Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

CHD Files FOIA Requests: Why Did Government Shut Down Studies on Cellphone Radiation & Cancer?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-foia-requests-nih-studies-cellphone-radiation-cancer/

CHD Files FOIA Requests: Why Did Government Shut Down Studies on Cellphone Radiation and Cancer?

The requests are for key communications and research documents related to studies that were underway and the factors that led the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences to discontinue the studies, despite previous research finding evidence of cancer and DNA damage related to cellphone use.

stack of documents with hand holding cellphone with radiation symbol on top

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for documents and communications related to the agency’s decision to discontinue studies on the potential health effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) — even after a 10-year, $30-million study, completed in 2018, found evidence of cancer and DNA damage.

“We think it is important to understand what led to this decision, because we know too often big industry interests play a significant role” in shutting down this type of research, said Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless program.

Eckenfels-Garcia told The Defender it’s “truly astonishing that the government has decided to stop research into the health effects of wireless radiation instead of deepening it, in light of ever-growing evidence of harm.”

CHD sent two requests to the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS), a subagency of NIH, whose scientists had been studying wireless radiation.

The requests are for key communications and study documents that could shed light on the research government scientists were conducting when before it was shut down, and what factors led to the shut-down.

“By working together at the outset,” CHD staff attorney Risa Evans wrote in the FOIA letters, “we can decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future.”

Why stop studying wireless radiation now?

As The Defender reported, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in January announced via an updated fact sheet that it has no plans to further study the effects of cellphone RFR on human health.

This was after the program’s 10-year study, published in 2018, found “clear evidence” that RFR exposure was linked to malignant heart tumors, “some evidence” linking it to malignant brain tumors, and “some evidence” linking it to both malignant and benign adrenal gland tumors and DNA damage in rats.

NTP is an “interagency partnership” of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the NIEHS.

After publishing the study, government scientists conducted follow-up studies on the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress — especially stress on the heart, according to the NTP’s cellphone RFR website.

The follow-up studies also sought to “evaluate further” the 2018 study finding that RFR exposure caused DNA damage.

The research was “technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected” and “no further work” is planned, according to NTP’s RFR website.

According to the NTP website, the program “strives to remain at the cutting edge of scientific research and the development and application of new technologies for modern toxicology and molecular biology” and “provides the scientific basis for programs, activities, and policies that promote health or lead to the prevention of disease.”

“So why would its scientists stop studying wireless radiation?” asked Eckenfels-Garcia. “We want to know.”

 

‘I thought that was the right next step’

Brian Berridge, DVM, Ph.D., NTP’s scientific director until January 2023, confirmed that the follow-up studies were underway during his tenure and that the decision to no longer study RFR happened after he stepped down.

“The work was being done while I was there — with my blessing,” he told The Defender. “I thought that was the right next step.”

Large studies like the one the NTP did in 2018, Berridge said, raise questions that “ultimately take additional studies” to understand better.

For example, the follow-up studies were looking at whether the negative health outcomes the 2018 study saw in rats — cancerous tumors and DNA damage — could rightly be attributed to RFR or to some other aspect of the experimental conditions, such as living 24/7 in a small metal chamber.

CHD’s first FOIA request seeks more details about what the follow-up studies entailed.

The request asked agency officials to hand over “all protocols, standard operating procedures, and other records describing the methods, procedures, and/or study goals of every study planned or conducted by DTT [Division of Translational Toxicology] to follow up on the rodent studies previously conducted by the National Toxicology Program.”

Four government employees named in FOIA request

CHD’s second FOIA request asked for all communications between key researchers and officials from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024 — when NTP appeared to be conducting follow-up studies and when it decided to discontinue them.

The FOIA request names four government employees:

  • Robert C. Sills, DVM, Ph.D., who at the time was the acting scientific director of NIEHS’ DTT. Scientists with DTT — who commonly work on NTP’s projects — were the ones conducting the follow-up studies, according to the NTP website.
  • Stephanie Smith-Roe, Ph.D., the DTT scientist supervising the follow-up studies, according to a former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous.
  • Nigel J. Walker, Ph.D., acting chief of DTT’s Systems Toxicology Branch, who was responsible for managing the follow-up studies, according to another former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous.
  • Rick Woychik, Ph.D., director of NIEHS, who sets the budget for NIEHS, including DTT, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who served on the NTP’s board of scientific counselors in the 1980s when it launched.

