We continued to show that the World Health Organization (WHO) is a corrupted organization. To recap, in part one we saw the following:
- How “Control” of the WHO is less useful to think about than “Influence”
- How corruption would build in a large organization like the WHO, even if most of the people involved were good
- The censorship of a documentary (TrustWHO) that critically looked at the WHO
- How Big Tobacco was able to influence and infiltrate the WHO in order to continue to rake in profits. Long after this occurred, the WHO put together a committee to analyze how it happened. The report they produced is eye-opening because it’s a playbook of tactics…one that other industries are using against the WHO today
- A Wikileaks document dump showing the WHO took policy notes from Big Pharma
- How the WHO helped to fuel the opioid epidemic making policy straight from what Purdue Pharma wanted including bad science and over-prescribing
- A former Director General of the WHO, Halfdan Mahler stating Big Pharma “is taking over WHO” back in 1988
- Other whistleblowers, like Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat, being attacked by Pharma and locked out of important meetings
- The Swine Flu and how the WHO changed how the grading of pandemic levels were altered in order for Big Pharma to sell more drugs to countries
- Several examples of rampant conflicts of interest in employees and policy makers
- The WHO’s cover-up of Chernobyl and Fukishima deaths, denying radiation causes anything besides cancer
That was part one. Now, let us continue…
WHO Spends More on Travel then AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The Associated Press obtained internal documents showing that the WHO spent $200 million a year on travel expenses. This is more than what they spend on several major diseases combined, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
This came out at a time when the WHO was pleading for more funding because it was going broke!
Remember Dr. Bruce Aylward, the man who pretended not to hear the question about Taiwan’s coronavirus response and then hung up the phone? Turns out he “racked up nearly $400,000 in travel expenses during the Ebola crisis, sometimes flying by helicopter to visit clinics instead of traveling by jeep over muddy roads, according to internal trip reports he filed.”
Speaking about then Director-General Margaret Chan, “Three sources who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs told the AP that Chan often flew in first class.” She spent more than $370,000 that year. Always good to strike fear into your employees for telling the truth!
Travel is certainly necessary, but are these people using funds that ought to be better spent as their own slush fund?
Vaccines are Safe and Effective…but We Don’t Know How Many People They Kill
The party line is always that vaccines are safe and effective. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at will tell you exactly that. In this video you can hear her talk about how “vaccines are very safe.”
Yet, then at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, in Geneva, December 2-3, 2019, she said,
“I cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to miscommunication and the misapprehensions. Because we are not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets brought up in the media. One should be able to give a factual account of what has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there is obfuscation and therefore there is less trust in the system.”
Here’s a deeper dive including commentary that covers the many different people at the WHO summit talking about various areas in which they actually don’t have good safety science.
The Goal is Universal Vaccination
The Immunization Agenda 2030 envisions “A world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines for good health and well-being.”
“Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy.”
Here’s the truth. Most anti-vaxxers aren’t really anti-vaccine. They simply want the choice to be able to opt-in or out for themselves or their children. Many are ex-vaxxers because someone in their families were injured severely. They want proper education about risks and benefits (aka informed consent) so people can make a good choice about this pharmaceutical intervention. The problem is that choice is being eroded.
The WHO and related organizations are very clear that “vaccine misinformation” is their enemy.
“Uptake of vaccination depends on [limiting] the spread of misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines [to] sustain trust in vaccines…and to build resilience against misinformation. The harm being caused by anti-vaccine messaging, especially on social media, should be addressed by understanding the context and reasons for lack of trust and by building and keeping trust, especially in the face of fear and distrust in traditional establishments. Strategic investments to increase trust and confidence in vaccines, in particular through strong community engagement, would increase community support for vaccines and ensure that vaccination is viewed as a social norm.”
Contrary to what they say, it is not so much the spread of misinformation, but of real information. People are starting to pick up on this as which is why trust in vaccines is going down. And this is why censorship is increasing.
They even are going so far to say that when vaccines cause injuries they aren’t really from the vaccine! Instead it’s all in people’s heads, aka “immunization stress-related responses”. How many times have doctors used this excuse when they simply don’t know what is going on? (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, EMF hypersensitivity, etc.)
I get it. I agree that misinformation would be best not to be shared.
But you know what is labeled misinformation? Any information and studies that show that there are risks to vaccines. That means they’re not really clamping down on misinformation but instead are spreading propaganda.
Informed Consent…By Default
The WHO also has a document called, “Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old” which is an interesting read.
Early on they state, “For consent to be valid, it must be informed, understood and voluntary, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.” Yes, I think everyone agrees with this.
