World Hack Operation

The WHO is a threat to global health

By the TNE Editorial Team

The infiltration and corruption of organisations is, by nature, a covert and pernicious process. It is done by stealth. Hands slowly creep in and get a stranglehold of the management structure, like snakes slithering into place before going for the kill. They plant a fungus that spreads behind the scenes, rotting, eroding and gutting the foundations until the whole edifice collapses.

The World Health Organisation has been compromised and now (ironically) poses a distinct threat to the general wellbeing of people throughout the world. It is planning a binding international treaty that could transfer huge amounts of power from nation states to a corrupted, incompetent technocracy that is effectively under the control of the Chinese Communist Party and its corporate allies. How has this happened and what are we going to do about it?   

In their book The Hidden Hand, published by Random House imprint, “Oneworld Publications”, Clive Hamilton & Mareike Ohlberg explain how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attempts to pervert, corrupt, and manipulate national and international institutions to reshape the world in its own image. Its sole motivation is to tighten its grip on power in China. One such strategic move was to ensure that the WHO appointed Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as Director General in place of the eminently qualified UK nominee, Dr David Nabarro in 2017. Unlike all of his predecessors, Tedros is not a qualified medical doctor. He has a PhD in public health, which might qualify him in public policy formation but not in medical science. He certainly doesn’t have a track record that inspires confidence. Let’s look at the evidence.

1)    Tedros was a high ranking member of a communist, sectarian political party, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, which came to power in Ethiopia in a 1991 coup, and which was classified as a terrorist organisation by the US government.

2)    While serving as Ethiopia’s health minister (2005-2012), Tedros attempted to cover up three outbreaks of cholera that happened in 2006, 2009 and 2011, perhaps hoping to avoid international embarrassment.

3)    After his appointment to the WHO, he continued his practice of covering up cholera, failing to confirm or disconfirm the findings of Sudanese labs tests in Geneva, allowing Sudanese leaders to classify the cholera outbreaks as “acute water diarrhoea” again preventing the outbreak being appropriately addressed.

4)    His political opponents in Ethiopia accuse Tedros of crimes against humanity and systematic human rights abuses, and in particular discrimination against the Amhara people, during his time as Health Minster and then as Foreign Minister.

5)    After being appointed to the role of WHO DG, Tedros proclaimed his adherence to the CCP’s “One China” policy, which denies Taiwanese statehood. He even attempted to get the CCP ally and former leader of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, elected as a UN “goodwill ambassador”, despite Mugabe’s appalling record of human rights abuses.

6)    While Tedros was in government, Chinese investment in Ethiopia massively increased, financing many infrastructure projects including hospitals. Ethiopia is a key participant in the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative with its largest airport serving as a key hub for air travel between China and Africa. The influence and relationship between the CCP and Tedros must be taken into account.

Under the control of Tedros, the WHO declared a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) in March 2020. Disregarding decades of pandemic planning, the WHO endorsed Chinese-style totalitarian “lockdowns” as the only solution. They endorsed the fraudulent use of a PCR test (originally designed for confirming diagnoses of diseases by indicating presence of a virus, not infectiousness) and encouraged mass testing of healthy people to inflate case numbers. Tedros went on to endorse fatal advice and make dangerous statements that should have led to his immediate dismissal from the WHO. Instead, he is likely in May 2022 to be appointed for another five-year term.

1) In March 2020, the WHO published guidance advising the use of mechanical ventilation (on the basis of Chinese “expert consensus”). Such mechanical ventilation is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Covid-19 patients. Doctors in the UK and other western countries were conned into condemning their patients to death.

2) On 3 March 2020, Tedros deliberately conflated the Covid case fatality rate (CFR) with the Covid infection fatality rate (IFR) when he said, “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” For clarification, the CFR is the percentage of people who require medical attention for a disease who go on to die from it. The IFR is the percentage of people who are believed to have been infected with a virus who go on to die from it. Mild cases (with no or only minor symptoms) are not included in the CFR denominator; they are included in the IFR denominator. The Director General of the World Health Organisation would have known that the IFR of Covid was significantly less than 3.4% (one good estimate published since that time is 0.23%, or 0.05% for people below the age of 70). To have compared the CFR of Covid to the IFR of flu was deeply misleading. The WHO failed to correct journalists who, understandably perhaps, reported that Covid was “ten times deadlier than the flu” on the basis of these comments, creating mass panic and demands for government action. It’s difficult to find a credible explanation for Tedros’s comments that does not involve deliberate fear escalation by the WHO.

3) Under Tedros, the WHO continues to publish dangerous, unscientific, and nonsensical guidance around the use of entirely ineffective face coverings, and has not corrected the deeply damaging disinformation, based on a very limited number of weak Chinese studies, that it published about the very limited role of asymptomatic spread of Covid. This false concept is the entire basis underlying the justification for masking healthy people and contact tracing of supposedly asymptomatic “cases”. Did Tedros force Dr Maria van Kerkhove to backtrack the day after she revealed this truth in June 2020?

