Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Public Health

The World Bank Pandemic Fund, which claims a need for $10.5 billion per year, is already in place. The money will come from national governments (ie taxpayers) and be channelled through the pharmaceutical industry and other corporate structures for profit. Currently WHO’s budget is less than $4 billion annually for all programs (non-communicable disease, TB, HIV, Malaria, maternal and child health, etc).

So they intend to “need” more than double what is currently spent on all health programs, for pandemic emergencies. This is because covid has proven to be a goldrush which they don’t intend to surrender. Pandemics are an extremely rare event and have been misappropriated for profit and power. The plans being concocted, including during meetings held away from the public eye, should be of concern to anyone with an interest in protecting democratic values.

World Council for Health have just released an excellent report titled Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Public Health: On the proposed IHR amendments (2005) and WHO Treaty. Proposed legal frameworks at WHO (amendments to the existing International Health Regulations and a new ‘treaty’, the WHO CA+) will establish WHO as the technical partner to World Bank on pandemic emergencies. WHO and World Bank are both specialised agencies within the United Nations.

The World Council for Health report (attached below) covers the following.

On the International Health Regulation (IHR 2005) amendments:

  • Mandatory measures and state sovereignty
    Recommendations by WHO’s Director General will become legally binding such that governments cannot decline. The Director-General’s powers will expand significantly, eg rather than an actual pandemic (the definition for which has been extremely watered down anyway), demands can be made based on potential pandemics. Demands can include mandatory physical examination, laboratory analysis, vaccination and other medical substances with proof of compliance via digital certificates.
  • Digital certificates and locator forms
    These can ensure mass compliance with centralised directives and mandates. Empowerment of the few and submission of the masses.
  • Countering dissent globally
    Strengthened capacity for WHO to “counter misinformation and disinformation”, because these impede compliance. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press will be balanced with what WHO say is the truth. The report highlights the various errors that WHO made during covid. Their errors will be established as unquestionable truth.
  • Cartel rights and regulation
    WHO will control identification, production and allocation of health products. Regulatory guidelines will be controlled by WHO. Their close partner CEPI are intending for vaccine development to take 100 days. This will dismantle clinical trial standards including safety, efficacy and long term monitoring.
    National governments will not cause impediment to WHO’s mechanism and if they object, WHO’s emergency committee will make the final decision.
  • Unsolicited offers and obligations to cooperate
    National governments will be obliged to accept or reject “assistance” from WHO within 48 hours and if it is rejected, the state will be obliged to provide their rationale to WHO.
  • Sharing of pathogen samples and genetic sequence data
    The amendments relating to this are contradictory but it reads as though governments will be obliged to share samples and data with WHO under the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System or PABS (see information on the WHO CA+)
  • Discarding human rights
    India recommended amending the first guiding principle of the IHR to remove the words “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”. This is underpinned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The proposed amendment appears to have caused enough opposition that it will not be adopted.

On the Pandemic Treaty/Accord (WHO CA+)

  • This new instrument is complementary to the IHR regulations. If adopted the WHO CA+ will establish a new supranational bureaucracy governed by the Conference of Parties (COP) which would be the sole decision-making organ in matters relating to the WHO CA+.
  • Recognising the authority of WHO and global health governance
    If adopted, the WHO CA+ would cede a significant and inappropriate amount of authority to WHO (an unelected body). Parties to the treaty would be required to recognise WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on global health”. The report argues that “given the compromised, unelected and unaccountable nature of the WHO, no such generalised authority should be ceded to the organization”.
    Parties to the WHO CA+ will be obliged to contribute research into why recommendations are not being complied with so that compliance can be increased.
  • Tackling dissenting views globally and identification of profiles
    Parties will be required to tackle what WHO determines to be false or misleading misinformation / disinformation, and also to “identify profiles of misinformation”. Neither the IHR amendments or the WHO CA+ recognise the misinformation and disinformation put out by WHO during and beyond the Covid pandemic. WHO will become the abitrator of truth.
  • WHO Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network
    The unelected, unaccountable and compromised nature of WHO raises doubt that they should be entrusted with this role, nor any other centralised authority.
    It is apparent that instead of distributing products that work best and have highest safety profiles, which is often existing, repurposed drugs, WHO would push the most profitable products, regardless of benefit or risk.
    Diverse charitable organisations would be better placed to manage this issue, for a number of reasons.
  • Standardisation of regulation and acceleration of approval
    This corresponds with CEPI’s aim to reduce vaccine development and approval to a mere 100 days.
    COVID has shown us that accelerated approval of novel, profitable products carries significant and potentially fatal risks.
    Today, world-renowned physicians and scientists are calling for the withdrawal of the mRNA products but being heavily censored and individuals who did not agree to being injected faced pronounced consequences.
  • Support for gain-of-function research
    WHO continue to support gain-of-function research despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 which killed up to 6.8m people, seems to have been scientifically engineered. There are very real biosafety hazards associated with this research.
  • Sharing of pathogen samples and genetic sequence data
    As proposed within the WHO CA+ system, data would be shared to all governments – including dictatorships, nations at war and state sponsors of terrorism. The draft document does not address these significant security issues, making the proposed PABS system a further biosecurity risk.
  • One Health and pandemic/epidemic root cause analysis
    The wellbeing of humans, animals and ecosystems are closely linked, but WHO are trying to misappropriate this understanding for their own political ends. The document outlines how, including a dishonest appraisal by the WHO Director General regarding the threat of pandemics, which are not at all common, and the threats of nature, which are exaggerated whilst ignoring the benefits of nature. For example, avian influenza found in nature tends to be of low risk and low prevalence but when it finds it’s way to intensive factory farms, it evolves into a higher risk virus.
    Factory farming is a significant driver of antimicrobial resistance because of the unsanitary conditions requiring the use of antibiotics. In 2019 alone, antimicrobial resistance is thought to have killed 1.27 million people.
    The One Health approach proposed by the WHO CA+ is a distorted perspective of a real problem.

