Tag: who

WHO Triggers Emergency Use Listing for Monkeypox Vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) today triggered the process to grant Emergency Use Listing to two monkeypox vaccines.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told the media the listing will accelerate vaccine access in lower-income countries that have not yet approved the drugs.

“Emergency Use Listing also enables partners including Gavi and UNICEF to procure vaccines for distribution,” Tedros said. He also said he would convene an expert group to determine if the spread of monkeypox — renamed mpox — in Africa should be declared a global emergency.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF are funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The WHO uses the Emergency Use Listing process to help member states that haven’t already authorized unlicensed vaccines, therapeutics and tests speed up their processes for authorizing them.

During the COVID-19 pandemic Emergency Use Listing was a key mechanism used by member states without structures for granting emergency use authorization to drugs to authorize and distribute the vaccines, working together with the WHO, Gavi and UNICEF, Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones reported.

Tedros said the Emergency Use Listing helps those same partners procure vaccines for distribution, and that countries like Japan, the U.S. and the European Union are supporting the effort through donations.

He said the Democratic Republic of the Congo is experiencing a severe outbreak of mpox, with 14,000 cases and 511 deaths. Although cases have existed there for decades, the numbers are rising and spreading to new provinces, he said.

Keep reading

WHO Director Considers Declaring Public Health Emergency Over Mpox Virus Outbreak

The World Health Organization’s director-general said the United Nations health body is considering declaring an emergency for mpox, also known as monkeypox, amid an outbreak in Africa.

“But more funding and support for a comprehensive response are needed,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote on the social media platform X on Sunday. “I am considering convening an International Health Regulations emergency committee to advise me on whether the outbreak of mpox should be declared a public health emergency of international concern.”

By Tuesday, it was unclear when the WHO would declare the emergency or issue any warnings about the virus.

A statement from Tedros published by the journal Science added that “this virus can and must be contained with intensified public health measures including surveillance, community engagement, treatment and targeted deployment of vaccines for those at higher risk of infection.”

“A further scaling up of the mpox response underway in affected countries is urgently needed amid the expanding outbreak,” his statement said, calling for “more funding for a comprehensive response” that factors in diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.

A public health emergency of international concern is the strongest designation for an outbreak. Notably, such a declaration was made for COVID-19 during the early onset of the pandemic in 2020.

Keep reading

World Health Organization Fails Miserably at Pandemic Response

As of January 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) had 26,127 employees. The WHO’s staff work in 147 country offices, six regional offices, and at the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Their work includes advising ministries of health, supporting health programs, and responding to emergencies. The WHO’s staff includes:

  • Public health experts: Doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, and managers
  • Secretariat staff: Experts, staff, and field workers at the headquarters
  • Regional Directors: Lead the work of the regional offices and their country offices 

The WHO is a behemoth that failed miserably on all aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Please listen to the short summary of how the WHO misled the world and worked to worsen misery, hospitalization, and death. Additionally, the organization has misled the world on the Monkeypox “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” and the emerging government-manufactured bird flu outbreak. Now the WHO wants even more power and resources. I told the Sovereignty Summit 2.0 we should pull out of the organization. I will not follow WHO directives in clinical practice.

Keep reading

The bureaucratic infrastructure that enables the implementation of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) and the “de facto” ceding of national sovereignty

First a little context:

Adherence to the existing IHR’s with enforcement at the country, state, city and local level, resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people around the world directly, and untold millions indirectly, via the second order effects of starvation and business failures. This genocide was paid for with trillions of dollars of debt that has been completely wasted on consuming scarce resources for all the paraphernalia and toxic injections used.

The changes to the WHO IHR now include the term “gene therapy” for treatment of pandemics.

Take a look at how the EU operates a similar system.

The European Union Commission uses “Directives” to implement the policy choices of the EU Council of Leaders which are then ratified by the EU Parliament.

The U has THREE presidents!

