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 contrast between the lockdowns for the virus and the widespread tolerance and encouragement of gatherings to protest racism, followed by lockdowns once those were over, followed by gatherings to celebrate Trump’s defeat, all in the course of one political season, was just too much for many observers. It was this back-and-forth, selective manipulation of public-health messaging that began to unravel the entire Covid regime. It broke the psychology of compulsion and control, and revealed the underlying vacuity of the entire calamity.
We must first address the reasons why international public health is now about profit and centralization, rather than the health of populations. This won’t happen under the current version of the WHO, and does not appear on the WHA agenda. We are facing a mass denial of reality by the WHO and its leadership. Until this is rectified, any WHA votes that grant further powers or oversight to the WHO are unlikely to be in the interests of the world’s population, or the countries within which they live.
In recent congressional hearings, it was revealed that top US public health officials created ‘secret’ back channels for communications on federal business in order to avoid prying eyes. David Morens, a former top advisor to Anthony Fauci, allegedly destroyed public documents and boasted to colleagues that he would communicate with Fauci on personal Gmail accounts to circumvent FOIA requests.
In a moment of rare bipartisan denunciation, Democrat Representative Kweisi Mfume confronted Dr. David Morens, longtime advisor to Dr. Fauci: “Sir, I think you’re going to be haunted by your testimony today.”
Independent journalists, empowered by FOIAs, were the ones who learned that Andersen et al. first believed a lab origin was likely and told the NIAID official whose reputation would be undermined if gain-of-function research of concern funded by his agency caused the pandemic.
The US Government will be paying 100 countries to implement “pandemic preparedness.” This will include many of the awful provisions in the treaty and amendments, ho ho ho.
Pandemic Preparedness: Coming to a Country Near You Read More
There are myriad opportunities to give today, many worthy. But Brownstone has a proven model of precision, timing, principle, and relentless courage. As a young institute with a crucial mission, we need your support, with every dime going to support this great calling. We must turn this loss of public trust in virtually everything into a massive effort to rebuild freedom, community, science, law, medicine, media, and our lives. It can happen but not without all our efforts.
Quite understandably given the billions Moderna made from Warp Speed, Arbutus and parent company Genevant are suing for infringement. Which is where it gets weird, or actually not very weird. If government was going to lean on pharmaceutical firms to rush a vaccine, indemnity from liability had to come next. And so it is for Moderna via-a-vis Arbutus. The Department of Justice agreed last year to take on Moderna’s liability for patent infringement which, given the billions Moderna earned via federal largesse, could easily add up to billions.
To simply vote no would leave the current situation – the situation that led to the many Covid-19 pandemic failures – unaddressed. But any putative “benefit” of the new treaty is likely to be marginal at best. More importantly, the treaty and amendments as they are currently written do enormous, identifiable harm and would leave everyone, except those with stakes in Big Pharma, IT services, and global finance, far worse off.
Sooner or later, EU citizens and political leaders will have to decide which Europe they wish to back: a highly integrated political union with major policies decided from Brussels, or an economic union of sovereign nations with central coordination reserved primarily for issues of mutual economic interest. Neither of these two options is guaranteed to succeed. But trundling along in a political and institutional halfway house, with policies that upset a lot of people but no serious attempt to articulate a shared vision of where Europe is headed or what it stands for, is a recipe for political mediocrity, disillusionment, and chronic instability.
Is the Committee’s work just another example of bureaucratic incompetence and “waste, fraud and abuse” of our precious taxpayer dollars? Or is it an intentional diversion, to distract us from the work the U.S. government was/is actually funding at bioweapons labs like the one in Wuhan, engineering pandemic potential pathogens and then deploying global public-private partnerships to develop medical countermeasures against those pathogens—all of which came together to create the catastrophe known as the Covid pandemic?
