Madison Area Lyme Support Group

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the forefront critical questions about global health governance. You might think this last year or so has offered an opportunity to consider carefully what worked or didn’t work.

One now has to resort to academic publications to see that there is a growing body of research showing that in the face of a global crisis, authoritarian approaches are rarely either the most effective or the most equitable ways of improving health outcomes worldwide.

So please acknowledge the disinformation implicit in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) efforts to justify the so-called “Pandemic Treaty” in the name of “equity.”

In the WHO’s own words, the “treaty” would usher in a “new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

I want to look at some of the evidence that shows shifting the loci of control over health away from individuals and communities, and putting it into the hands of unelected bureaucrats in the ivory towers of the WHO in Geneva, is the worst thing we could possibly do.

The evidence (for example, here and here) points to the fact that regional approaches, grounded in local contexts and community empowerment, offer a much more promising path toward a healthier future for a lot more people.

But you won’t hear any of this from the WHO because it doesn’t mesh with its plans, and, please remember, we won’t get there if we drop our vigilance and sit on our backsides because the globalists mean business.

Democratic decay and the rise of authoritarianism

The COVID-19 “pandemic” catalyzed authoritarianism in the so-called free world under the guise of public health measures.

Governments and even private corporations stripped millions of their liberties with lockdowns, mask-wearing, social distancing, restrictions on movement, business and school closures, and — let’s not forget — mandatory or coerced vaccinations.

What made matters worse, while governments told the public they were “following the science,” retrospective analysis, such as that laid out masterfully by U.S. journalist Sharyl Attkisson in her new book, shows otherwise.

Or you might like to read the 113-page report just out from the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee that shows that the Biden-Harris administration wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on their phony attack on so-called “misinformation.”

Had this authoritarian approach been a winner, buy-in for more of the same in a next-time-around scenario might make sense. But the whole thing was a spectacular disaster. Lockdowns, masks and genetic vaccines — contrary to all the promises offered — failed to stop transmission.

….open societies are more likely to have a free press, independent scientific inquiry and transparent decision-making processes, all of which are essential for effective public health interventions. Less autocratic approaches that called for more personal responsibility, as per the Swedish model, also had higher rates of compliance.

Restrictions on movement and economic activity disproportionately impact those already living in poverty, while the erosion of civil liberties created a climate of fear and mistrust.

Despite the WHO’s mandate to promote global health, it’s done very little to help. Instead, it’s morphing increasingly into an unaccountable instrument run by unelected bureaucrats that fast-tracks the global distribution of diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines, while emerging as the ultimate arbiter of truthful health information in its mission to fight the quaintly-named infodemic.

There is a whole battery of unproven or disproven assumptions that underpin the cousin of the “Pandemic Treaty,” the International Health Regulations (IHR) which were amended earlier this year.

The IHR, which governs international responses to public health emergencies, has historically focused on the notion of containment, aiming to prevent the spread of diseases across borders.

But this approach has never been shown to work when the transmission potential is high (i.e. in a pandemic), and it does the very thing the WHO and its supporters are claiming they want to resolve: it exacerbates inequalities between countries and encourages hegemony.

Doctors who tried to save lives were attacked and struck from their medical registers. This was never about saving lives. It was all about gaining power and control. And that desire among the few has only strengthened since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in May 2023.

Taking into account what we should have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, a more holistic approach to managing human health during times of significant infection pressure should, in my view, include at least the following eight things…. (See link for article)

Important quote: 

The “war on misinformation” that should be redefined as any form of speech or communication that does not comply with the WHO and its associated medico-industrial complex, is now a fixture of the WHO’s global powerplay.

This is no time to be stupid. 

Originally published on Rob Verkerk PhD – Natural Musings Substack page.