What’s Up at the WHO? Part 1

If everybody doesn’t wake up we’re going back to the feudal system“.

Veteran journalist Christine Dolan of CD Media interviewed public health physician/scientist Dr David Bell recently, who has outlined what the World Health Organisation’s pending power grab means for the world. Notes of summary below.

  • Dr Bell has worked with the WHO and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other international bodies. He has expertise in infectious diseases, specifically malaria, and he now works with Pandemics Data and Analytics (PANDA) and The Brownstone Institute.
  • World Health Organisation’s Constitution was written in 1946, at the same time as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the aim of preventing a return to colonialism, totalitarianism and fascism.
  • WHO is governed by a World Health Assembly, where each nation has one vote.
  • Funding was initially based on contributions by member nations, set by the GDP of each individual nation. All of the money came from member nations. Priorities were set by the WHA, and tended to be in the poorest nations, with population health as the focus.
  • Things changed around the year 2000 when public-private partnerships began contributing, bringing much more money into WHO but changing the priorities as vested interests now influence the focus of work, and essentially resulting in staff being privately funded, working on privately-designated projects.
  • This results in donors in one location, determining the priorities of projects being run in different places.
  • Staff go along with what donors want over what might be best for beneficiaries, to save their own security.
  • Christine discovered that the Gates Foundation were funding programs in India ostensibly to fight human trafficking, when in fact the money was going to NGOs to legalise prostitution. “Sometimes it looks good on paper but it can be nefarious without accountability“.
  • In the original WHO constitution, it was stated that one of the roles was to advise countries on outbreaks etc, but only a small role because pandemics are very rare and kill very few people compared to other diseases.
  • However, you can make a lot of money out of pandemics, eg Covid has created a record shift in wealth. Mass vaccination equals mass profit.
  • Bill Gates announced about ten years ago, that “this will be the decade of vaccines”.
  • Vaccines are not intrinsically bad, but the vast majority of improved health in wealthy countries occurred pre-vaccines, with improved living conditions. This is a well known public health fact.
  • The pharmaceutical industry have a huge impact, and far more than they should have, on global health.
  • GAVI the Vaccine Alliance was created by private interests including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and is a financing mechanism for vaccines.
  • CEPI was set up in 2017 at the World Economic Forum, by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, India and Norway governments, with a focus on pandemics, which makes no sense given how rare they are, unless you are interested in making money out of investments in pharmaceuticals, particularly vaccines.
  • The big money spinner is getting a mass vaccine out to a whole population very quickly, which you can do if you make people concerned enough about a proclaimed outbreak.
  • Global health is skewed towards this relatively small area in terms of health burden, but which is very profitable.
  • The primary purpose of vaccine companies is to make money for their shareholders.
  • GAVI and CEPI have similar budgets to WHO, and are now on the executive board of WHO, giving them significant influence over WHO’s agenda.

What it’s like to work for WHO

  • The benefits are extreme, such as covering a large portion of your children’s education expenses to PhD level; comfortable lifestyles; business class travel; good health benefits; living in another country with expenses covered, etc.
  • People join these organisations with good intention but end up influenced by other incentives to go along, or not risk your salary and position.
  • This can end up with staff doing anything to protect the reputation of the institution which employs them, and also influenced by donor priorities.
  • WHO has transformed over years from a community-centred organisation addressing the highest disease burdens, to an organisation that is directed by donors with clear conflicts of interest in selling health-related commodities.
  • This has also happened with UNICEF, whose role is a focus on child health, who are now implementing mass vaccinations in low income countries – much of their resources go to a disease which almost exclusively impacts older people, and for which most people are now immune.
  • There is no good public health justification now, to be vaccinating people in most poor countries.
  • UNICEF have however stated that they plan to mass-administer mRNA vaccines to children across sub-Saharan Africa.

