donshafi911

 

Can the WHO be Reformed, or is there a Better Way for Health, Freedom and Sovereignty?

On Monday 27 May, the day the WHO’s controversial World Health Assembly 77 in Geneva begins, and in honor of World Freedom Week, the World Council for Health will host a thought-provoking People’s Hearing on the critical topic: Can the WHO be Reformed, or is there a Better Way for Health, Freedom and Sovereignty?

This #WHA77, the WHO intends to facilitate an unlawful vote on the International Health Regulation 2005 amendments, and push for an agreement on a controversial new pandemic treaty, with little to no public participation at both a WHO and member state level. This, to many people, is unacceptable.

A growing number of people in the health freedom and human rights movement do not believe the WHO can be reformed. This event will help create clarity for people who believe that the WHO, with a history of mismanagement, corruption and crimes against women and children, can be reformed.

The hearing includes speakers from around the world, including Shabnam Palesa Mohamed (South Africa), ex-WHO consultant Dr Tess Lawrie (United Kingdom, ex-WHO consultant Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, Dr Wahome Ngare (Kenya), Fahrie Hassan (South Africa), and Dr Meryl Nass (USA).

Also highlighted will be ideas around a Better Way for Health, Freedom and Sovereignty. The World Council for Health hopes this event will give courage and inspiration to people, including member state delegates unhappy with the WHO, who are uncertain about how to vote at #WHA77. Vote NO!

You can also find this video on: Gettr | Rumble | Facebook | Twitter/X | LinkedIn