The request seeks communications related to the funding and termination of the studies.

It’s unclear whether some of the follow-up studies were prematurely terminated or whether they had simply completed their research goals, with no further studies planned.

For instance, the NTP cellphone RFR website states that the researchers had completed “feasibility testing” of a small-scale RFR exposure system for doing the research.

It appears they planned to use the small-scale RFR exposure system to “determine the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress, conduct real-time physiological monitoring, including evaluation of heart rate, investigate whether RFR exposure induces heating, and evaluate further whether RFR exposure causes DNA damage.”

But the NTP website does not say whether researchers had achieved these research goals or, if they hadn’t yet, at what point in the research process the decision was made to no longer study wireless radiation. It only states:

“The research using this small-scale RFR exposure system was technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected.

“In addition, this exposure system was designed to study the frequencies and modulations used in 2G and 3G devices, but is not representative of newer technologies such as 4G/4G-LTE, or 5G (which is still not fully defined).

“Taking these factors into consideration, no further work with this RFR exposure system will be conducted and NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time.”

The FOIA request also targets communications related to the overall execution and management of the follow-up studies, and it seeks emails or other communications containing any follow-up study data for interpretation, evaluation or review.

NIEHS deflects questions about the studies

Before CHD filed the FOIA requests, The Defender reached out repeatedly to various NIEHS staff for information about the follow-up studies and the decision to end RFR research.

Some of the questions The Defender asked included:

  • Where can the public find the follow-up studies’ standard operating procedures and protocols?
  • What is the status of the data gathered in the follow-up studies? Was it ever reviewed, and if so, by whom? If not, why not?
  • The NTP cellphone RFR website states, “NIEHS has completed the feasibility testing of this small-scale RFR exposure system, and the results will be made publicly available and posted on this webpage when internal reviews are finished.” What sort of “internal reviews” are being conducted? By whom? What is the anticipated completion date of the reviews and when will the results be published?
  • An earlier version of NTP’s cellphone RF radiation webpage (updated Nov. 30, 2023) stated that these studies were expected to be published in 2023-2024. Why haven’t the studies been published?
  • Why would U.S. civilian governmental efforts to study the potential impacts of wireless radiation stop as the U.S. Department of Defense continues to study the problem and as the European Union has provided multi-million dollar grants for multidisciplinary studies?

The NIEHS Office of Communications consistently told The Defender that NTP’s cellphone RFR website “has all the information we have to share at this time. We will update the webpage when we have more information.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

For more:

Category:

Activism

I’ve Got Lyme Disease And You May Have It Too

https://fishrise.substack.com/p/lyme-disease

Lyme Disease: Running Riot

I’ve got it, you may have it too.

By Richard Wilson
MAR 16, 2024

Science Photo Library

Article Excerpts:

Ticks are the original muggers. They lurk on the tips of grass fronds, often in and around woodland, waiting for an unwitting victim to brush past. They’re looking for a free meal which, for us, turns into a lose-lose transaction. The tick gets our blood and we get Lyme Disease, a bacterial infection with very unpleasant consequences.

I’ve been paying attention to this because I’ve just been diagnosed with Lyme. Worse, I’ve had it untreated for about 8 years, which is why I can also say that most doctors wouldn’t recognize it even if they caught it, and that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

There are two basics to understand about Lyme Disease, and they come hand-in-glove: An early diagnosis is both essential and very hard to get. Speed is everything because, given the chance, there’s no organ in your body or corner of your central nervous system that the Lyme bacteria won’t vandalise.

(See link for article)

______________

**Comment**

The article starts with the unfortunate pervasive propaganda about warmer/wetter weather causing ticks to proliferate

This is patently FALSE.

For more:

For tick prevention:

Category:

Activism, Prevention, Testing, Ticks

Pfizer Lied, People Died

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/breaking-telegraph-reports-that-pfizer

BREAKING: TELEGRAPH REPORTS THAT PFIZER HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY, CONFESSED TO MISLEADING THE PUBLIC ON THEIR COVID-19 VACCINE EFFICACY

Pfizer Admits to Misleading UK Public on COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Following Watchdog’s Guilt Finding

JAMES LYONS-WEILER
APR 07, 2024

Note that in the original press releases regarding their vaccines, both Pfizer and Moderna failed to include the required language that should be seen in Forward Looking Statements. The SEC and FTC in the US should now take similar action against Pfizer. See MARCH 4 ruling here.