The WHO has undeniably become a dangerously corrupt supranational organisation that is both unelected and unaccountable, and is not fit for purpose. Indeed, its sole function now seems to be facilitating a power grab. So let’s look at the exact nature of the powers the WHO intends to give itself and the path it is following to implement this plan.

1) In May 2020, following a decision of the WHO’s 73rd World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO Director-General set up an the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response to “make recommendations to improve capacity for global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” and in particular to look at the “effectiveness of the mechanisms at WHO’s disposal” and “the functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005).”

2) At the 74th WHO World Health Assembly, in May 2021, the independent panel presented an 86-page publicly available report, “Covid-19: Make it the Last Pandemic”. The report concluded that “a transformation of the international system for pandemic preparedness and response is needed, catalysed by political leadership at the highest level” and that here is a need for a “more focused and independent WHO, a Pandemic Treaty, and a senior Global Health Threats Council” (page 45) and recommended that the WHO move quickly, to adopt a “Pandemic Framework Convention within the next 6 months”.

3) The report further recommended that the WHA should “strengthen the authority and independence of the WHO Director General” and “empower the WHO to take a leading, convening, and co-ordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response to a pandemic”. It recommended that the WHO should “formalize universal periodic peer reviews of national pandemic preparedness and response capacities against the targets set by WHO as a means of accountability and learning between countries” and “establish a new global system for surveillance based on full transparency by all parties, using state of-the-art digital tools … with appropriate protection of people’s rights”, and that “future declarations of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the WHO Director General should be based on the precautionary principle.”

4) Further to this report, the WHA commissioned a Working Group on Strengthening the WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR) to consider the findings and recommendations of the Panel’s report and other relevant information, and submit a report with proposed actions for consideration by the WHA’s Seventy Fifth Assembly meeting in May 2022 and the Executive Board’s 150th session in January 2022.

5) Separately, the May 2021 meeting of the WHA also made a decision to guide the WGPR “to prioritize the assessment of the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response”, and to provide a report to be considered at a special session of World Health Assembly that would, in line with the Independent Panel’s recommendations, be convened for the sole purpose of: “considering the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response with a view towards the establishment of an intergovernmental process to draft and negotiate such a convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response”.

6) In November 2021, the WGPR submitted a report to the WHO’s Director General, which was discussed at a “Special Session” of the WHA from 29 November to 1 December. The WGPR “expressed consensus on the importance of strengthening the role of WHO in health emergencies”. In the discussions, member states were clear on “the centrality of a strengthened WHO in the global health architecture … the status quo is unacceptable”. It noted that the benefits of a new WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument would include, amongst other things:

• “High-level political commitment and a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, which could strengthen cross-sectoral coherence and mobilization.”

• “An opportunity to enhance, update and strengthen the leading and coordinating role of WHO and its function to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work in the light of the 21st century global health landscape, including in improving engagement with civil society and the private sector … The WHO Constitution expressly provides for the possibility of a new instrument and WHO has experience in managing whole-of-society and whole-of-government instruments”. This appears to be reference to the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control, which was adopted in 2003 and, for now, remains the only international treaty ever to be concluded under the auspices of the WHO.

The WGPR concluded there would be benefits to developing a new legally binding instrument, as well as keeping open the possibility to update and amend the International Health Regulations. The WHA Special Session also agreed to establish “an intergovernmental negotiating body” (the “INB”) … to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, with a view to adoption under Article 19, or under other provisions of the WHO Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB. The INB is to determine under which provision of the WHO convention the instrument should be adopted by 1 August 2022 and will submit a progress report to the 76th WHA (May 2023) and its outcome for consideration by the 77th WHA (May 2024). (Pages 20-21)

On 10 January 2022, The WGPR prepared a draft interim report for the 150th meeting of the WHO’s Executive Board which took place later that month. The draft recommended a focus on strengthening governance including “Member States’ oversight of WHO’s work in health emergencies”, “strengthening the International Health Regulations (IHR) including clear guidance for action in the event of a public health emergency of international concern”, and “revising the IHR amendments process so that it is more agile in responding to future developments and advances”. However, Tedros (or people working on his behalf) made some amendments and additions to the WGPR’s report. The final version that Team Tedros sent to the Executive Board nine days later, on 19 January 2022 included:

• Insertion of “systems and tools” as a priority area for the WGPR’s future attention, under which the strengthening of the IHR was nested. The systems and tools heading included new language that suggested that “Member States agreed on the importance to build and strengthen global systems and tools to help prevent and prepare for future health emergencies and address them more effectively when they do arise”.

• Alongside “strengthening the IHR”, Team Tedros added a new sub-heading called “One Health approach” under the “systems and tools” heading. The new language noted that the “One Health concept reaches beyond pandemic preparedness and response and the purview of the WGPR as well as the mandate of the WHO. However the application of a One Health approach also would yield significant benefits for the international community. This could include new and/or strengthening of existing platforms, surveillance, furthering multi-sectoral partnerships (human, animal and environmental health sectors) and promoting specific countermeasures in line with the One Health approach.”

• An additional sub-point under strengthening the IHR, a reference to “recognizing the need for national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization, that undermine public health”. (A global Ministry of Truth, perhaps?)