But then, one of the three common approaches listed on the next page is implied consent. “An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.”
In this day and age after the #metoo movement, guys are scared to make a move on women because they don’t have implicit and verbal consent. Yet, a medical procedure can be done with less consent then going in for a kiss?
Doesn’t make much sense to me. Could a pedophile send out information about themselves to parents, such as an arrest record on a postcard, then get away with groping a child saying they parent had implied consent by not keeping them away? Don’t think so!
Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, says that implied consent is “no substitute for informed consent. Indeed, implied consent is no consent at all. We have no assurance that parents in fact received information about [vaccination studies] let alone that they understood it.” https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-02/b-wmv022520.php
While this document is focused on adolescents, similar ideas are applied elsewhere. Understand, adult coronavirus vaccination mandates are coming…
“Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required.”
Most of my readers are in the US so you might want to know about ‘Jacobson v. Massachusetts.’ This Supreme Court case upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. “The Court’s decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.”
I do expect there will be new laws passed or changed to make this easier, as was done in Denmark. The vaccine people are quite clear that they want mandatory vaccines for every person. They might not be able to actually force it on you. Maybe it’s fines or imprisonment if you opt out. Maybe it’s that they make it so that you can’t participate in something if you don’t get it. We saw this with children not being allowed to go to school in several states. What appears to be the plan is that you will not be allowed to travel without vaccination. So yes, you can opt out, but then you’ll lose these privileges.
Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the Western Pacific, “At least until a vaccine, or a very effective treatment, is found, this process will need to become our new normal.” We’re locked down until the vaccine is here.
Understand, that is where this is going.
WHO’s Breach of Ethics with Malaria Vaccine
All that about informed consent was to help you to understand a study going on right now.
Mosquirix, also known as the RTS,S vaccine, is produced by GlaxoSmithKline. (To give some background, GSK has paid $4.4 billion in fines in the US since 2000 for false marketing and claims, safety violations, bribery and more. This includes a $3 billion lawsuit where they withheld critical safety data from the FDA.)
GSK also gave $7.365 million to the WHO in 2017, and $24 million in in-kind contributions. (That’s a good way to get tax breaks as you’ll get the fair market value for vaccines and drugs donated.)
A large scale study, led by the WHO, of Mosquirix’s effects is being conducted in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya. This study will involve 720,000 children of which implied consent is given.
Congratulations, you have been selected to be a part of a medical experiment…and we won’t even let you know about it. Your consent is implied because we sent some pamphlets out even though they didn’t disclose all the information about a doubled-death rate in girls in the earlier trial.
This violates the Nuremberg Code…you know what was put in place to stop medical experiments such as the Nazi’s conducted.
Why is this worrisome? A BMJ article sums it up well:
- Phase III trials of the RTS,S malaria vaccine identified three safety concerns: higher risks of meningitis, cerebral malaria, and doubled female mortality (emphasis added)
- Owing to the urgency of improving malaria control, the World Health Organization intends to decide on extending the vaccine to other African countries after only 24 months using the prevention of “severe malaria” as a surrogate marker for overall mortality
- Severe malaria is not a good marker for all cause mortality; it is not even a good marker for malaria mortality, as data indicate that case fatality from severe malaria might be higher in the malaria vaccine group
- An early decision after 24 months might be biased in favour of the vaccine, which was more efficacious in the first year of follow-up in the phase III trials; the relative risks of both cerebral malaria and female mortality increased after the booster dose at 20 months
- We recommend that the pilot studies use “overall mortality” to assess vaccine performance and that study populations are followed for the full 4-5 years of the study before a decision on rollout is made
Meanwhile, this study specifically violates the Malawi constitution which states, “No person shall be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without his or her consent.”
Right now, there’s a petition on Change.org that’s just under 6,000 signatures away from 35,000 needed to try to change this.
More details about this can be found in this article.
There are so many issues around the WHO’s use of vaccines. Just to give a taste of some others, the Open Letter from International Organisations to the WHO on the Issue of Vaccine Safety states:
“In your previous meeting you advocated for less independent testing, considered ‘redundant’, in order to speed up the supply of products. The recent administration of 250,000 defective vaccines in China, the tragedy of the oral polio campaign in India with over 450,000 cases of paralysis and death, the damage caused by the Dengue vaccine in the Philippines reports from all over the world of chronic pain and paralysis after administration of the HPV vaccine show that vaccine safety and efficacy are being tragically disregarded in this drive for fast-tracking approval and easy certification.”