Credit and attributions of some details to Telegraph, specifically Camilla Turner.

In a pivotal moment for the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer has found itself at the center of massive controversy following a damning verdict by the UK’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The Telegraph has reported that the authority has accused Pfizer of discrediting the pharmaceutical sector through inappropriate social media promotions of its COVID-19 vaccine, which was unlicensed at the time of the posts.

The ruling stems from a series of tweets in November 2020 by senior Pfizer executives, including the UK medical director, Dr. Berkeley Phillips. These posts claimed the vaccine’s efficacy rates without providing comprehensive safety information or referencing adverse events, leading to what the PMCPA described as the “proactive dissemination of unlicensed medicine.”

SEE PREVIOUS 2013 RULING

This misconduct marks Pfizer’s sixth reprimand from the PMCPA, underlining a pattern of behavior that has led to growing calls for reform within the regulatory framework overseeing pharmaceutical promotions. The most recent breaches encompassed not only misleading claims about the vaccine’s efficacy and safety but also a failure to maintain the high standards expected within the industry. (See link for article)

______________

SUMMARY:

  • Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla made claims about COVID injection efficacy out of thin air.
  • Pfizer’s spokesman apologized, but gave the usual clap-trap about commitment to policies….blah, blah, blah and promised to review employee use of social media to prevent future incidents.
  • Critics rightly state the penalties levied against Pfizer are nothing compared to the seriousness of the offenses (people died and injection injuries have overwhelmed the courts).
  • Some in the US are calling for action to hold ‘vaccine’ manufacturers responsible for their communications about safety and efficacy.
  • Many state ‘vaccine’ manufacturers should be held liable again for injuries and deaths.

http://  Approx. 8 Min

“Pfizer Lied”

TalkTV London

4/7/24

The ruling by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) follows a complaint about a message posted on social media in November 2020 by senior Pfizer employees. The complaint raised concerns about Pfizer’s improper use of social media to promote their Covid vaccine in violation of regulations. This behavior was found to be more widespread than initially believed and extended to the highest levels of Pfizer’s UK operation.

Dr David Bull and Dr Renee Hoenderkamp speak with doctor and Professor of oncology Angus Dalgleish.

“Any vaccine that needs a booster doesn’t work, certainly for infectious disease.  I think this proves the case very much here.” ~ Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology

Evidently all if forgiven as Pfizer is ‘deeply sorry’.

http://  Approx. 14 Min

Pfizer is ‘Deeply Sorry’

April 11, 2024

For more:

Oh, BTW: Pfizer has a new Lyme disease ‘vaccine’ called VLA-15 based off of OspA, despite the fact there’s no accurate test for disease.  I’m sure it’s just great. (I truly hope you hear the dripping sarcasm)

Read here about government collusion with Pfizer.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Editors of Top Science Journals to Testify Before House Pandemic Committee, As Critics Call for End of Taxpayer Funding for ‘Corrupt’ Research

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/top-science-journal-editors-testify-house-pandemic-committee-covid/

Editors of Top Science Journals to Testify Before House Pandemic Committee, as Critics Call for End of Taxpayer Funding for ‘Corrupt’ Research

The U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic invited the editors of three major science journals to testify on the relationship between their publications and the federal government.

4/8/24

magazine journals with a picture of the house of representatives at sunset

Amid controversy over censorship in peer-reviewed journals, the editors of three major science journals last week received invitations to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on the relationship between their publications and the federal government.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee, sent the letters to the editors-in-chief of The Lancet, Nature and Science, requesting their testimony for an April 16 hearing titled “Academic Malpractice: Examining the Relationship Between Scientific Journals, the Government, and Peer Review.”

According to Wenstrup’s office, the hearing seeks to examine “whether these journals granted the federal government inappropriate access into the scientific review or publishing process,” noting that the journals had previously communicated with Drs. Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins and other health officials.

Nature Medicine published the now infamous “Proximal Origin” paper in March 2020. The paper, which claimed COVID-19 had zoonotic, or natural, origins was subsequently used in attempts to censor proponents of the “lab-leak theory” of the virus’s origin.

