WHO. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
In the article below, Trump is mentioned several times. This to me is not about Trump. It is about controlling others and following the money.
Over the decades, the World Health Organization has become the main “go-to” source for global health information, statistics, and advice. However, during the COVID 19 crisis, the WHO has been in the news for a different reason. Pending an investigation into the UN-connected organization and in this articles, we will begin to scratch the surface of some of the issues surrounding the investigation.
“The WHO…they called it wrong,” said President Trump in his April 7th Coronavirus briefing regarding the WHO’s inactions in the early months of COVID-19. “They missed the call. They should have called it months earlier. They would have known. They should have known. And they probably did know. So we will be looking into that very carefully, and we are going to put a hold on money spent to the WHO.”
The following week, Trump explained more.
“America and the world have chosen to rely on the WHO for accurate, timely, and independent information to make important public health recommendations and decisions,” Trump said at an April 14, 2020 press conference. “If we cannot trust that this is what we will receive from the WHO, our country will be forced to find other ways to work with other nations to achieve public health goals.” From Mike: AGREED
At a May 1, 2020 briefing, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany clarified the administration’s stance towards both the WHO and China.
“It is no secret that China mishandled the situation,” said McEnany. “Just a few examples for you: they did not share the genetic sequence until a professor in Shanghai did so on his own the very next day. China shut down this lab for ‘rectification.’ They slow-walked information on human-to-human transmission alongside the World Health Organization and did not let U.S. investigators in at a very important time.” From Mike: AGREED
Even media sources who are normally critical of Trump admit that the WHO’s stance in line with China is investigation-worthy. From Mike: AGREED
“Institutions of international governance, like institutions of national governance, are prone to a particular form of corruption: they’re inclined to serve powerful interests at the expense of their mission,” wrote journalist Robert Wright in an April 10 article for Wired magazine.
The first official reports of a “mysterious outbreak” came out of Wuhan, China, on December 30, 2019, when authorities there confirmed 27 cases of “viral pneumonia.” At the time, these officials connected it to exposure at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and insisted that it was not transmissible by human-to-human contact.
According to a report in The Lancet, however, human-to-human transmission occurred as early as December 1, 2019. By the third week of December, doctors in Wuhan began noticing clusters of illness. Medical staff were getting sick, and hospital admissions were increasing by the end of December. All of this was adding up to a strong likelihood that, whatever the illness was, it could be transmitted through human-to-human contact.
Finally, on December 31, the Chinese government informed the WHO of the “viral pneumonia,” yet the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission still concluded that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission.
On January 1, the Wuhan Public Security Borough put eight doctors into custody for spreading “rumors” about a “SARS-like condition.” One of the doctors was the now-deceased ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, the first Chinese doctor to bring attention to the seriousness of the illness on social media.
Despite the obvious contradictions between the official Chinese narrative and mounting evidence to the contrary, the WHO did not investigate further. This is odd considering that the WHO had toughened its rules regarding cover-ups in 2005. Since the SARS outbreak of 2002-2003, the WHO has had broader power “to investigate threats using non-state sources of information such as civil society groups.”
Apparently, WHO leadership did not feel that there was a good reason to use this power in the early stages of the Coronavirus pandemic.
An official WHO statement put out on January 8th says that: “Preliminary identification of a novel virus in a short period of time is a notable achievement and demonstrates China’s increased capacity to manage new outbreaks.”
The WHO also condemned countries who chose to enforce travel bans from China early on. The United States began restricting travel to the United States from the Hubei province in late January.
“… the WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available,” the January 8th statement said.
Then, on January 18th, over a month after the first Coronavirus patient was discovered in Wuhan, the WHO tweeted that “[p]reliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
It would come out later that the WHO also ignored communication from Taiwan in late December, which urged them to look into a rash of illnesses connected to individuals traveling from Wuhan to their country.
Even if one comes to the conclusion that there was (and potentially still is) some kind of collusion between the WHO and China regarding Coronavirus, the question can still be posed: Why should we care?
Putting aside political ideology and even economic and military threats coming from the superpower to the east, we can answer this question simply by considering the significant role that this supposedly-neutral organization plays in global health policy. The standards and recommendations it puts out to the world often form the basis for public health policies and programs. In the United States, these recommendations influence federal health policy. They also trickle down to the state, county, and local level. Ultimately, these recommendations affect hospital staff, doctors, and patients.
The WHO constitution defines the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.”