From here:

What are EU directives? – UK in a changing Europe (ukandeu.ac.uk)

“Directives are the most common form of EU legal act. In contrast to a regulation, a directive does not apply directly at the national level. Instead, an EU directive sets out an objective to be achieved, and it is then left to the individual countries to achieve this objective however they see fit.

This takes place through a process called ‘transposition’, which essentially translates an EU directive into national legislation.”

Pay particular attention to that last sentence.

You can compare and contrast that with mechanisms in other democracies and the second round impacts on “third” countries of compliance with the EU when engaging in trade and tourism.

Keep reading

WHO director-general wants to intensify SMEAR CAMPAIGN against anti-vaccine movements

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called for a more aggressive approach to counteract anti-vaccine movements.

Tedros made this remark during a WHO celebration honoring so-called achievements in the 50 years since the organization launched the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). During the celebration in Geneva, Switzerland, Tedros declared that “vaccines are among the most powerful inventions in history.”

“Thanks to vaccines, the smallpox has been eradicated, polio is on the brink and many one-sphere diseases can now be easily prevented, including measles, cervical cancer, yellow fever, pneumonia and diarrhea. With the recent development of vaccines against diseases like malaria, millions more lives can be saved,” said Tedros.

“In 1974 fewer than five percent of infants globally were vaccinated. Millions died of diseases such as measles, polio and diphtheria. That was the year WHO launched the expanded program on immunization, or EPI as we all know. Today, about 84 percent of the world’s children have received three doses of the vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and diseases which were once a death sentence: smallpox,” he continued.

“EPI supported countries to establish standardized vaccination programs [on] smallpox and six other diseases, diphtheria, measles, pertussis, polio, tetanus and tuberculosis. These programs do far more than ever imagined,” said Tedros. “Fifty years ago, the EPI program helped millions of children, adolescents and adults access vaccines against 30 diseases, [now,] a new study led by WHO estimates that the EPI has saved at least 154 million lives since 1974 an average of more than 8000 lives a day for the past 50 years. Thanks to immunization, a child born today is 40 percent more likely to see their first birthday than a child born 50 years ago.”

Keep reading

New IHR Amendments Pave The Way To Perpetual Pandemic Emergencies

The 77th session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) just concluded at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It originally intended to adopt a new pandemic treaty and amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) that would tie country responses to the decisions of WHO’s Director-General. In the end, it kicked one can down the road for a year, and partly filled another. The mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was extended to continue negotiation on the wording of the new treaty (‘Pandemic Agreement’), and the Assembly adopted a limited package of binding and non-binding amendments to the IHR. This outcome, reached during the very last hours, is disappointing from many viewpoints, yet was not unexpected.

Both texts were pushed in unusual haste by those who advised, supported and mandated catastrophic public health responses to Covid-19. Ignoring Covid’s probable lab-based origins, the official narrative backing the measures remains that “the world is unprepared for the next pandemic”. Spending over $30 billion per year on surveillance and other measures aimed solely at natural outbreaks will somehow fix this.

Keep reading

All Eyes on Geneva

The 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) started on 27th May until 1st June in Geneva (Switzerland) at the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO). All eyes are watching what will be happening this week regarding the future of the two pandemic draft texts, the draft amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and the draft Pandemic Agreement. Related reports will be considered on Tuesday afternoon (Items 13.4 and 13.3).

The negotiations of these texts are probably the most closely watched ever intergovernmental processes. They also mark a clear division of the points of view of the “elite” on one side and the people on the other side. Health bureaucrats, politicians in power, and the mainstream media keep repeating messages on how the world urgently needs to be better prepared for future harmful and more devastating pandemics.

The people notably expressed themselves through this open letter endorsed by more than 15,000 signatures, demanding accountability and rejecting authoritarian, large-scale, one-size-fits-all responses known during the catastrophic Covid response. They just emerged from that deeply hurt, impoverished, and unfairly disadvantaged; while the majority of Covid decision-makers continue to be in charge.

On the first day of the 77th WHA, it was announced that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) did not reach a consensus. Therefore, the final draft will likely not be voted on. The decision to launch the negotiation for a pandemic agreement was reached by consensus and announced by the WHO that it would be conducted under Article 19 of WHO’s Constitution: 

Article 19 (WHO’s Constitution)

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.

