rigorousintuition.ca

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS:

5. Increased surveillance

6. Headed towards a “One Health” approach

9. Direct attack on sovereignty via outside data

10. 48 hour time period to respond to WHO

11. WHO may unilaterally decide

12. Regional (PHERC) and intermediate emergencies [Edit: presumably he means PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern]

13. Accept the offer of help from the WHO in 48 hours

15. Deployment of expert teams (recommendations)

18. Enable health care workers to be brought in.

48. Almost any country can claim to be an “affected party.”

49. The deliberations of the Emergency Committee are shared with states, but not necessarily with the public.

53. The “Compliance Committee” will have investigatory powers within each country – another loss of sovereignty.

59. Amendments come into effect more quickly (in 6 months instead of 18).

https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/19/pandemic-treaty-will-hand-who-keys-to-global-government/

The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.

We’ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.

When we – and others – linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO’s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.

Either way, it’s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.

Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.

An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:

Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.

Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:

In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

It recommends the involvement of “non-state actors” such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of “health emergencies” [emphasis added]:

In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.

It doesn’t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance”:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:

.If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.

.If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.

National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.

Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.

Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.

Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.

It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?

Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overt official ones.

Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:

. The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

.The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.

We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air…and I’m not talking about covid.

Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.

As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”

If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.

Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

Despite this historical example of blatant corruption, one proposed clause of the Pandemic Treaty would make it even easier to declare a PHEIC. According to the May 2021 report “Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic” [emphasis added]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

Yes, the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.

If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.

We already know the other key points likely to be included in a pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports, and pour funding into big Pharma’s pockets to produce “vaccines” ever faster and with even less safety testing.

But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.

A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.

This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.

Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO

by Peter Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin

Originally posted to America Out Loud May 4, 2022 | Feature 1, Healthcare, Politics, World

Please take seriously the severity of this existential threat to everything free people hold dear. Do everything in your power to pass this report on to others and to find ways to communicate with and to influence people to stop empowering WHO to take over our national sovereignty and freedom.

On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).

This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.1

These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.2

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.

How It Became Official

On January 18, 2022, with no public awareness, officials from the Biden Administration sent the World Health Organization these extensive amendments to strengthen WHO’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations.4 The U.S. amendments cross out a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…”5 By eliminating that, and other clauses (see below), all the shackles will be removed from the Director-General of WHO, enabling him to declare health emergencies at will.

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.

Although sponsored by an American administration, WHO’s most significant use of this arbitrary authority to declare national emergencies will be used against the United States if our government ever again dares to take anti-globalist stands as it did under the Trump administration.

How Much Time Do We Have to Stop the Amendments?

The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022,6 leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote. As noted, the amendments are scheduled and almost certainly will be enacted May 22-28, 2022.

The existing WHO regulations then provide for an 18-month grace period during which a nation may withdraw its “yes” vote for amendments, but the current proposed amendments would reduce that opportunity to six months. If the U.S.-sponsored amendments are passed, a majority of the nations could, in the next six months, change their individual votes and reverse the approval. But this is a much more difficult proposition than stopping the whole process now.

We must act now to prevent the passage of the amendments, including putting sufficient pressure on the United States to withdraw them from consideration. If that fails, and the amendments are approved at the May meeting of the WHO governing body, we must then make the effort to influence a majority of the nations to change their votes to “no.”

Without Organized Resistance, the Amendments Will Definitely Pass

On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS.7 Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.

Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:

Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the European Union (EU).

The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO’s global power. The EU includes the following 27 Western nations:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

That’s a total of 47 nations supporting the U.S.-authored amendments. All of them have endorsed empowering WHO to declare a possible or potential health emergency or crisis within any nation despite its objections and refusal to cooperate. To repeat, these amendments will pass unless American citizens, as well as citizens worldwide, mount a very strong opposition.

Defining “Health” and WHO’s Domain of Authority

According to the Foreward to WHO’s regulations, there is no specific limit to what constitutes a health emergency, and it is certainly not limited to pandemics. WHO’s domain includes:8

a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission, but covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…

WHO’s powerful reach is also defined by the number of other organizations it is authorized to cooperate with once it has declared an emergency or health crisis: “other competent intergovernmental organizations or international bodies with which WHO is expected to cooperate and coordinate its activities, as appropriate, include the following: United Nations, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Air Transport Association, International Shipping Federation, and Office International des Epizooties.”9

The Preamble to the WHO Constitution (separate from the International Health Regulations) summarizes WHO’s concept of what is included under its mandate of improving, guiding, and organizing world health:10

WHO remains firmly committed to the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution

. Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

. The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent on the fullest cooperation of individuals and States.