According to a report conducted by Yale University in 2009, “The World Health Organization (WHO) plays an essential role in the global governance of health and disease; due to its core global functions of establishing, monitoring and enforcing international norms and standards, and coordinating multiple actors toward common goals.”
When it comes to establishing needed parameters by which to negotiate the tricky terrain of global health emergencies, the WHO’s power comes into sharp focus. For example, the WHO is the organization responsible for issuing Phase 1-6 warnings for local, regional, and global communicable disease outbreaks.
Without a WHO pandemic declaration, emergency services, supply production, and assessment worldwide cannot occur. The WHO officially announced that Coronavirus was a “pandemic” (Phase 6) in mid-March, nearly three months and half months after the very first Coronavirus case was discovered in Wuhan.
The WHO is also the body responsible for developing and implementing the coding systems, known as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), that hospitals and health centers all over the world use to determine course of treatment, insurance reimbursement thresholds, worldwide statistical information, and cause of death for patients.
According to their website, the mission of the WHO is to “promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.” Of course, there are many well-intentioned individuals working with the organization who take these values to heart. But as an organization and especially at the leadership level, how has the WHO measured up to their own Mission Statement over the years?
The WHO is a sub-organization of the United Nations. The United Nations was created in 1945, and its Charter describes its purpose as striving to “maintain international peace and security,” to “develop friendly relations among nations,” to “achieve international cooperation,” and to “be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.” The WHO was birthed out of the philosophical framework and funding of the UN with the drafting of the WHO constitution on April 7, 1948.
On paper, this all sounds pretty good—great even! Ultimately, however, these altruistic aims are just a cover story. The UN was created as a vehicle for big business interests first and foremost, as well as for the puppet governments and nation-state leaders that big business has controlled throughout the years.
At its inception, the UN itself was actually a rebranding of what was then called the League of Nations. This was an “intergovernmental organization” formed at the famous “Treaty of Versailles” peace conference in 1920 that officially terminated World War I.
Guess who was behind the creation of the League of Nations? None other than the Rockefeller family. You know, the same Rockefellers that single-handedly created the Big Pharma industry in the United States and systematically destroyed natural medicine along the way? The other major funder of the League of Nations was the Rothschild family.
Not much has changed in terms of loyalty since then, except that the relationships between the WHO in particular and its big business “partners” have become more blatant in recent years. Prior to the 2009 global economic recession, the United Nations was the main contributor of funding for the WHO. Now, between 60 and 70 percent of the WHO annual budget is made up of donations from countries, private foundations, and big business, such as pharmaceutical companies.
One of the ways that special interest groups wield power at the WHO is through industry-loyal “consultants.” Pharmaceutical companies, for example, donate large amounts of cash as well as promises of ongoing funding to the WHO for specific programs (and also to potentially line the pockets of WHO leadership). As part of the arrangement, the WHO agrees to bring in company reps who act as consultants. These individuals are often scientists, engineers, and other specialists. They consult within the WHO network while still being on the Big Pharma company payroll. Big Pharma consultants have great influence in what WHO puts out as well as the actual programs that they engage in.
Often these “consultants” are quite open about their industry ties, at least within the WHO organization. The WHO requires consultants to sign documents disclosing what industries a person may be affiliated with. Sometimes these documents are filled out; sometimes, they are not. Even when they are filled out, it’s up to WHO management to flag a consultant as having a potential “conflict of interest.” When millions of dollars are on the line, it is easy to see how such paperwork can simply “slip through the cracks.”
A new documentary that exposes corruption in the WHO is the film TrustWHO, written by Lilian Franck, Robert Cibis, and Anja Neraal, directed by Lilian Franck and Thomas Schlottmann and narrated by Lilian Franck. The film is distributed by Journeyman Pictures in the UK. TrustWHO has only been out since February 2020 and has already been banned by Vimeo. We will talk a little bit more about the WHO and censorship later in this series.
One expert featured predominantly in the film is journalist Robert Parsons, who has been writing about the WHO for the last 20 years.
“The WHO has been infiltrated by big business from the beginning,” says Parsons in an interview for the documentary.
The WHO has been at the mercy of industries such as the tobacco lobby and the nuclear power industry for decades. Besides Big Tech, Big Pharma is the industry that appears to control the strings at the WHO these days. As we shall see, the names and agendas behind Big Pharma and Big Tech are often the same.
One word can describe this agenda: vaccines.