• The addition of the following step in the WGPR’s proposed Schedule of Meetings: “Additional intersessional meetings as determined by the WGPR, consistent with the recommendations of the Executive Board, including through dedicated meetings, “deep dives and continuing dialogues with non-State actors and independent scientific panels and committees to focus on specific issues to help formulate action oriented recommendations”. Essentially, this is code for letting the drug-pushing pharma industry in to the process; a clear conflict of interest.

These are bold demands. But wait, there’s more.

A separate paper dated 11 January 2022 was also prepared for the Executive Board. This paper, authored exclusively by Tedros, suggested, amongst other things that:

• A “global early warning and alert system” using standardised and interoperable national capacities and “artificial intelligence and machine learning” would enable “a broader [global] health emergency intelligence system to rapidly detect and understand a threat, and promptly act on that information to mount a rapid, coordinated, sustained and adaptable emergency response at any and all levels: national, regional and/or global”. It notes that a new WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence was established in Berlin in 2021. The Hub, currently in its start-up phase, is “intended to be the central node of a global health intelligence network”. (Like a “CIA” for viruses?)

• “The problems of misinformation, disinformation, lack of information and information presented in a way that is not accessible to communities have increasingly been identified as significant exacerbating factors during many health emergencies. The Secretariat is working with partners and Member States to... build the evidence required to inform policy on dealing with the infodemic both during and between health emergencies”. There’s nothing like a good old-fashioned bit of policy-based evidence making to keep those bureaucrats busy between meetings!

At that meeting, the Executive Board decided the WGPR should “include, as part of its ongoing work, dedicated time to allow for discussions on strengthening of the International Health Regulations (2005), including through implementation, compliance and potential amendments”, and to urge member states “to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)”, which should be limited it to scope to what is needed to “address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application”.

It also agreed that the “proposed informal pre-meeting for interested non-State actors in official relations, Member States and the Secretariat will be organized annually during the four to six weeks before the World Health Assembly”. That sounds like those secretive meetings often held in the Swiss Alps at which those unelected self-identifying “elites” discuss how to force the rest of us to live in their dystopian fantasy world. All of this would happen behind closed doors, of course, because the meetings are not formal - no papers, agendas, minutes, or conclusions will be published. They will have free rein to steer the agenda, discussion and conclusions. Who knows what they may already have agreed.

Now, here comes the real kicker.

The Executive Board, in its January 2022 session, also proposed to appoint Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as Director General of the WHO for a term of a further five years, to August 2027, subject to ratification by the WHA in May. It also agreed to increase his salary from USD 239,755 per annum to USD 259,553 per annum, in addition to a slush fund of USD 252,000 per annum (USD 21,000 monthly) to be used at his sole discretion in connection with his official duties, in addition to travel allowances. He does not have to account for any of these expenses.

In his pitch for reappointment in January 2022, Tedros urged leaders to “act with ambition so that negotiations [on the pandemic treaty] are swift and we are ready to respond to the inevitable next Disease X”. He described the treaty as a “great historical stride forward”. (Where on earth might he have got that language from?)

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body responsible for developing a pandemic treaty held a first round of public hearings on 12 and 13 April 2022. They invited members of the global public to submit written comments of up to 250 words. In his opening remarks to the public hearing, Tedros described the possible treaty as a “generational agreement”, twice emphasising that it could be a real “game changer”.

In case you think this is all bureaucratic nonsense that will never come to pass, consider the following.

On 12 April 2022, Tedros transmitted a specific, line-by-line proposal from the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the WHO to amend the IHR, for consideration at the next World Health Assembly on 22-28 May 2022. It’s not clear why he sat on this for nearly three months, ignoring the US request to send and publish it within a few days of receipt, but in any event the US amendments would significantly change the relationship between the WHO and its member states, providing for much more scope for the WHO to act without the consent, or even the prior knowledge, of affected state parties. In particular it would allow the WHO DG to declare a public health emergency of international concern without the consent of the state party in whose territory an event is occurring. (Read that once more, please.) In particular it would allow the WHO DG to declare a public health emergency of international concern without the consent of the state party in whose territory an event is occurring.

If these amendments to the IHR and the pandemic treaty go ahead, the Director General of the WHO (Tedros, or whoever replaces him) could have the power to act independently, autonomously, and tyrannically. A unilateral declaration, by that very same person, of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern would be the gateway to whoever occupies that position wielding an unprecedented level of global power, to direct and demand that national governments take coercive actions against their own citizens – and they would be legally obliged to comply. The person who is likely going to be occupying that position until 2027 is a corrupt puppet of the despicably cruel Chinese Communist Party and the billionaires whose pockets they help to line. There would be no accountability, no democracy, and certainly no concern for the wellbeing of the world’s people, or their basic freedoms and natural rights. To protect their sovereignty, nation states across the world must now withdraw from the WHO immediately.

Please forward this article to your elected representatives, ask them what they think of it, and demand an in-person meeting. Invite them to look you in the eyes and tell you if they really believe it’s all just about keeping everyone “safe”.

Also, are we right? Read Will Jones' piece in The Daily Sceptic