. The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.

. Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of diseases, especially communicable diseases, is a common danger.

. Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.

. The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological, and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.

. Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.

. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

Given WHO’s assessment of the breadth of its health concerns, mandates, and goals — almost any kind of problematic situation that affects the people of a nation could be considered a health problem. Indeed, under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem. With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.

WHO’s Sweeping New Powers

The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party. Despite the fact that his role as the cover-up apologist for the Chinese Communists at the onset of COVID-19, this “dear friend of Anthony Fauci” was re-elected without opposition in 2022 to a second five-year term.11 His original election in 2017, followed by his re-election without opposition in 2022, is an ominous display of Chinese Communist influence over WHO,12 which makes further empowering the U.N. agency extremely dangerous.

Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action. This requirement is stricken by the U.S. amendments (Article 9.1). The amendments require a response in 24 hours from the identified nation, or WHO will identify it as “rejection” and act independently (Article 10.3). If the identified nation “does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall … immediately share with the other State Parties the information available to it…” (Article 10.4).

Indicating the breadth of WHO’s scope of power, the agency will be given the right to involve multiple other U.N. agencies, including those related to food and agriculture, animal health, environmental programs, “or other relevant entities” (Article 6.1). This, too will not require the permission of the identified nation. The targeted nation is also required to send to WHO any relevant genetic sequence data. And as we have seen, the Foreward to these regulations presents a much larger array of potential collaborating agencies.

Under the proposed regulations, WHO itself would develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…” (New article 5). Notice that the health-endangering event may be so nonspecific as to have “unknown causes or sources.” Thus, Tedros and any future Director-Generals of WHO will be given unrestricted powers to define and then implement their interventions.

The proposed regulations, in combination with existing ones, allow action to be taken by WHO, “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring…” (Article 12.2). That is, Tedros need only “consider” that a “potential or actual” risk is occurring.

Global Supporters of WHO

WHO is not a global powerhouse by itself. Early in the pandemic, it acted as a front group for the international exploiters of humanity, whom we describe in our new book COVID-19 and the Global Predators. In particular, it made certain the Chinese Communists could hide the seriousness of the pandemic while spreading to the world on passenger airplanes from its major cities, including Wuhan itself. We have already noted and documented that the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping have enormous influence over WHO.

Even after Donald Trump slashed the U.S. contribution to WHO in February 2020, the U.S. remained the largest donor to WHO. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. contribution was $115.8 million, followed by China at approximately one-half that amount, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Brazil.13

Then in early July 2020, Trump notified Congress and the U.N. that it was formally withdrawing from WHO. Bill Gates quickly announced he was increasing his contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to $250 million.14

After the Communist Chinese Party, Bill Gates probably has the most influence over WHO. In our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, we describe in Chapter 15 how Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and the giant medical foundation Wellcome Trust created CEPI — The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. This became the center of global predatory activities in preparation for the anticipated pandemic. It brought together key U.S. agencies, including the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, the U.N., WHO, giant pharmaceutical companies, banks, and multiple other sources of wealth and power.

In 2017, or earlier, CEPI made an agreement called a memorandum of understanding with WHO. CEPI then presented a PowerPoint presentation to WHO in July 2017, in effect dividing up the world between the Gates’ CEPI and WHO in the coming pandemic. Gates would handle the financing, supply, and distribution of the vaccines, and WHO would control and monitor the scientific and medical community. Among the stipulations of the PowerPoint, which the Gates-created foundation presented, was that the pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed for all direct and indirect costs by the government for developing their high-speed manufacturing platforms.

WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies. This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.

Europeans Call for Additional Further Increases in WHO’s Power

There is a growing debate over further increasing the power of WHO to punish uncooperative or dissident nations.15 Some “have sounded the alarm about giving the WHO too much power at the expense of national sovereignty.” Some have voiced concern about China’s influence on WHO: “Not only has it increased its payment to the WHO in recent years, but it also enjoys a special relationship with its leader.”

But others are calling for increasing WHO’s ability to sanction non-compliant nations. Echoing recent plans publicized by the Biden administration, some nations are calling for “national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization that undermine public health.” German Health Minister Jens Spahn has proposed “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” Tedros has said, “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.”

