Thursday 28th of September 2023

the pandemic of self-appointed rulers of your world of sick pigs.....

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge. No single government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone.

A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.

Such an instrument would also:

  • ensure higher, sustained and long-term political engagement at the level of world leaders of states or governments
  • define clear processes and tasks
  • enhance long-term public and private-sector support at all levels
  • foster integration of health matters across all relevant policy areas

We need to create an environment where every scientist, health worker, and government can band together for a common cause. Working together to build new solutions to protect what is most precious - our health and our lives.

Charles Michel, President of the European Council at World Health Summit, 25 October 2021What's the purpose of an international agreement on pandemics?

The proposal for an international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response is guided by a spirit of collective solidarity, anchored in the principles of fairness, inclusiveness and transparency.

Neither individual governments nor the global community can entirely prevent pandemics. But the international community needs to be much better prepared and better aligned in responding to possible future pandemics across the entire cycle of detection, alarm and response.

The instrument would set out the objectives and fundamental principles in order to structure the necessary collective action to fight pandemics.

An international convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemics would support and focus on:

  • early detection and prevention of pandemics
  • resilience to future pandemics
  • response to any future pandemics, in particular by ensuring universal and equitable access to medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines and diagnostics
  • stronger international health framework with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters
  • the "One Health" approach, connecting the health of humans, animals and our planet

More specifically, such an instrument can enhance international cooperation in a number of priority areas, such as surveillance, alerts and response, but also in general trust in the international health system.










panic pandemic....

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., The Defender

The World Health Organization (WHO) this week concluded its 76th World Health Assembly(WHA) without ratifying a new pandemic treaty or the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

However, the meetings, held May 21-30 in Geneva, Switzerland, did include announcements about new WHO bodies created to respond to pandemic threats and new calls to “restrict personal liberties” during health emergencies.

The meetings also included circulation of the new “bureau’s text” of the pandemic treaty, dated May 22, but the WHA did not make available an updated document for the proposed IHR amendments.


WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged member states to reach an agreement on both instruments by 2024.

Independent journalist James Roguski, who has extensively tracked the pandemic treaty and IHR amendment negotiations, described this year’s WHA as “a big theatrical production.”

“You can focus on a million details and forget that what they are doing is negotiating these documents,” Roguski told The Defender. “It’s a dog and pony show.”

Roguski said it was always the WHO’s plan not to ratify the treaty and amendments during the WHA meetings, despite warnings to the contrary by some analysts whom he accused of “fearmongering.” It was “always their schedule … they’ve been saying all along they’re shooting for 2024,” he said.

New pandemic treaty ‘dystopian in its scope and its cleverness’

The “bureau’s text” of the pandemic treaty was revealed for the first time at the WHA. At 42 pages, it is shorter than previous drafts that exceeded 200 pages and appears to have consolidated many previous proposals submitted by the negotiating parties.

In a recent video produced by Roguski, he described the new text as “good news, as it seems the WHO has finally revealed its true plan” — but also, “bad news, as it is absolutely dystopian in its scope and its cleverness.”


According to the Geneva Health Files, member states will discuss the bureau’s text in early June and in mid-June will take up a drafting group process. It remains unclear if this will “form the basis of any negotiation.”

Speaking last week on CHD.TV’s “Friday Roundtable,” Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said the WHO is now calling the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments “instruments,” perhaps “because treaty sounds like it has to be ratified by the Senate, and they’re trying to find a way around that.”

On the same broadcast, Nass and Roguski said the new IHR amendments are “a completely new document.” Writing on Substack, Roguski questioned why “an updated version of the 307 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations” was not made available.

Roguski told The Defender:

“They really didn’t talk very much. I can’t find any version 2.0 of an edited version of the negotiations that have been going on. They have not published anything. And so, the amendments that were submitted in September were kept secret until mid-December, and that is still the only version that we have.”

In his analysis of the bureau’s text, Roguski noted that article 33 appears to provide countries with “no way to opt out of adopted protocols,” even if they voted against a particular amendment.

