WHO and Misinformation
WHO wants Nations to Clamp Down on Free Speech
Home | All Posts | Notes | Clips
Tedros on Misinformation
Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Director General of the World Health Organisation wants nations to clamp down even more on free speech.
At the recent World Health Assembly (WHA), Tedros claimed vaccines work and it's time to get aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers. His words:
I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work... and we have the science, evidence on our side. I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers. I think they use Covid as an opportunity and you know all the havoc they're creating...”
You can listen to Tedros here.
Misinformation and the IHR
The newly adopted International Health Regulations strengthen the WHO's position on fighting so-called misinformation and disinformation.
In Annex 1, it says State Parties shall develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities. This involves, among other things, risk communication: including addressing misinformation and disinformation.
But who is really the risk? And who is really spreading misinformation and disinformation? And why does the WHO see healthy debate as risk communication? Why do they need to shut down debate?
Watch USA Lawyer Reggie Littlejohn at the Lawyers’ Press Conference in Geneva on the 1st June, 2024 talk about this.
You can listen to the entire International Lawyers’ Press Conference here or here.
Why does the WHO want to shut down debate?
In a democratic setting, Tedros should welcome debate. Studies, data, etc. should be questioned openly. The WHO should be able to prove their ‘safe and effective’ narrative in an atmosphere of scientific debate.
Unfortunately, as witnessed in their Covid-19 response, anything that is counter to the WHO's narrative is classified as misinformation or disinformation even if it is the truth. And anyone, regardless of their qualification and regardless of the evidence they submit are deemed anti-vaxxers.
Is the WHO aware their claims will NOT stand up to scrutiny and therefore, their harmful deception will be exposed? Censorship is a tool used to hide the truth.
Where is the WHO’s Safe-&-Effective Evidence?
The evidence that the 'vaccines' are safe and effective does not appear to exist. Health authorities all around the world cannot produce sound evidence so there cannot be any.
Tedros is being deceptive when he says the vaccines work. He produces NO solid evidence they are effective to any significant extent or safe. His words are merely harmful propaganda.
However, there is an enormous and growing body of evidence against the mRNA ‘vaccines’. There is also a growing number of top doctors and scientists speaking out and they, unlike the WHO, have heaps of sound science and empirical data to prove their claims.
The WHO and many health authorities around the world are heavily funded by Big Pharma. For instance, Medsafe received a staggering percentage of its funding from large pharmaceutical companies – 84.05% in the year 2022/2023; therefore, Medsafe has huge conflicts of interest.
If the evidence was in favour of the’ vaccines’, the evidence would be available—it would be available everywhere. Their repeating over & over again 'mRNA vaccines are safe and effective' DOES NOT make them SO.
When will the WHO acknowledge the herd of elephants in the room? Will they ever put the general population before their sponsors?
Some examples:
1. In the Philippines, excess deaths have skyrocketed and births have declined since Covid 'vaccines' were rolled out. These findings were revealed by a recent House of Representatives' committee investigation. See here.
2. A major, collaborative study by researchers from Oxford, Leeds, Harvard, and Bristol has confirmed that myocarditis and pericarditis only appear in children and adolescents following COVID-19 vaccination, not after infection. See here. Adults are meant to protect children NOT harm them.
3. Dr Guy Hatchard in his essential-read article, '...The biotech Bubble is Bursting', references a number of studies and circumstances that highlight vaccine harm. You can read the article here and listen to Guy Hatchard on RCR.
From Guy’s article:
... a former Japanese Minister for Internal Affairs Kazuhiro Haraguchi ...openly acknowledged that the tidal wave of sudden deaths presently occurring among the Japanese population is almost entirely of the Covid vaccinated group.
...the New York Times admitted that the evidence that Covid came from a Lab in Wuhan is overwhelming.
….UK Daily Telegraph...“Covid vaccination may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths…
…the prestigious British Medical Journal has published an article “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic…
Guy Hatchard also gives references that show vaccination increases your risk of dying from Covid-19.
4. In the video Proof of vaccine Harm, Dr John Campbell reports on the Medical Journals’ article on excess mortality in vaccinated countries, the article on excess deaths and vaccination in The Telelgraph (a mainstream UK paper), and also on a secondary analysis of the Pfizer trial data. This showed a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group.
Yet Tedros says vaccines are safe. Where does he get his information from? Vested interests? This is the only reasonable explanation for his head-in-the-sand remarks.
At a huge rally in Geneva during the WHA, esteemed UK cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra gave a short but stunning speech to the enormous crowd. Please listen. It’s important.
Dr Malhotra:
The WHO…made global health worse during the pandemic. They supported coercion and mandates of the MOST HORRIFIC pharmaceutical products in the history of medicine…
You can listen to all the rally speeches here and here.
Do we want to give the WHO more power; the power to censor questions; the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong; the power to stop science from flourishing; the power to fabricate / manipulate science; the power to cover up mistakes, wrongdoings, the truth?
To my knowledge, we have a maximum of 18 months to get our government to reject the newly adopted International Health Regulations; otherwise, they will come into force. See Article 59. The next article will include a number of things we can do.