A two-thirds majority of the WHO’s 194 Member States present and voting (one Member one vote, abstaining votes not counted – Rule 69) is required to pass such a text, according to the Rules of procedure of the WHA (Rule 70).

Keep reading

Globalists gather in Geneva to plan new pandemic treaty

We just landed in Geneva, Switzerland, and are reporting to you from outside the United Nations’ office here. We’ve come here because this is where an international body is attempting to rewrite Canadian law — let me explain.

The World Health Organization is a part of the United Nations. It’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, effectively ordered the world to lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Theresa Tam, Canada’s public health officer, was part of the WHO’s committees that helped throw the world into that lockdown chaos.

Well, Theresa Tam is back. She’s here with people from around the world — none of them elected — to pass a pandemic treaty. It’s like the COVID-19 pandemic was a test drive; some things they got wrong, some things they got right. They want to codify this in a treaty so that when the next one comes — and they say there will be a next one — they can snap in a global response.

And that response is drafted here at the United Nations, not back home in Ottawa or London or Canberra or Washington.

Keep reading

WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is dead and the amended IHR has been all but neutralised

On Friday, as the International Negotiating Body were admitting that they were unable to reach an agreement on the text of the Pandemic Treaty, corporate media were trying to salvage whatever credibility the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) pandemic plans had left, if any.

Writing for The New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli’s article ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous, according to Dr. Mery Nass.

‘Countries Fail to Agree on Treaty to Prepare the World for the Next Pandemic’, The New York Times headed its article.  Followed by the lede: “Negotiators plan to ask for more time. Among the sticking points are equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

WHO was hoping to present two pandemic instruments to the 77th World Health Assembly (“WHA77”) for adoption.  One is the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Accord, and the other is the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).

“Negotiators had hoped to adopt the treaty this week,” The New York Times noted, “But cancelled meetings and fractious debates – sometimes over a single word – stalled agreement on key sections, including equitable access to vaccines.”

But regarding the IHR amendments, The New York Times only made one small mention: “The countries are also working on bolstering the WHO’s International Health Regulations, which were last revised in 2005 and set detailed rules for countries to follow in the event of an outbreak that may breach borders.”

The New York Times followed the corporate media line that we’ve been witnessing of late, fear-mongering about a bird flu outbreak.  The author of the article, Apoorva Mandavilli, also threw in mpox (formerly called monkeypox) and smallpox for good measure. The “fear” of both had made a comeback in the press during the first half of 2022 before being stomped out fairly quickly by pesky “conspiracy theorists” but it seems they could be resurrected again.

Keep reading

Corporate media is ramping up the fear about bird flu ahead of the vote on WHO’s pandemic plans

Health officials are issuing very ominous warnings about the potential for an H5N1 (bird flu or avian influenza) pandemic among humans at the same time that the WHO is preparing for a vote on the global pandemic treaty at the 77th World Health Assembly at the end of this month. 

The global pandemic treaty will give the World Health Organisation far more authority than it had during the last pandemic, and a lot of people are deeply concerned about how that power will be used during the next major health crisis. 

As you will see below, two more human cases of the bird flu have just been confirmed.  If the bird flu mutates into a form that can spread easily from human to human, that will create an enormous amount of fear, and the death toll could potentially be catastrophic.  In such an environment, what sort of extreme measures would the World Health Organisation decide to institute?

In recent weeks, negotiators have been feverishly working to finalise the global pandemic treaty.  The following comes directly from the official WHO website:

Governments of the world today agreed to continue working on a proposed pandemic agreement, and to further refine the draft, ahead of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly that starts 27 May 2024.

Governments meeting at the World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over coming weeks to advance work on critical issues, including around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.Governments agree to continue their steady progress on proposed pandemic agreement ahead of the World Health Assembly, WHO, 10 May 2024

Here in the United States, the corporate media has been strangely quiet about this treaty, but it is a really big deal.

Keep reading