He also cited Article 22, which calls for the formation of an “Implementation and Compliance Committee” to “review compliance with” the text. The Biden administration has shown support for the creation of this committee, while reaffirming support for the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments.







sick fear.....

STATE OF FEAR! COVID Propaganda EXPOSED! | Laura Dodsworth Interview





chem entrails.....

Rand Paul RIPS Bill Gates, Fauci Gain-of-Function Research As 'BIGGEST DANGER TO MANKIND': Rising


According to the CDC, all COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States are effective at preventing COVID-19. Getting sick with COVID-19 can offer some protection from future illness, sometimes called “natural immunity,” but the level of protection people get from having COVID-19 may vary depending on how mild or severe their illness was, the time since their infection, and their age. 


Getting a COVID-19 vaccination is also a safer way to build protection than getting sick with COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination helps protect you by creating an antibody response without you having to experience sickness. Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Getting sick with COVID-19 can cause severe illness or death, and we can’t reliably predict who will have mild or severe illness. If you get sick, you can spread COVID-19 to others. You can also continue to have long-term health issues after COVID-19 infection. 

While COVID-19 vaccines are effective, studies have shown some declines in vaccine effectiveness against infections over time, especially when the Delta variant was circulating widely.  The mRNA vaccines do not contain any live virus. Instead, they work by teaching our cells to make a harmless piece of a “spike protein,” which is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. After making the protein piece, cells display it on their surface. Our immune system then recognizes that it does not belong there and responds to get rid of it.

When an immune response begins, antibodies are produced, creating the same response that happens in a natural infection.  In contrast to mRNA vaccines, many other vaccines use a piece of, or weakened version of, the germ that the vaccine protects against. This is how the measles and flu vaccines work. When a weakened or small part of the virus is introduced to your body, you make antibodies to help protect against future infection.  Everyone ages 18 and older should get a booster shot either 6 months after their initial Pfizer or Moderna series, or 2 months after their initial Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine. People ages 16–17 may get a booster dose of Pfizer at least 6 months after their initial series of vaccines.  The CDC says A person is fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving all recommended doses in the primary series of their COVID-19 vaccination. A person is up to date with their COVID-19 vaccination if they have received all recommended doses in the primary series and one booster when eligible.

According to the CDC, Atrazine is a widely used chlorotriazine herbicide active against broadleaf and grassy weeds. Related chlorotriazine herbicides include simazine, propazine, and cyanazine, all which act by inhibiting plant photosynthesis. Atrazine is applied pre- and post-emergence to agricultural land for crops such as corn and sorghum. It is also used as a non-selective herbicide. Atrazine was first registered as an herbicide in 1958. More than 70 million pounds have been applied annually in recent years, with about 75% of corn cropland receiving treatment.

Atrazine has limited water solubility and is not tightly bound to soil, but is leachable in to ground and surface waters. In regions where atrazine is used, it is one of the more commonly detected pesticides in surface and ground waters (USGS, 2007). In soils, atrazine is slowly degraded to dealkylated products, which have half-lives of several months. Bacteria and plants can metabolize atrazine to hydroxyatrazine. Atrazine does not bioaccumulate. It has little toxicity in birds and moderate toxicity in some fish and aquatic invertebrates. Atrazine may alter the sexual development of frogs at environmental levels (Gammon et al., 2005; Hayes et al., 2002; U.S.EPA, 2003a).


About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's most important political newsmakers.READ FROM TOP.






pandemic industry....




Our governments intend to transfer decisions over our health, families, and societal freedoms to the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), whenever he or she declares it necessary. The success of this transfer of power depends on public ignorance of its implications, and of the nature of the WHO itself and its recent pandemic policy reversals. When the public understands, then its leaders are more likely to act in their interests rather than against them.

In late 2019, the WHO issued new recommendations for pandemic influenza. Influenza spreads by the same mechanism as Covid-19 (aerosols), with a similarmortality in most people. The WHO stated that it is “not recommended in any circumstances” to undertake contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, and border closures. They envisioned that in a severe pandemic it may be necessary to close businesses for up to seven to ten days. 