Treaties with WHO: Another Enormous Threat to Sovereignty — With a Longer Timeline

Before we learned about this current and more immediate threat to U.S. sovereignty, we were focusing on WHO’s plans to begin making treaties with individual nations to take over their general healthcare structures, making WHO the guiding and central authority for the world’s healthcare. In addition to many radio, TV, and public appearances giving the details about this threat, we have written a column on America Out Loud, dated February 18, 2022, “Tedros Introduces Globalist Plan to Take Over World’s Health Systems.”16

If implemented, the treaties become an even greater threat than the amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, but we have more time to deal with the treaties than with the amendments.

We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion. Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.

Why Would the U.S. Government Surrender Its Sovereignty

Why would the U.S. give away its sovereignty to other nations? In reality, that process has been going on at least since President Wilson’s failed attempt to get the Senate to approve U.S. membership in the League of Nations. It has escalated since World War II, often under the umbrella and authority of the United Nations, with which many global predators are enamored and use as the cover story for their predations. As documented in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab have both worked out cooperative agreements for their versions of the New World Order with the U.N.

President Biden has recently told the Business Round Table — the presidents and CEOs of the wealthiest 200 corporations in America — that they must lead the growing New World Order:17

“And now is a time when things are shifting. We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

John Kerry, the President’s climate czar, had announced that when Americans elected Biden, they voted for the Great Reset, whether they knew it or not.18

Discussion and Conclusions

The planning for these devastating U.S.-sponsored amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations has been so stealthy that it might have escaped attention except for the efforts of one individual, James Roguski. He was the first to recognize this threat, and on March 31, 2022, he published a report headlined, “WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution.”19 He also helped us by reviewing the material and this report with us. Fortunately, our courageous medical colleague Robert Yoho originally alerted us to Roguski’s work and its importance.20

We are facing an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignty by these legally-binding amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations that — without stiff opposition — will almost certainly be passed during the upcoming meeting of WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, May 22-28, 2022. As noted earlier, there is a six-month grace period following approval of amendments during which countries may withdraw their approval, but a majority doing so seems highly unlikely. Right now, we must focus on preventing the WHA from approving the amendments.

We must immediately mount an international campaign, especially focused within America, to force the U.S. to withdraw these amendments before they come to a vote. Otherwise, America and the nations of the world will take a giant stride toward forfeiting national sovereignty to WHO and the U.N. In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the U.N. and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations. Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.

Primary Author Peter R Breggin MD

References:

1 /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf Top lefthand corner provides the date and proposal ID.

2 https://www.worlddata.info/alliances/un ... ations.php

3 International Health Regulations (2005) (who. int) These are the original WHO International Health Regulations before the proposed amendments by the U.S.A. The Overview on this page (before going to the link to the Regulations) in the second sentence contains the statement about their legally binding nature.

4 /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf The document dated January 18, 2022, is found on pages 3-4, From the “Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.” It lists the Amendments as an enclosure, along with a “Letter from HHS Assistant Secretary Loyce Pace.”

5 /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf See p. 6 of the amendments, Article 9 (1.).

6 /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf The date is in the upper righthand corner.

7 https://geneva.usmission.gov/2022/01/26 ... ergencies/ This is a One-page statement from U.S. to WHO about amendments. Lists supporting nations and DHHS support.

8 International Health Regulations (2005) (who.int). Download the Regulations and go to the Foreward.

9 International Health Regulations (2005) (who.int). International Health Regulations, Section on Revision Of The International Health Regulations, pp. 3-4.

10 https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution

11 https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-hea ... econd-term. Even The New York Times had serious reservations about Tedros’ initial nomination, citing allegations of his covering up epidemics in his home country of Ethiopia: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/heal ... reaks.html

12 https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/ch ... oft-power/

13 https://www.statista.com/chart/21372/as ... anization/

14 https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... government

15 Swab, Petr. Proposal to Sanction Countries Disobeying WHO Pandemic Response Rules is Concerning: Author. The Epoch Times, April 14, Updated April 19, 2022. Swab’s report is the source for all the quotes in this section. is https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposal- ... 05091.html

16 https://www.americaoutloud.com/tedros-i ... h-systems/

17 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... y-meeting/

18 https://redstate.com/heartlandinstitute ... en-n286949 We have also checked a video of Kerry’s remarks.

19 https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/wak ... ing-of?s=r

20 https://www.buzzsprout.com/1718994/1048 ... -the-world

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html

WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant

The Solidarity Trialis a WHO-led conglomeration of many national trials of treatments for Covid-19.In March alone, the WHO collected $108 million from donors to cover costs of Solidairy clinical trials. Per theWHO:

As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients.Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them…

The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials had been stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed that patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had 35% higher death rates, but the Lancet study was retracted13 days after publication, as its data turned out to be fabricated. The HCQ Solidarity trials are currently ongoing.

Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:

● Remdesivir
● Hydroxychloroquine
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

Initially, the WHO planned to use neither cloroquine in its trials. But multiple countries requested chloroquines, so both chloroquine (CQ) and HCQ were then added to the trial plan. However, HCQ was felt to be a little safer, countries preferred it, so WHO dropped CQ from its trials. Other clinical trials continue to test both CQ and HCQ against Covid-19.

The doses were not specified on WHO's list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were they specified, surprisingly, in WHO's April 8 four-person "consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing".

The Introduction of the Report of that meeting notes,

"The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."

Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India's ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India. Then I learned that Singapore had been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial due to the hydroxychloroquine dose.

The UK "Recovery" trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.

The UK Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies. The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22.Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #RecoveryGate.

The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

Even more disturbing than this, babies weighing 5 kg could be given a dose of 300 mg HCQ in the first 24 hours in the UK Recovery trial, which is 233 mg of the base (47 mg/kg), nearly 4 times therecommended maximum. One to two pills (200-400 mg) is "potentially fatal in a toddler". And authors from George Washington University say:

"Ingestion of 1-2 tablets of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is thought to predispose children under 6 years of age to serious morbidity and mortality...ingestions of greater than 10 mg/kg of chloroquine base or unknown amounts require triage to the nearest health care facility for 4-6 h of observation. There is very limited data on pediatric hydroxychloroquine overdoses and no reports of toxicity from 1-2 pills, but given its similarity to chloroquine, it also should be considered potentially toxic at small doses. Thus, similar recommendations should be followed for triage after accidental hydroxychloroquine overdose."

UPDATE July 21: The American Association of Poison Control Centers saidon March 25:

"These medications have a narrow therapeutic window, meaning that accidental ingestion of amounts that exceed recommended dosing can be extremely dangerous with toxicity including coma, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, low potassium levels, cardiac arrest and death. Even a single pill can be potentially life threatening to a child."

The quote from the WHO report on dosing, provided 9 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague regarding the dose used in the Solidarity trial, stating the number of milligrams per tablet, but not the number of tablets to be used. The Solidarity trial is registered but the registration fails to specify dosages.

The registration of the Canadian portionof the Solidarity trial informs us of its HCQ dose: ten 200 mg tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later then 400 mg every 12 hoursfor 9 more days). This is 2.0 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian Solidaritytrial uses dosing identical to Canada.

Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. This is what their trial document says as well, on page 23. Landray also claimed in an interview with Paris Soir that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was "6 or 10 times" the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the hydroxychloroquine dose that is used for amebic dysentery. However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebias is is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used. That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, considerably less than half the Recovery dose. Co-Principal Investigator Peter Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray's comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication. Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.

We know that in Brazil, both a high CQ dose and a low CQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths, with 39% mortality (16 deaths in 41 subjects). The mean age in the high dose group was 54.7. The high dose arm used 600 mg CQ twice daily for ten days, with cumulative dose of 12 grams. EKG changes typical of toxicity were seen in 25% of high dose subjects. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.

How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used? For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease, patients receive between 200 and 400 mg daily, or amaximum of 5 mg/kg. In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment. For acute attacks of malaria, 1,500-2,000 mg may be given over 3 days. Professor Didier Raoult's group in Marseille used 600 mg daily for up to ten days in 1061 Covid-19 patients, and reported 8 deaths, a mortality rate of 0.75%, all over 74 years of age. The mortality rate reported by Landray and Horby in the Recovery trial is 34 times higher.

We know from WHO's March 13 Informalconsultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug's complex pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation.

The only treatment dose mentioned in the March 13 Informal consultation report was in a paragraph about preventive doses. It said,"Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days."

What is the "base"? A 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg "base" drug. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a high first dose, not to several high additional doses. However, the trial protocol used in Solidarity employs the same dose for all, rather than weight-based dosing.

What is a toxic dose? All experts agree on this: "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill. Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this. Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of chloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs. Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams ofchloroquine base "may be fatal."

According to Browning and Goldfrank,the pharmacokinetics and potency of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are almost identical, while the maximum used chronic dose of chloroquine is 3.5 mg/kg.

The Recovery trial used1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients. The Canadian and Norwegian Solidarity trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)

The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia.

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO's Solidarity trials. While the Solidarity trials have an "adaptive" design which allows midstream protocol changes, no lessons were learned from the Brazil or Recovery trials' experience with excessive dosages. Solidarity has not reduced its HCQ dosing, although it can do so at any time. The Solidarity trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.