Tag: who

Doctor warns of ‘cancer tsunami’ as WHO projects sharp rise in cases by 2050

A new report from the World Health Organization warns that the number of people diagnosed with cancer each year is expected to surge over the next quarter-century.

The report projects annual cancer diagnoses will climb from about 20 million today to nearly 35 million by 2050.

While some cancers are declining thanks to prevention efforts, experts warn aging populations, rising obesity rates and other risk factors will place unprecedented pressure on health-care systems around the world.

“We need to focus attention on what some people are calling the cancer tsunami,” said Dr. Peter Stotland, chief of surgery and a surgical oncologist at North York General Hospital.

Stotland told Global News the findings mirror what doctors are already seeing in Canada.

“We’re seeing just higher numbers of people coming in with cancer,” he said, pointing to an aging population that is expected to drive increases in lung, prostate and colorectal cancers.

“I think it’s shocking because this is something that we’re seeing on a regional, provincial level and a national level,” he said.

At the same time, doctors are also seeing more young people diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

“We can be seeing two spikes… one in older people and another in younger people with cancer,” he said. “That’s going to put a lot of stress on the health-care system.”

Keep reading

Officials urge WHO to declare climate change a global health emergency

Climate change should now be treated as a global health emergency comparable to Ebola and mpox, European ministers and health officials have told the WHO. 

The Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health, an independent group of experts convened by former Icelandic Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir and WHO Europe chief Hans Kluge, urged governments to speed the shift to clean renewables to help avert millions of deaths in a new report.

The group said the WHO should declare the climate crisis a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC), a high-level alert most recently activated for the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as for mpox.

The experts said the move was critical since even temperate European countries are warming rapidly, driven largely by fossil fuel combustion. According to the report, fossil fuel subsidies in 12 European countries amounted to more than 10% of their public health budgets.

Kluge, who supported the call, said that “climate change is a security threat, a health emergency and an economic time bomb, all rolled into one.” 

He previously told Euractiv that climate change will have to become a much bigger priority for the European region, explaining that “for the first time in history, Iceland has mosquitoes.”

The experts pointed to several health concerns linked to climate change in the report: extreme heat, vector-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya, air pollution-related deaths, and water contamination from flooding. 

The experts’ prognosis was not entirely grim, however, adding that there’s still a window of time to act.

For healthcare systems, they suggested setting up greener procurement standards to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, creating more resilient systems to shocks like floods, as well as training staff around climate awareness.  

EU governments, on top of phasing out fossil fuel use, should invest in public transit, create more low-emission zones, and switch away from resource-heavy red meat consumption, they added. 

The bloc’s recent progress has fallen short of both UN climate targets and its own ambitions. Most countries are still far from reaching tougher pollution targets by 2030 under the bloc’s revised air quality rules.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates that air pollution is behind around 350,000 deaths in Europe every year.

EU officials are currently in Geneva for the WHO’s annual assembly, where the commission launched its report. 

Keep reading

New NIAID Director John Powers Is a Former World Health Organization Advisor

Dr. John H. Powers III, M.D., appointed Acting Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) this month, served as an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) on antimicrobial resistance policy.

Powers now leads the $6.6 billion institute responsible for funding experiments and publications on pandemic pathogens.

Congress has declared that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic—the greatest health crisis in recent history—“was an abject failure” and that its international efforts “may harm the United States.”

More than half of Americans believe the WHO did a “poor or fair job” during the pandemic, according to an April 2021 Social Science Quarterly publication.

And less than half of Americans believe the WHO acts independently of political agendas.

Critics of global health organizations have raised concerns about placing individuals with ties to unelected foreign bodies like the WHO in senior U.S. government positions that influence domestic policy and taxpayer-funded research.

Keep reading

WHO Doubles Down On Global Vaccine Agenda 2030: More Shots, More “Misinformation” Crackdowns, And Zero Accountability For Harms

In a message released this week, Dr. Kate O’Brien, Director of the World Health Organization’s Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, delivered a clear warning to the world: the globalist vaccine agenda is not slowing down — it’s accelerating.

Marking the halfway point of the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) at the 79th World Health Assembly, O’Brien and global health partners recommitted to “reaching everyone, everywhere with life-saving vaccines.” They called immunization the “most powerful, cost-effective and equitable health intervention” and positioned strong vaccine programs as the cornerstone of “global health security” and emergency preparedness.

O’Brien openly admits routine immunization coverage is slipping in many countries, outbreaks of “vaccine-preventable diseases” are spreading, and inequities are worsening. But instead of pausing to examine why public trust has collapsed, the WHO’s solution is to blame “misinformation,” push harder for catch-up campaigns like “The Big Catch-Up,” and prepare for the next round of rapid vaccine deployment during inevitable (or planned?) “future shocks.”

She explicitly calls for efforts to “debunk misinformation,” “build up trust,” and integrate surveillance, immunization, and emergency response systems. In plain English that means more censorship, more behavioral nudges, and tighter coordination between governments, Big Pharma, and international bodies to ensure compliance.

This comes after the highly controversial COVID-19 vaccine rollout — the most heavily promoted, mandated, and profitable pharmaceutical campaign in history — which left millions reporting injuries, excess deaths in highly vaccinated populations, and risks for myocarditis, neurological issues and fertility impacts that were dismissed or downplayed for years despite being legitimate concerns.

Keep reading

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