International Health Regulations

  • After SARS1 in 2002, the public health world became interested in pandemics.
  • Many public health jobs are not very exciting and don’t have media attention; but when an outbreak such as SARS happens, the attention shifts and people become very excited.
  • The International Health Regulations were intended to strengthen the position of WHO as the sole arbiter of how to respond to an outbreak.
  • Provisions in the IHR from 2005 are incompatible with democratic principles, but they give WHO power (currently still only recommendations) to say what should be done in a pandemic.
  • Today amendments are underway for the IHR, which exist as an international law, or a treaty between countries.
  • These amendments have been drafted over the past 2 years, and will be presented at the WHA in May this year.
  • A new WHO Treaty is also being drafted, which is essentially trying to do the same thing as the IHR amendments.
  • Under the auspices of health, these changes to WHO’s legal structure plan to give away national sovereignty to the United Nations (WHO).
  • A One Health model is behind the plans, whereby WHO will take control of animal-plant-planetary and human health (last week Tedros, the Director-General of WHO, announced concerns that avian influenza is circulating amongst mammals including sea lions, minks, otters and foxes: which means that someone is going out and testing these animals!!).
  • As an existing law, the IHR amendments only need 50% of member state votes in favour, to pass into law.
  • It is almost stupid to think these IHRs will pass into law, but the last 3 years have shown how stupid things can happen.
  • The changes include:
    • Scope has extended from “an outbreak” to “the risk of an outbreak” giving the Director-General powers to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), which then triggers various powers within the IHR.
    • The Director-General doesn’t have to consult with anyone, and noone has to be sick, for various surveillance powers to be put into place.
    • Every country needs to have a strong surveillance network in place, which will be assessed regularly by WHO. A mechanism such as this will inevitably find new viruses because when you look for viruses you find them, and all viruses mutate. But now, any change in a virus can be deemed a potential “outbreak”. We have already seen this, with Monkeypox already declared a PHEIC, with only 5 deaths in the global population.
    • Strong surveillance systems will result in ongoing contact tracing, quarantine requirements etc.
    • At the same time as planning this surveillance state, the amendments plan to remove the phrase, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons”. This removes the UN’s basic human rights precepts of equality of all human life. This is the UN undoing the basic precepts on which it was formed, after the fascism and colonialism that they specifically rejected, and putting back in place, the original powers of colonialism.
    • The IHR amendments talk about health technologies as intellectual property, allowing WHO to demand the manufacturing capacity of one country be given to another (intellectual property law changes). It removes intellectual property rights, upon which commerce is based.
    • It is an extraordinary document, undoing the very basis of the legal systems that we developed for individual rights, corporate rights, etc. It makes sense if you understand that it is being pushed by multinational companies who have no interest in the member states or citizens of states.
    • A provision for WHO to censor dissenting voices.
    • The WHO Director General will have power to control individual travel rights, impose quarantine requirements, and demand compliance with a wide range of corporate products (eg tests, masks, vaccines, preventive drugs, treatment drugs, digital identification systems).
    • People who have created such enormous problems during Covid are planning to establish further powers.
    • Until recently claims that “masks don’t impact transmission of respiratory viruses” were labelled “misinformation”, yet the recently published Cochrane Review on Masks confirms this previously established fact. This is an example of the fact that censorship has nothing to do with public health, and everything to do with control. Under the IHR amendments anyone offering different evidence will be shut down.
  • This may be corrupt, gross ignorance, a power grab, well meaning people with no idea what they are doing who don’t listen to anyone: many people involved need their salary, don’t want to be extradited from the country they are based in, or lose the other benefits that are keeping them in the system that is doing this to the world population. So not everyone involved is evil.
  • Those making changes to the IHR seem to be disconnected from human rights principles. They are not hiding their plans, showing that they are completely confident about what they are doing.
  • The media are not paying attention to it, which is related to reasons for media behaviour over the past three years: cheering on mandates, mass unemployment, mass malnutrition in Africa in the name of doing what the large corporations and wealthy individuals who sponsor the media, want. This allows people to be very open about their plans, knowing there will be almost no push back.
  • We need international health organisations, but there need to be strong rules around conflicts of interest and very strong boundaries, so massive reform is needed.
  • The changes these amendments will bring, will likely be ratified in at least some countries, particularly low and middle income countries who are so vulnerable to exploitation.
  • If people remain ignorant about this, it will happen.
  • Go to your local MPs, let them know you are aware and concerned.
  • Get away from mainstream media in order to learn what is happening.
  • Join groups who are active against it such as Panda, Brownstone Institute, World Council for Health, and look at James Roguski’s work.
  • These changes are likely to go through in May unless there is enough opposition. If that happens, then we will inevitably have rolling lockdowns, vaccine mandates, travel restrictions etc. This will inevitably worsen public health overall, as seen through Covid; poverty will increase; inequality will increase as wealth concentrates into fewer hands as happened through Covid. Fundamentally society will become unstable, and lose basic democratic norms. We must fight against it.
  • The people doing this are determined to change the landscape and culture of society. They are doing it in plain sight, and letting us know their intent. Most people don’t want it, but need to wake up and take notice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s