The COVID19 Pandemic
Let’s turn gears to look at some other controversial parts of the handling of the COVID19 pandemic.
Separating Families for Quarantining
“Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
– Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO Health Emergencies Programme
I don’t know anyone who would agree that that’s a good idea! Do you?
It’s not hard for anyone to imagine this becoming even more totalitarian. If all the state has to do is show you that you’ve “tested positive” and you disappear.
Believe the WHO…or Believe the WHO?
More than 50% of our planet is in some form of lockdown. There’s the ever popular social distancing. There are travel restrictions and curfews. Contact tracing is the new hot technological term. How well do these work?
Turns out the WHO wrote a report in October 2019 that looked specifically at the scientific evidence for them.
The WHO follows the best science, right? (The best science money can buy!) So it was interesting to find this their own scientists said what we’re doing isn’t the way to go. All those mentioned above had little to no scientific evidence.
Notice what is “not recommended in any circumstances” and “extraordinary measures.”
“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”
And yet here we are quarantining even non-exposed people!
Dr. Mike Ryan, who wants to separate families as deemed necessary, has stated, “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”
Yet, regarding masks, this same report states, “Recommended for symptomatic individuals, and conditionally recommended for public protection. Given the costs and the uncertain effectiveness, face masks are conditionally recommended only in severe influenza epidemics or pandemics for the protection of the general population, but are recommended for symptomatic individuals at all times.”
If they can’t even get masks right (the CDC similarly flip-flopped on the matter), do you really trust them with bigger health ideas?
WHO Urges Sweden to Revise Course
“The World Health Organization (WHO) is skeptical of Sweden’s approach. Noting a fresh surge in the country’s infections, the WHO told CNN Wednesday that it’s “imperative” that Sweden “increase measures to control spread of the virus, prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the population,” reports CNN.
Earlier on during the pandemic I was rooting for Sweden to not cave into the political and media pressure. I felt it was important that they stick to their guns so that we had a “control group” compared to all the countries who locked down. So far, so good!
Time will still tell, but it seems that this is spun in each direction depending on which set of facts you look at.
Unfortunately, even if this is the case, it will be explained away as an aberration because that is how you control the narrative.
Antibodies = No Immunity
In their April 24th update, the WHO said, “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”
No evidence is a strong phrase, not to mention one that flies in the face with how immunity tends to work.
Yes, there certainly are some cases of people being infected with SARS-CoV-2 more than once. But does that make for “no evidence”?
This caused another uproar. And the WHO walked back their statements the next day, tweeting:
This whole concept is more interesting because antibodies are how most vaccines work. This gives rise to the idea, with fast-mutating coronavirus strains, that it would need to be an annual shot like the not-very-effective influenza vaccine.
Funding and Defunding the WHO
Personally, I think Trumps calls to defund the WHO are a good move. On April 14th he said, “Today I am instructing my administration to halt funding of the WHO while a review is conducted to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”
The interesting thing about this is that if it comes to pass, it makes the Gates Foundation the biggest funder of the WHO, so we’ll turn there next.
But first look at just how much Big Pharma contributes. This is from the 2017 report.
- Bayer $1,158,060
- Bristol-Myers Squib $215,730
- GlaxoSmithKline $7,365,666
- Gilead Sciences $3,124,450
- Hoffmann-La Roche $6,628,090
- Merck $1,912,226
- Novartis $500,000
- Sanofi Pasteur $9,411,491
- Sanofi-Aventis $2,634,963
I listed just some of the more recognizable pharmaceutical companies’ names. This does not include the many organizations these companies contribute to that then contribute to the WHO such as CDC Foundation ($3.2 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($748,945), and many others.
And overall, it’s not that much compared to the total $2.1 billion privately donated that year (compared to $1 billion from member states, that is governments).
But understand that these donations are devoted to specific projects as picked by the donors.
Can you say conflicts of interest? You can read more about how these financial contributions violate the WHO’s own guidelines in this article.
WHO Largely Funded by Gates Foundation
Looking at the same 2017 report, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $324,654,317 to the WHO.
This is in addition to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, which the Gates Foundation is heavily funding, which gave $133,365,051. Or The Global Fund which gave $16,170,654, which the Gates Foundation has pledged $650 million from 2017-2019.
I start with this sharp criticism from a WHO employee of the Gates Foundation’s influence. Arati Kochi was the chief of the malaria program at the WHO. He complained to then director-general Chan that the money could have “far-reaching, largely unintended consequences.”
