WHO Amendments Revisited

We received a private email from an experienced statistician who, after reading our post and the WHO International Health Regulations draft amendments being discussed now, offered his help and explained why. His message seems to embody the feelings of many of our readers and our own. But let’s proceed with order.The

The WHO had a major role in the 2009-2010 pandemic. One of its early contributions was to change the definition of a pandemic to suit the damp squib facing them after Margaret Chan, the then director, panicked over an ILI outbreak in Mexico and the Southern US and declared a pandemic. Perhaps no one remembers it, and maybe no one realises that Chan now sits in the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), supervised directly by the Chinese Communist Party. Well, you know now.

It’s worth remembering that “pandemic” was synonymous with influenza, and you can guess why.

We will devote a future post with the details of the dance of the seven definitions and timelines, but for now, note what we write. We can prove it.

Once the red button had been pressed, the go was automatically given for the distribution of stockpiled antivirals and the rollout of pre-tested, pre-pandemic vaccines, which arrived too late to halt the waning pandemic but not too late to cause rare nasty harm in children.

The antiviral stockpile was created and is still there at great public expense. When we exposed the extensive reporting bias and ghostwriting affecting the Tamiflu trials, we publicly asked the WHO whether they had read the clinical study reports or trusted mega-journal articles when making policy. We never got a straight answer.

Then, BMJ’s Deborah Cohen discovered that the relevant WHO guidelines were written by some pharma KOLs who had contributed their names to the Tamiflu publications. The Council of Europe and the French Senate made a lot of noise, but it was all swiftly forgotten.

We need to record here the names of the principal MPs who instigated an inquiry into what they regarded as a scandal: Flynn, Pabst, and Wodarg. They are good people.

The WHO’s response was to institute a half-baked inquiry in which Tom was asked if he had any evidence of criminal intent. This was swapping a research role with that of an FBI agent.

Fast forward to recent events, another definition, another director, and the same background. 

A 64-page International Health Regulations (IHR) document has much to unpick. We have already commented on page 5 and the following definitions and made the point that there is no trace of an attempt at working out whether wrecking society and the economies did anything to viral circulation.

Here are a few gems selected for their fragrance. The word “Shall” is cited 364 times in 64 pages. 

Next, you should be aware that there will be an Implementation Committee with a Chair and all the other paraphernalia of bureaucracy and observers. We suspect we know who will pay for this nice job. Here’s the list of observers:

They forgot to include Freemasonry, SPECTRE, and Monty Python’s Travelling Circus, damn! 

On page 47 we have:

These are listed under “Core Capacities,” so once signed, that’s it, baby. There’s the Orwellian (vi), but even (i) to (iv) was nonsense in SARS-CoV-2: the Lombardy public health system for contact tracing was in meltdown by day 3 of the initial phase, the “on-site” was the whole region. So taxpayers get ready: if this is signed, every other person will be an employee of your local NHS.

The WHO is a helpful lot; they provided a checklist in Annex 2 of examples of decision instruments that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern.

We regret to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that we are currently in a public health emergency of international concern. At least three of the conditions are currently met by…rhinovirus and parainfluenza virus. So get ready for another round of lockdowns. But perhaps not.

Apart from these marginal issues, all else is OK. WHO cares about sovereignty? Certainly not the WHO.

This post will not self-delete or self-destruct and is not Teflon-coated or commercial in confidence. If you criticise it, you will not get a knock on the door at 3 am.

Republished from the author’s Substack