In a press release, Wenstrup said:

“Millions of people worldwide relied on Science, Nature, and The Lancet to provide scientifically accurate and impartial research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“However, documents show that the federal government may have censored and manipulated the sacred scientific review processes at these journals to progress their preferred narrative about the origins of COVID-19.”

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough welcomed the announcement of the hearing. He told The Defender:

“I used the term ‘academic fraud’ in my Nov. 19, 2020, Senate testimony. During the pandemic, for the first time in my career, I saw fraudulent papers published and valid ones retracted after full peer review.

“Publication actions always went in a consistent theme of duality:  suppression of early therapeutics for acute COVID-19 and promotion of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective … Manuscripts demonstrating successful home treatment strategies were impeded, and above all, manuscripts disclosing COVID-19 vaccine injuries, disabilities and deaths were swept under the rug.”

Several experts said scientific journals censored non-establishment views but regularly published “fraudulent” papers.

Epidemiologist and public health research scientist M. Nathaniel Mead told The Defender:

“We have faced an unprecedented level of scientific censorship in the past four years, and this has created a climate of fear for the medical-scientific community, compelling many researchers and scholars to practice self-censorship.

“This has fostered a pervasive hesitancy to broach certain topics, even in venues or contexts that are theoretically supportive of free expression. As a result, dissenting viewpoints that could enhance scientific dialogue are stifled.”

According to molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., “Science has published two patently unsound and presumably fraudulent papers on the subject of COVID-19 origins, has not retracted these papers, has refused to open inquiries into those papers, and has used its news division to promote the false narrative that science favors a natural origin of COVID-19 and to dismiss contrary evidence and contrary views.”

Mark Blaxill, chief financial officer of the Holland Center, a private autism treatment center, told The Defender, “Policymakers and legislators often defer to scientists, ‘experts’ and the published record. To the extent that the record is corrupted by political forces that lean to one side of legitimate public policy disputes, the journals are tilting the playing field in favor of powerful interests.”

This has resulted in “the increasing politicization of science,” as a result of which “the body of published science is becoming increasingly weaponized,” Blaxill said.

Similarly, journalist Paul D. Thacker, publisher of The Disinformation Chronicle, told The Defender he hopes “Congress has something better planned than just parading the scientists running these journals before the public and berating them for being corrupt, because documents I’ve reported on show these journal editors have no shame.”

Wenstrup: Journal editors ‘seem to want to ignore’ COVID lab-leak theory

Much of the subcommittee’s focus has centered on “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Published on March 17, 2020, in Nature Medicine, the paper concluded that a lab leak was not “plausible.” It soon became “one of the single most impactful and influential scientific papers in history.”

A House investigation and Freedom of Information Act requests later revealed that a month before publication, Fauci and Collins reviewed drafts of the paper. A July 2023 report by the subcommittee found that Fauci, key virologists and government officials used the paper to suppress the COVID-19 lab-leak theory.

Speaking on Fox Business’ “Varney & Co.” last week, Wenstrup said the editors-in-chief to whom he sent letters “should want to weigh in on this because they published articles that seem to want to ignore [the lab-leak theory].”

“When anybody had the hypothesis of it being a lab leak theory … they were scrutinized, they were canceled, they were put down,” Wenstrup added. “A published article doesn’t mean that it’s been peer-reviewed and that it’s been going through the scrutiny that it should take from scientists … Just look at ‘Proximal Origin.’”

During an April 17, 2020, White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing, Fauci told reporters, in the presence of then-President Donald Trump, “There was a study recently that we can make available to you” which showed that COVID-19 “is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

“Fauci helped place the ‘Proximal Origin’ paper and then lied about it right under the nose of the president,” Thacker said. “He was thanked by [virologist] Kristian Andersen for his advice in an email, and then he wants to say he had no role in it.”

Wenstrup made a similar observation on “Varney & Co.”:

“‘Proximal Origin’ basically was written by people that were prompted to write it by Dr. Fauci. And all they really talked about was the possibility [that COVID-19] came from nature. If you read this article, it’s full of assumptions and what-ifs, and it completely ignores the lab leak theory.