In 2008, New York Times reported:
Many of the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group,” Kochi wrote. Because “each has a vested interest to safeguard the work of the others,” he wrote, getting independent reviews of research proposals “is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Also, he argued, the foundation’s determination to have its favored research used to guide the health organization’s recommendations “could have implicitly dangerous consequences on the policy-making process in world health.”
Kochi, an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation, called the Gates Foundation’s decision making “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen, accountable to none other than itself.”
Moreover, he added, the foundation “even takes its vested interest to seeing the data it helped generate taken to policy.”
There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have said privately that the foundation was “creating its own WHO.”
Another New York Times article from 2017, wrote that “the Gates Foundation…has claimed for itself a core W.H.O. role: “’diagnosing the world’s health problems and identifying the solutions.’”
That’s interesting. Just because Bill Gates was formerly the richest person on the planet, he’s become qualified to diagnose and solve the world’s health problems? As many people point out he is not a doctor, not medically trained, not scientifically trained, instead a businessman.
As a Politico article put it, “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.”
Kochi is not the only critic. Far from it. Some details from the Politico article:
“The term often used was ‘monopolistic philanthropy’, the idea that Gates was taking his approach to computers and applying it to the Gates Foundation,” said a source close to the WHO board.
However, his sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.
But the foundation’s focus on delivering vaccines and medicines, rather than on building resilient health systems, has drawn criticism. And some NGOs worry it may be too close to industry.
There’s a reason I wrote Robber Baron Philanthropists. I believe Gates is today’s prime example of just that. The fact is you do not have to believe he’s an evil eugenicist to see that there are problems with his approach. I hope to clearly outline the various possibilities so we’ll be exploring details about him more in the future.
Trust the WHO – Mainstream Media and Big Tech All Do…
AP News reports, for years now, people at the WHO have been pressuring Big Tech to “to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation.”
With the pandemic, censorship has been kicked up another notch. Andy Pattison is the manager of digital solutions for the WHO. “Pattison said he and his team now directly flag misleading coronavirus information and, at times, lobby for it to be removed from Facebook, Google and Google’s YouTube service.” These and others, like Twitter, have been “cracking down in unprecedented ways.”
In fact, you’ll be censored if you say anything that is not following the guidelines of the WHO. Yep, the people that have THIS track record I’ve been sharing are the definitive authority for the world and your information.
A few days ago, CEO of Youtube, Susan Wokcicki said they’ll ban anything against WHO guidelines. This includes “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”. “So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,”
Let me get this straight. The WHO is the authority who chooses which information is “correct”. So what is are the big tech people supposed to do when the WHO contradicts themselves regarding transmission of the disease, wearing masks, or a variety of other things?
Twitter really should have deleted the WHO’s tweet that there was no evidence of antibodies giving immunity!
I haven’t seen anyone saying they have cures for coronavirus, though I’m sure they’re out there. I see a lot of people talking about how vitamin C is necessary for immune system support. It seems to me this message should be propagated rather than clamped down on.
Type in ‘vitamin c immune’ in PubMed and you get 989 results. The second of these is ‘Intravenous Vitamin C for reduction of cytokines storm in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.’ This review concludes: “It is believed that IV Vit-C has been particularly effective by inhibiting the production of cytokines storm due to Corvid19.” (sic)
And now I am officially a spreader of misinformation. Oh wait, I’ve been doing that all along because I’ve been talking about vaccines in other than glowing terms!
Meanwhile, the FBI raided a spa that offered high-dose IV vitamin C to support people’s immune systems, particularly front-line workers like hospital staff.
This is what happens when the medical cartel makes the rules on what we can do and say.
Closing Thoughts
Having explored all this it is abundantly clear to me that the WHO is not really about health. They’re about disease. It’s the pharmaceutical disease-care model all over and little else. This is further and further being propagated into mainstream and online media notably through censorship.
While I’m sure there are still good people around, it is clear that the conflicts of interest are rampant which breeds corruption. The WHO is influenced heavily by Big Pharma. They’re influenced by Gates who appears to be intimately involved with the medical cartel.
The WHO is influenced by China’s Communist Party, which is a whole other layer. And, to be honest, I’m not sure how that fits in with all the rest, though I figure I’ll find some more when digging deeper into Gates.
It comes down to this:
Do you believe that pharmaceuticals are the route to health?
No, then the World Health Organization is not your authority.
Health does not come from a pharmacist. It does not come at the tip of a syringe. I’m not saying those don’t have their uses either, but it seems to me if the WHO was really about health, things would be far, far different.
Keep it up brother. Spread the truth, I’m loving it!!!!!