Are readers of TNC aware of a daily newsletter called Global Health NOW which is published by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University? Probably not, as if you have an ounce of sense then the words ‘public health’, ‘Bloomberg’ and ‘Johns Hopkins’ in the same sentence are probably enough to bring on the vapours.
So, as a sacrifice to humanity and a service to readers of this great organ I read Global Health NOW so others do not have to. It keeps me abreast of all sorts of madness such as the non-existent but apparently persistent COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ and other attempts to scare the pants off us such as monkeypox. As you might imagine, they are also at the forefront of pushing the COVID-19 vaccines which we now know were worse than useless.
The 3rd February issue of Global Health NOW contained the following item: ‘Six years after COVID-19’s global alarm: is the world better prepared for the next pandemic? – WHO’. The link takes you to a WHO statement issued on 2nd February. You’ll have got the gist. Emotive language such as ‘global alarm’ tells you most of what you need to know.
The answer to the question, asked in the title of the WHO statement is ‘yes and no’, which is typical. ‘Yes’ – the WHO is brilliant and doing its best; ‘No’ – countries need to continue sending it billions of pounds so that it can save us from the ‘next’ pandemic.
The word ‘next’ in the context of a pandemic is interesting, when was the last one? They cannot possibly mean COVID-19 which never lived up to its promise of bodies on the streets, populations decimated and how everyone was at risk.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend there was a deadly and recent pandemic, to which the WHO claims ‘meaningful, concrete steps have been taken to strengthen preparedness’. What are the components of that preparedness?
They include the following: the adoption of a WHO Pandemic Agreement and amendments to International Health Regulations both of which sound like no more than ‘we got together and wrote something’. There is also a pandemic fund ‘implemented by WHO and the World Bank (which) has provided grant funding totalling over US$ 1.2 billion’.
Sounds generous but, of course, neither the WHO nor the World Bank have their own money. It all comes from the countries that are part of these organisations and, as the UK is part of both then that means our money. And when you get on to what they are doing with that money, it is clearly being weaponised against us.
The money is being spent on such things as pandemic ‘intelligence’ (ie COVID type surveillance and oppression of populations) and mRNA technology (not a great success so far). It will also fund a Global Health Emergency Corps which will deploy ‘surge support, and creating a network of emergency leaders from multiple countries to share best practices and coordinate responses’, and who doesn’t want all of that?
After wading through more of the kind of nonsense touched on above, when you get to the end you realise how utterly deluded the type of people who work at the WHO and, especially the kind of people who write these statements are. Before a final exhortation not to ‘drop the ball on pandemic preparedness and prevention’ we are warned that ‘Pandemics are national security threats.’
I challenge you not to laugh at the final bullet points which inform the reader that ‘Investing in preparedness is an investment in:
- lives saved
- economies protected
- societies stabilized.’
The measures taken to manage the non-existent threat of COVID-19 undoubtedly led to more deaths than the ‘pandemic’ ever did. Older people were warehoused in nursing homes, hospitals were closed, and then the rollout of an experimental gene therapy which, we now know, made people more rather than less susceptible to COVID-19 and had an array of side-effects including sudden death all contributed to the death toll.
The claim that economies are protected by pandemic measures is surely a joke, if COVID-19 is anything to go by. As a result of lockdowns and social distancing implemented during COVID-19 most of the economies of Western Europe were destroyed and have still not recovered. Stabilizing societies sounds very like controlling them but, as the massive demonstrations in London showed, people can only be stabilised for so long.
The case for disbanding the WHO is not just ideological, it is also empirical. An organisation that mistakes modelling for reality, surveillance for care, and compliance for consent has forfeited its claim to global authority. It centralises power without democratic accountability, spends other people’s money with missionary zeal, and responds to failure by demanding more funding and wider reach. The WHO is incapable of reform. Sadly, so far only Donald Trump, alone among world leaders, realises.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