“And internally, in their discussions, the same authors are saying, ‘Well, we can’t rule out that this came from a lab. It certainly looks engineered.’ So, there’s a problem with using these scientific journals as a be-all end-all.”

Earlier this year, Fauci sat for two days of closed-door interviews with members of the House, during which he reportedly responded with “I don’t recall” over 100 times.

For Thacker, the focus on the “Proximal Origin” paper ignores two other influential scientific papers that also were used try to discredit the “lab-leak theory.”

“This committee has been overly obsessed with ‘Proximal Origin’ … These virologists conspired to launch three different papers into the academic literature. It wasn’t just one paper. You don’t run a propaganda campaign off of just one paper,” Thacker said.

According to Thacker, on Feb. 19, 2020, EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak and Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar published a statement in The Lancet that claimed a possible Wuhan lab accident was a “conspiracy theory.”

The statement did not disclose that Daszak was funding research led by Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

On Feb. 26, 2020, scientists working behind the scenes with Zhengli and virologist Ralph Baric, Ph.D., published a commentary in Emerging Microbes & Infections that claimed it was a conspiracy theory to speculate that the pandemic started in a Wuhan lab.

Mead said the pandemic facilitated government intervention in scientific publishing:

“Most of this government influence is happening behind the scenes to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And when a scientific journal such as Nature or Science adopts a rapid publication process for COVID-19-related research … it tends to compromise the quality and reliability of the findings. It also makes it easier for outside influences to dictate the angle or perspective, or overall thrust, of the article in question.

“Beginning in 2020, this collaboration was tightly synchronized so as to allow for rushed authorization of the mRNA vaccines without sufficient risk evaluation and management protocols.”

Mead said this interference limited scientific discourse, adversely impacting the public.

“[During the pandemic] we could not mention the term natural immunity without being castigated or reflexively labeled an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” Mead said. “Early treatment and vaccine safety issues were, of course, also censored.”

Yet, in remarks to The Hill, a spokesperson for subcommittee Democrats accused Republicans of building “an extreme, partisan and conspiratorial narrative against our nation’s public health officials” and have not “revealed a cover-up of the pandemic’s origins nor a suppression of the lab leak theory [by] Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins.”

Journal editors ‘promote favored narratives and suppress dissent’

Blaxill highlighted the increased use of retractions by scientific and medical journals to silence non-establishment narratives on COVID-19 and other topics. He said:

“One worrisome trend I have seen is the use of retractions rather than public debate to manage scientific disagreements. My experience with the retraction of ‘Autism Tsunami’ was instructive. Our 2021 paper sailed through peer review and was among the most heavily downloaded publications of the year.”

But after criticism of the paper reached the editors of the journal that published the paper, the editors informed Blaxill and his co-authors they intended to “re-review” the paper. A few months later, the paper was retracted.

According to Blaxill, “The retraction process itself is what is broken. Instead of allowing debate to play out in public, through letters and responses in the journal, dissenting opinions and unpopular narratives are canceled.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender, “In the case of having my own scientific paper retracted in 2014, I know the federal government played a strong role in getting the publication removed from print.”

“When the CDC whistleblower story broke … I was immediately put on notice by the journal (Translational Neurodegeneration) that the paper would be taken down from their website with a notice of concern. At one point, the journal put a notice on my paper that it was a threat to public health,” Hooker said.

McCullough criticized the use of retractions to silence critical papers. “As an editor-in-chief for over 20 years, I never retracted a paper, nor did I receive pressure from the publisher to pull a valid paper. That is because the peer review process and letter-to-the-editor processes work as data are vetted and interpreted,” he said.

“Scientific journals often manage the peer review and publication process to promote favored narratives and suppress dissent,” Blaxill said. “Scientific merit is rarely the priority in their management. Instead, supporting the favored (or ‘consensus’) narrative is the guiding principle more often than not.”

Experts call for investigation into journals’ relationships with Big Pharma

The experts who spoke with The Defender said that Congress needs to examine more than just the three journals whose editors-in-chief have been invited to testify on April 16.

“They should also be questioning these journal editors about their connections with Big Pharma,” Hooker said. “Journals such as JAMA, Pediatrics, etc., have corporate sponsors through their industry organizations which create myriad conflicts of interest.”