In reality, the World Health Organization has been promoting vaccines worldwide from the beginning. Its first major push was during the 1960s with the smallpox vaccine.
The WHO’s take on vaccines is in lock-step with its parent organization. Goal #3 of the United Nation’s 17 Goals (SD17) put forth as part of its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” created in 2015 is focused on health. Its calling card reads: “Good Health and Wellbeing-Vaccinate Your Children.”
You may recall that, at the beginning of the Swine Flu, or H1N1, outbreak of 2009, the World Health Organization announced that the “global pandemic” could potentially affect two billion people worldwide.
At the time, the mainstream media ran with the story like wildfire, causing global panic. Yes, swine flu was real. But in the end, it turned out to be nothing more than a blip on the radar. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimated that it ultimately affected roughly 0.001 to 0.007 percent of the world’s population, not a third as the WHO had predicted.
So maybe the WHO just called it wrong (again). Mistakes happen, right? Sadly, it appears that this wasn’t the case. In 2010, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a review body composed of democratically-elected members of parliament from 47 countries, conducted an investigation into whether the H1N1 pandemic was exaggerated to sell vaccines.
“In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines,” a PACE resolution states. “The ‘bird-flu’-campaign (2005/06) combined with the ‘swine-flu’-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.”
In other words, prior to the outbreak, many countries, including Great Britain, France and Italy, had actually made “secret pacts” with major pharmaceutical companies. These contracts stipulated that nation-states must purchase a certain amount of Swine flu vaccines, but only if the WHO also agreed to issue a Stage 6 pandemic warning.
According to Dr. Wolfgang Woodarg, Chairman of the PACE Health Committee at the time, “[t]he WHO initiated health measures worldwide…Glaxo Novartis, Sanofi, they had all launched new vaccine production programs to produce the vaccine for this pandemic. They all had made agreements with nation-states. And since they had invested so much in this but couldn’t sell the vaccine, because there was no pandemic and no sign of a flu outbreak – they fabricated a pandemic.”
Why is this relevant to what is happening today? According to the Centre for Research on Globalization, “[t]he same people and institutions, including the Gates Foundation, who today are pushing for COVID-19 vaccine were actively involved in support of the H1N1 vaccine.”
Prior to the suspension of funding, the United States was the biggest donor to the WHO. Bill Gates (acting through both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, another Gates organization) was the second largest financial contributor. Absent the U.S., he is now the biggest one. Given what we know about the WHO from Parts I and II of this series, how does this fact affect what may be coming down the pipeline regarding COVID-19 and the possibility of mandatory vaccines for everyday folks like you and me?
First, let’s take a look at Gates and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Gates has maintained close ties to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus for many years now.
Many in recent months have called for Ghebreyesus to step down, not only because of his closeness to the Communist Party of China, or CPC (he worked closely with Beijing for years when he was part of the Ethiopian government), but also because of his ties to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.
Still, others criticize the potentially genocidal actions he promoted in his own country when he was Minister of Health. For example, Ghebreyesus promoted the widespread use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera to certain populations in Ethiopia while not providing basic medical services nor information about the risks of the drug. Depo-Provera has been connected to increased risk for both osteoporosis and breast cancer in numerous studies.
Gates and Ghebreyesus have also maintained a working relationship over the years. Ghebreyesus was the director of the Global Fund from 2009 to 2011, a $4 billion a year organization designed to “fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as epidemics” initiated, again, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He has been closely associated with the Clinton Foundation and its numerous health-related “charitable organizations” for a number of years as well.
Gates also has close ties to China, which are varied and significant. His investments in that country are diverse and cover everything from computer technologies to health and nuclear energy. In the early 2000s, he actively began sharing source code for his Microsoft Windows operating system with the Chinese government. On the surface, this was described as an act of goodwill and transparency on the part of Gates. Some wonder, however, if Microsoft (as well as other US-based tech companies) did not have a hand in the creation of the technological system that the Communist Party of China (CPC) now uses to monitor, censor, and control its 1.4 billion citizens.
“China has a great opportunity to be a global leader in health innovation,” Gates said during a speech at the Beijing University Public Policy Forum International in 2017. “With its rich pool of talented scientists and its capacity to develop new drugs and vaccines, China was a clear choice for us to locate a new Global Health Drug Discovery Institute. This institute—a collaboration between our foundation, the Beijing Municipal Government, and Tsinghua University—will help speed the discovery and development of new lifesaving medicines.”