On Rejecting Monopoly Power

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned a century ago that we can either have concentrated wealth (and thus power) in the hands of few, or democracy, but that we cannot have both. This chapter discusses the concentration of power which is already established, the plans underway for further concentration of this existing power, and why it needs to be rejected. The financial and ideological interests which now hold undue influence over the World Health Organization are outlined. They are best described by a single photograph.

An unelected, non-medically trained “doctor” connected to a marxist terrorist organization in his home country, with probable criminal history and no value for human life, promoting the ideas of an unelected, non-medically trained “health advisor” who monopolises global health through funding structures which ultimately benefit his own increasing wealth. The details including other involved stakeholders are available in the document from page 26-28.

WHO basically runs as a feudal system with multiple conflicted partners including the pharmaceutical industry and other private investors. A rational argument exists for it to be reformed and/or defunded and replaced.

The corruption, bad decisions and fatal mistakes made by WHO during the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic, 2014 Ebola epidemic and Covid pandemic, due to pervasive influence of vested interests, are outlined. Rather than centralisation of power to WHO, the World Council for Health recommend that decision making should be diversified.

On A Better Way for Global Public Health

Rationale for essential actions, and recommended steps towards achieving necessary change, are made under the following headings:

  • Decentralisation of control and the rights of the individual
    Oppose and reject both the IHR amendments and the WHO CA+
    If they are accepted, opt out within 10 months and do not ratify them
    Implement legislation to limit supranational organisation powers
    Decentralise health policies and legislate against powers being given to centralised, unelected bodies
    Provide legal protection to the doctor-patient relationship and individual medical choice
    Provide legal protection for the use of safe, off-patent, repurposed drugs
    Investigate conflicts of interest in governments, health agencies, science, academia, international organisations and supranational bodies
  • The right to privacy: digital ID, digital certificates and private (health) data
    Legally prohibit digital ID which consolidates data about individuals as this can be used for totalitarian control
    Implement educational measures to teach the public about the risks of digital ID
    Criminalise digital mining and control of private health data
    Legislate to ensure individual ownership over health data and prohibit violations
    Commit to research to answer questions relating to data ownership and abuse
  • Free speech and the right to dissent
    Dissent is a necessary element in discovering truth; those working in public health have a crucial role to play in protecting, preserving and advancing critical thought.
    Ensure protection of whistleblowers
    Implement educational and legislative measures to expose and end the encroachment on free speech and free press
    Expose and dismantle the anti-democratic censorship industrial complex (eg “disinformation projects”, “fact checkers” etc)
    Prohibit pharmaceutical company investments in media companies
    Legislate to prevent single entities from concentrating ownership of media
  • International sharing and integrity of regulatory processes
    Genuine global collaboration with civil society participation is needed
    Responsibility for distribution of medicines and health products should be diversified amongst trusted organisations
    These organisations should assist communities to increase their capacity
    Prevent the undermining of regulatory processes relating to pharmaceutical products
    Enshrine a Right to Try into law
  • Defunding and halting gain of function research
    Teach the public about gain of function research and the risks it poses
    Expose the gain of function research behind the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic
    Ban gain of function research
  • Ideational framework and approaches to global health
    Emergency planning must reprioritise health, human dignity and rights
    Educational measures should focus on human dignity, rights and the history of overreach by those in powerful positions
    A variety of sensible approaches to global health emergencies is required whilst ensuring their integrity against attempts to misappropriate them.

The full 45 page report that I have tried (clumsily) to summarise, is here.

One thought on “Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Public Health

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s