The WHO cautioned against strict measures because they would have minimal impact on the spread of an aerosolized respiratory virus while inevitably increasing poverty, especially harming low-income people. Poverty makes people die younger and is a major killer of babies in low-income countries.

A few months later, the WHO advocated for everything they had previously advised against, to combat Covid-19. This reversal in their recommendations had the effect they had predicted; increasing poverty and shortening life expectancy, particularly amongst the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, while having minimal overall impact on virus spread. 

While the WHO’s 2019 recommendations were based on the assessment of decades of knowledge by an expert panel, its Covid-19 lockdown recommendations were based solely on reported experience from one city in China. Their new source of knowledge had, a few weeks earlier, stated that the new virus had no human-to-human transmission. This was followed by apparent propaganda taken up by the world’s media of people dropping dead in the streets.

It is vital to understand what drove this reversal of WHO policy, and to detail its harm. International public health priorities are currently being upended with the specific aim of allowing the WHO to do this again, harder and more frequently. In May 2024 our countries will vote to allow a single person to dictate border closures and quarantine, and require medical examinations and vaccination of their citizens. They will agree to censor those who protest. Our governments will undertake to make this individual’s recommendations regarding our rights to family life, work, and school effectively binding.

In promoting lockdowns, the WHO was not only following China, but a group of powerful Pharma-related interests who have been pushing these approaches for over a decade. They have established public-private partnerships such as the Swiss-based CEPI, channeling taxpayer funding to promote their authoritarian approach to public health. In October 2019, a meeting called Event-201 was convened by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, including the WHO, China CDC and others, to run simulations of such approaches for a hypothetical coronavirus outbreak. At this time, Covid-19 virus must already have been circulating well beyond China.

Whilst establishing this influence over public health policy, Pharma and their private investors increasingly funded the WHO itself, now providing about 25 percent of its budget. This funding is ‘specified,’ meaning the funder decides how and where it is spent. Certain governments now also ‘specify’ most of their funding, leading to over 75 percent of the WHO’s activities being determined by the donor. Germany stands out as the second highest national donor after the USA, also being a major investor in BioNTech, Pfizer’s Covid-19 mRNA vaccine developer.

Discarding basic immunology, the WHO then claimed in late 2020 that only vaccination could lead to high community immunity (‘herd immunity’) and became a major proponent of mass vaccination within an epidemic, aligning fully with its private sponsors. Under pressure for obviously lying, they then changed to a preference for vaccination – equally foolish as a general statement since many everyday viruses are obviously mild. While not based on evidence or expertise, this clearly serves a purpose.

Despite there being a clearly identified subset of people at high Covid risk, vaccination-for-all was promoted by Pharma investors as a ‘way out’ of the lockdowns these same people had advocated for. The WHO’s incoherent Covid vax mantra – “No one is safe until all are safe” – is supposed to support this but logically implies that vaccination does not even protect the vaccinated.

In Western countries the results of these policies are increasingly stark; rising inequality, closed businesses and rising young adult all-cause mortality. In low-income countries across Africa and Asia that the WHO once prioritized, its actions have been even more devastating. As predicted in early 2020, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are increasing, killing more people and at a far younger age than Covid-19. Over 100 million additional people face malnutrition, up to 10 millionadditional girls will endure child marriage and nightly rape, and millions more mothers will lose their infants due to the impacts of deeper poverty. UNICEF estimated nearly a quarter million added child deaths from lockdowns in South Asia in 2020 alone. The WHO did this – they stated that it would happen, then encouraged its implementation.

Few gained from the Covid response, but those who did gained; particularly private and corporate funders of the WHO with large Pharma and software assets, gained massively. WHO employees and others working in global health also thrived, and are now securing lucrative careers as the agenda expands. As the old evidence-based public health is pushed aside, it is in the new public health of the software entrepreneurs and Pharma moguls that careers will be made.






a human invention.....