Another institute that Gates has a vested interest in is the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is now believed that Coronavirus didn’t originate from the Huanan market, as the story originally went. The current scenario, as confirmed by multiple intelligence agencies, is that COVID-19 actually emanated in some way from experiments being conducted at the Wuhan Institute, which is located less than a mile away from the Huanan “wet” market.
According to research conducted by Dr. Rashid A. Buttar and others, an entity known as the Pirbright Institute currently owns several patents on genetically-manipulated virus forms labeled as “Coronavirus.” Unsurprisingly, the Pirbright Institute is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Soon after Trump made his announcement, China wasted no time in lending a hand by donating $30 million to the WHO. Still, at this moment, Bill Gates remains the largest donor to the most influential health organization on the planet.
As such, Gates has made it no secret that he intends to be a major player in the upcoming roll-out of the new Coronavirus vaccine and the push for mandatory vaccines in general. Recently he pledged to donate $100 million for “Coronavirus relief efforts.”
What Gates didn’t mention was how this “generosity” would eventually come back around to him. Not only does Gates own the patents for the Coronavirus itself, his foundation is also funding current research on fast-tracking the new Coronavirus vaccine, potentially one of the most medically dangerous, untested vaccines ever.
Connecting the dots between Gates (and other Big Tech leaders), Big Pharma, the WHO, and the vaccination agenda can really help in understanding what is currently going on in the US with censorship.
In mid-April, Facebook announced that it will begin to steer users who interact with coronavirus ‘misinformation’ to the WHO,” including those people who like or share such information. YouTube is enacting similar censorship restrictions, in a policy that they call “raising authoritative information.” Facebook is the owner of Instagram and WhatsApp. Google (Alphabet Inc.) owns YouTube.
At the time of this writing, Twitter is taking even harsher measures and is currently removing thousands of tweets and hundreds of accounts that contain “recommendations that go against health authority guidance…” The vast majority of the posts and channels that are currently being taken down contain legitimate natural health and vaccine-safety related content.
On May 7, Twitter permanently suspended the accounts for The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines, as well our own personal accounts. We were given no warning – we were simply purged from Twitter without a trace. To date, we have been given no reason or explanation by Twitter for these draconian actions. (Thanks to so many of our followers’ amazing support, all of our twitter accounts have been reinstated.)
Censorship on social media platforms and on Google has been happening for a while now, of course. However, the recent tightening is being spurred on by the Big Pharma-sympathizing members of Congress. On April 20, 2020, Rep. Adam Schiff wrote a letter to Google, YouTube and Twitter, urging them to be more like Facebook when it comes to “misinformation.”
“Among the harmful misinformation currently on YouTube, recent reporting has shown that it is easy to find videos spreading false and dangerous statements about the coronavirus or treatments, including conspiracy theories linking the virus to 5G towers, anti-vaccine messages suggesting the virus was engineered, and videos suggesting that drinking or consuming bleach may cure the disease,” Schiff wrote in a letter that he also shared on Twitter.
Suddenly it all starts to make sense. The mainstream media, again using language and recommendations coming from the WHO, paints those putting out information that consumers need to know as “the enemy.”
Perhaps this is more to the point: Whatever topics these Big Pharma-backed platforms decide to censor is really what they fear the most.
No one is downplaying the reality of COVID-19 and that it is an intense flu strain which can be potentially dangerous to immune-compromised individuals. But are there really people in authority right now who are wanting us to believe that wearing a mask, social distancing, accepting Constitution-defying rules, and accepting mandatory vaccines is simply the “new normal?”
Will the WHO investigation by the current administration lead to significant findings that will somehow shed light on what is really going on? Will these investigations come in time to help prevent wide-scale, massive mandatory vaccinations?
Only time will tell. One thing is for certain, however. Our society stands at a decision point.
Will we choose to take a stand for a healthy planet and healthy people? Or will we allow our God-given rights to be stripped from us by special interests that do not care about our well-being?
The choice really is ours to make. It is not an easy one. There are strong forces at work who do not want us to succeed.
There is also a LOT to look forward to! More people than ever want to know the truth, and more and more of us are willing to stand up for health freedom on behalf of ourselves, our families, and future generations.
In addition, more eyes than ever are focused on organizations like the WHO. Ultimately, it will be through the brave actions of everyday people that the WHO can perhaps one day live up to what its own Mission Statement proclaims: to “promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.”