Tag: who

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

W.H.O. Seeks $7 Billion After Latest Pandemic Treaty Draft Collapses

The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) on Sunday launched a new financing mechanism seeking $7 billion in donations it claims can be quickly deployed without strings attached.

Fresh staffing hires for the Geneva, Switzerland-based organization are at the top of the to-do list once funds are secured, adding to the 8,000-plus already on the payroll.

The call for funding contributions came as the W.H.O. begins its annual meeting on Monday with government ministers and health bureaucrats hoping to reinforce global preparedness for the next pandemic in the devastating wake of coronavirus, AP reports.

It follows the W.H.O.’s comprehensive failure to secure a global treaty on future pandemic responses after two years of closed-door meetings, as Breitbart News reported.

Keep reading

A World State Through the Back Door?

What is going on with the World Health Organisation? In December 2021 it began to talk about a global pandemic treaty. And now an International Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response will be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly between May 27th and June 1st: that is, next week. In the Daily Sceptic David Bell has done good work in going through the articles of the draft treaty, and also noting that we should read the amendments to the International Health Regulations too. But I want to ask a broader question. Is this a world state through the back door?

No one spoke about a world state much — except dismissively — until the early 20th century. H.G. Wells was fond of the idea. It was a modish subject at around the time of the formation of the League of Nations and again around the time of the formation of the United Nations, though, interestingly, it was usually dismissed. In the last 30 years the question of a world state has returned, though the answer is usually still negative.

However, one of the fundamental laws of politics is, and has been ever since Thucydides — or Augustus — that a thing can be one thing and yet can be called another thing. Politics is, as everyone has known since before Socrates, a rhetorical art: and the art of rhetoric involves all manner of minimisations, exaggerations, substitutions, reversals, redescriptions.

So what has happened in the last 30 years is not that we have become enthusiasts for something called a world state, but that we have become enthusiasts for something that we by and large do not want to call a world state while hoping — consciously, unconsciously — that it will be a world state.

Consciously: here I refer to the hypocrites, who want a world state but know they should not say so.

Keep reading

By month’s end, WHO seeks to pass Orwellian pandemic treaty to implement algorithmic surveillance and control systems worldwide

The World Health Organization (WHO) body of experts are set to convene in Geneva, Switzerland, at their 77th World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1, 2024. At the assembly, WHO’s member countries will cast their votes on the final version of the agency’s “pandemic agreement.”

This agreement will give the beleaguered agency more power over sovereign nations, including the power to order targeted lockdowns and mitigation measures. The agreement will allow a global body of experts to use surveillance tools and implement broader mandates for PCR testing, masks, so-called vaccines and other countermeasures. Right now WHO is developing a standardized algorithm to quantify airborne transmission risk to dictate public policies on human interactions.

WHO’s psychotic ARIA tool doubles down on germaphobia, analyzes aerosols and micromanages human activity

WHO is currently collaborating with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to develop an online tool [PDF] that will evaluate and predict risks associated with future airborne virus transmission across various public and private settings. This surveillance tool, named ARIA, will model the hypothetical spread of airborne pathogens in indoor settings, so WHO can craft precise directives on mitigation measures for business owners, households, healthcare centers and others indoor venues.

According to WHO, ARIA was developed by “a global group of experts” who conducted a “comprehensive review of the scientific literature.” Again and again, we are told to “trust the experts” – even though WHO’s guidance has caused significant damage to families, economies and livelihoods worldwide.

Keep reading

A call for people worldwide to stand with Japan against WHO’s public health dictatorship

Last month, tens of thousands of citizens across Japan came together in a series of pandemic rallies. The protests centred on the widespread opposition to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) Pandemic Treaty, with escalating concerns over “infectious disease” and “public health” becoming potent tools for an unprecedented push towards what is perceived by many as a totalitarian surveillance society.

Eminent speakers, including Professor Masayasu Inoue and modern history researcher Chikatsu Hayashi, provided compelling pre-demonstration speeches that laid bare the concerning dynamics between global health authorities and pharmaceutical agendas.

A month later, on Monday, a press conference was broadcast on Twitter.  Below is a video clip from the press conference where Hayashi launched ‘The National Movement to Save Lives from the WHO’, explained the motivations behind the Movement and announced a protest that will take place on the first day of WHO’s 77th World Health Assembly.

Keep reading