According to Thacker, “If you’re going to be a corrupt journal the way Science Magazine has turned itself into a completely corrupt institution, then we need to begin to think about whether or not publicly funded research can be published in these journals.”

“Taxpayers are funding this research, which ends up in these corrupt journals and lines the pockets of people running these corrupt journals. That needs to end. Something needs to be done to ensure that if you’re not going to abide by the basics of ethics and science publishing, then you can’t publish federally funded research,” he added.

Similarly, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender:

“The real issue here that must be inquired into by Congress is the fact that Big Pharma has bought and paid for almost all science journals of relevance, to promote their pro-drug, pro-vaccine propaganda and disinformation, to the grave detriment of the public health of the American people.”

Thacker, who previously worked as an investigator for the U.S. Senate, said, “What we’ve learned from this process is that these scientists cannot be trusted. They lie all the time. I am not sure that this hearing is going to do anything unless they bring the documents out and they start doing referrals over to the Department of Justice.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

For more:

I always try and find the silver lining.  For the COVID plandemic it is this: people are finally waking up to the corruption in government, ‘public health’ agencies, and in research and journals which utilize government grants or industry money.  The conflicts of interest win and science/medicine/patients lose – every time.

Nothing will change until these conflicts no longer exist.
Lymeland is a perfect example.

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines, Viruses

“Withdraw From WHO”: Japanese Professor’s Message to World

https://organicconsumers.org/organic-bytes-newsletter-846-dont-give-up-control-over-public-health-to-the-who/

Tell Your State Legislators: Don’t Give Up Control Over Public Health to the World Health Organization

By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director at Organic Consumers Association (OCA):

Who should decide when there’s a pandemic and what to do about it?

That’s what’s at stake as the World Health Organization debates amendments to the International Health Regulations and considers a new pandemic treaty.

Currently, national governments have sovereignty over these decisions, and while they may look to the World Health Organization for guidance, ultimately, they must answer to the people of their countries and they can be held accountable under their countries’ legal frameworks.

The new agreements countries are considering at the World Health Organization is an attempt to subordinate nation states to an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable international authority.

We need states to stand up and resist this now, before the World Health Organization declares another global pandemic.

In May 2023, Florida passed a law that state health officials “may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.”

In March, the Louisiana state senate unanimously approved a bill stating that “the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana.” That bill has to be approved by the state House of Representatives to become law.

TAKE ACTION: Tell your state legislators to stop the World Health Organization’s power grab!

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/japanese-professors-message-to-world?

Japanese Professor’s Message to World

“Fraudulent use of gene therapy in healthy people an extreme violation of human rights”

JOHN LEAKE
APR 11, 2024
Article Excerpts:

Masayasu Inoue is Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School who specializes in molecular pathology.

Cancer rates rising in young people due to ‘accelerated aging,’ according to ‘highly troubling’ new study

Naturally the “troubling new study” mentions nothing about the genetic shots that have been repeatedly injected into young people for the last three years.

Listen to Professor Inoue’s “Message to the World” and try to fathom the crime against humanity he describes. It will be very interesting to see how long YouTube will allow it to remain on the platform.  Go here if it’s taken down.

http://  Approx. 8 Min

April 10, 2024

Withdraw from the WHO

“I believe that the fraudulent use of experimental gene therapy to healthy people, particularly to healthy children, is an extreme violation of human rights.” ~ Professor Masayasu Inoue

Inoue states that in spite of the devastation caused by the rapidly deployed mRNA COVID injections, the Japanese government plans to construct a new ‘vaccine’ production system in preparation for the next ‘pandemic,’ called self replication replicon vaccine. Plans are to start to supply it this fall and winter.

Inoue states this new ‘vaccine’ to be created in hundreds of days can only happen by ignoring human rights.  Amendments to the WHO International Health Regulation (IHR) and the so called Pandemic Treaty which are about to be adopted at the 77th WHO assembly this year are attempting to give rationality and legal binding force to this unscientific and dangerous plan.  If this passes, Japanese-created ‘vaccines’ will be exported under a guise of false trust.  

Inoue has be lecturing to the Japanese people about the dangers of vaccines but he’s finding it difficult to penetrate through the sound barriers of mainstream media.  He also states that if truth is told about vaccines on Youtube it is deleted within a day.  He’s written a book titled “Withdraw from WHO.” 

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses