.” A coalition of Indigenous coca leaf producers and consumers wrote to the WHO in October urging the UN body to “clearly differentiate” between traditional coca use and issues associated with cocaine.

Steve Rolles, senior policy analyst at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, called the WHO’s suggestion that keeping coca in Schedule 1 would restrict cocaine production “ridiculous,” saying the decision exposed “the moral and scientific bankruptcy pervading the entire system” of global drug control.

“Whilst we may expect decisions like this to emerge from political bodies subsumed within entrenched ‘war on drugs’ narratives, there was a hope that the more objective, scientific, and nominally independent corners of the UN would maintain a degree of pragmatism and principle—even if their recommendations were later rejected by UN political entities,” he wrote on LinkedIn.

Keep reading

WHO–Gates Unveils Blueprint For Global Digital ID, AI-Driven Surveillance, & Life-Long Vaccine Tracking For Everyone

In a document published in the October Bulletin of the World Health Organization and funded by the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO) is proposing a globally interoperable digital-identity infrastructure that permanently tracks every individual’s vaccination status from birth.

The dystopian proposal raises far more than privacy and autonomy concerns: it establishes the architecture for government overreach, cross-domain profiling, AI-driven behavioral targeting, conditional access to services, and a globally interoperable surveillance grid tracking individuals.

It also creates unprecedented risks in data security, accountability, and mission creep, enabling a digital control system that reaches into every sector of life.

Keep reading

Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“Canada’s health policies must reflect the needs, desires, and freedoms of Canadians – not the mandates of distant bureaucrats in Geneva or global elites in Davos. A free and democratic Canada requires vigilance and action on the part of Canadians. The time to act is now” he wrote. 

Keep reading