Transcript

Perhaps I won’t share the screen. I’m assuming the intro video is still playing. Okay, my mic keeps getting muted, so I’m not sure. I think our advert would have played. Yes, it has played. It has played. And welcome, everybody. Welcome to our Can the World Health Organization be reformed or is there a better way? I’m Dr. Tess Laurie, and I’m so delighted to be working this evening together with Shabnam Palesa-Mohamed, my South African colleague and World Council for Health Steering Committee member. Hi, Shabnam. What’s it like down there in South Africa? All good. The resistance continues to grow as it is in different parts of the world. And of course, we at World Council for Health are hosting this very special event as part of World Freedom Week or month, if you prefer, with the topic being, can the WHO be reformed or is there a better way for health, freedom and sovereignty? course we’re hosting this event on the first day of the world health assembly hosted by the world health organization in geneva to which very few of us have been invited to participate so of course this event is very important and it’s very much a people’s hearing in a sense We’re also broadcasting to the World Council for Health newsroom. So go to the website. We’re also broadcasting to Twitter and other spaces. And we’d love to hear your views on the topic. Can the WHO be reformed? Or is there a better way for health, freedom and sovereignty? we’re already seeing comments on our various social media posts of people sharing their opinions on the topic and that’s what it’s all about with the people having their voices heard of course as we know at this world health assembly hosted by the who very exclusive event the who-led process intends to facilitate what many believe is an unlawful vote on the International Health Regulations 2005 amendments and push for a proposed and controversial new pandemic treaty, again, with little to no public participation at both a WHO and a member state level. To most people, this is completely unacceptable. a growing number of people in the health freedom and human rights movement don’t believe that the who can be reformed so this event will help create clarity for people who still believe that the who with a history of mismanagement and crimes against women and children can actually be reformed. The hearing includes speakers from around the world, who my dear colleague Dr. Tesolori will introduce shortly. Also highlighted during their presentations will be not only can it be reformed, but is there a better way? We need to also shine a spotlight on that subject. as we not only resist the organized tyranny of the supranational cartels, but we also focus on building a future that serves us as the 99%. So we at World Council for Health hope that this event will give courage and inspiration, including to member state delegates who are very unhappy with the way the WHO is run and the stakeholders who do have a seat at the table. So if you can share the live link to today’s event on your various social media platforms, you never know, it could get the attention of someone who is participating at the World Health Assembly, who does have a say at that voting table. But of course, there has been some significantly positive developments. We don’t want to overstate them. in that the member states negotiating have not reached a consensus on the entirety of that proposed new pandemic treaty. This is good for the rest of us who have been resisting. It means that it’s unlikely that this treaty will be put to a vote tomorrow or at the rest of the World Health Assembly that finishes on Saturday. But of course, we don’t become complacent. It would be simple enough for them to try another mechanism to make the ambitions of that treaty a tangible reality. But let’s take a look at what happened at the announcement in relation to this uh treaty not being a reality there’s a very short clip and I’m going to attempt to ask my our host our technical producer to please uh play that clip it’s a director General Ted Ross talking about his feelings on the treaty not having reached complete consensus It looks like we’re having some upload problems. All right, we’ll try again. All right. Well, the video played certainly in the test run to the event. Perhaps we’re not meant to watch Director General Tedros from the WHO share his feelings around the proposed pandemic treaty not having reached its objective in that there is no complete consensus among member states who began this process two years ago. Any of us could have told them they were not going to achieve such a gargantuan agenda within the space of two years and especially because there’s been no public participation. We’re going to proceed. So I just wanted to say, I think also it’s quite evident, you know, to most people that there hasn’t been an accounting for what’s gone on in the last few years. And they’ve proven themselves really to be ill qualified to deal with public health emergencies of international concern. And as we know, there’s a far deeper agenda to this now, as we’ve all understood. sort of come to be aware that this is an orchestrated push to empower them to have unprecedented control in future emergencies, which simply cannot be tolerated without at the very least having some sort of audit of the last few years. And as we, you know, as some of our speakers here will share, you know, this corruption goes far deeper and has been going on far longer. And what COVID has done is really just alerted the world to what’s been going on for a very long time and that the World Health Organization is not in a position to demand or negotiate more power in actual fact. It needs to have all eyes of the world on it now with very important questions answered in terms of its competence and graft. Is that the word? I think that’s the correct word. One of our speakers, Fahri Hassan, will be speaking to that subject as it relates to conflicts of interest and certainly the WHO has a long history of mismanagement, etc. that we’ll be unpacking during the course of this very important public interest event. Can the WHO be reformed or is there a better way for health, freedom and sovereignty? So Tess, I’ll pass the mic back to you to introduce our first speaker. Well, I’m extremely delighted to have four wonderful speakers with us today. And we have Dr. Meryl Nass, we have Dr. Wahami Ngari, we have Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, and we have Hari Hassan, all from different countries with different perspectives. And we’re going to have a wonderful time hearing their perspectives and formulating our own decisions in terms of whether we think this organization is is so competent. So I’d like to introduce our first speaker, who I believe is Dr. Meryl Nass. Meryl, have I got that right? Are you ready to speak? I think we’re going to go with Astrid first because she’s worked at the WHO. And of course, we’re going to be taking a vote with our speakers after everyone has presented on the subject, can the WHO be reformed? But let’s begin with Dr. Astrid Stricklberger, who, like you, has done work for the WHO. Go ahead, Astrid. You unmute, Astrid. Your mic. Right. So I forgot. Maybe you can tell us a bit about yourself first and then share your insights and analysis with us on the topic. Yeah. So thank you for Shabnam and Tess for inviting me. And it’s always a pleasure to be with you. and with the people listening to you. So yeah, well, I’m entitled to speak about WHO, but not only WHO, but the whole United Nations system, which I have done since the beginning, because WHO is just a child of the UN. So yeah, I have many in my CV, I have worked a lot, not only in WHO, but in the UN. What entitles me is because I worked in the IHR Alert and Emergency Department to implement the International Health Regulation 2005, entered into force in 2008 for almost four years. And not only that, I mean, I’ve been working with the office of high commissioner of human rights. So I have worked a lot with human rights. I was actually in the shortlist to become the special reporter for crimes just before COVID. And we were three and it was the Chilean because the head of the office of high commissioner is from Chile. And it’s actually a blessing because I don’t know, I would have not lasted for a long time there because of what happened in COVID. But anyway, so that and I have received a prize from Coffee Anand from the United Nations because I have worked so much in the first part of my career on active and healthy aging with the WHO aging department. And we organized international year of older person for like three, four years. So I’ve been involved in many aspects of the whole United Nations system, not just one. When you take a silver lining, you can go from the rights to the development to the sustainable goals and you see what is going on. And I’ve also been an NGO, academic NGO until, yeah, one year ago. So I don’t need to say everything. And been teaching that at the University of Global Health and Human Rights with WHO and the UN. So, yeah, your question is, Can WHO be reformed? Well, we are facing now, on the 1st of June, it’s a milestone, a historical milestone, because WHO is at the ridge of being trapped in their own violation of their own texts, of the violation of the WHO Constitution, of the Charter of the United Nations, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a really important breach on violating our sovereignty, national sovereignty and natural law. So when you study that with lawyers, and I have worked with very enlightened lawyers who understand international law, not, you know, that only understand the text, you see that what WHO is doing is actually applied to the whole United Nations. Just a few days ago, WIPO just signed a treaty to patent all the genetic material And I mean, it’s why poor member states adopt historic new treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. They couldn’t pass it just to show you it’s not about the only. So we have a systematic problem that I want to address because everybody’s talking about the text. The text includes the problem of the system. So the first and most crazy is the way that we as people are represented at the United Nations. And to be represented, we have non-governmental organizations who organize themselves as a business, the bingos, as government pay, the gongos. We had a lot of names. So being in Geneva, I went a lot there, but I can say that there is really a problem of representativity of we the people. And if we reform, this is going to have to shift the pyramid the people first that will decide how they are represented in any institution in the whole United Nations. Because one thing that is a silver lining is the way to vote. And that’s the second step. It is the way to vote, you can see it in all the texts, is two thirds of the vote, the vote of countries. So 194 countries, if you count Palestine or not, it’s 193. So you have 194 countries, two thirds say yes, the whole world says yes. How come every country counts for a member of the whole civil society? This is a breach in sovereignty of the state. And this is where we don’t give our power to WHO. If we are a country, we don’t need to do that. We have to come back to our natural law and to sovereignty. So transparency, And sovereignty and representativity is a huge problem. Then the most important at the moment with WHO is, I think, beside power transfer, we have… You can look at all the agreements of the Charter. We have been studying. We have a declaration that will be distributed this week and on Saturday of seven pages beside the transfer of power, which is against the Westphalia in 1648 treaty, which does not allow you to give your sovereignty to an international organization. It also breaches the law on the Charter of United Nations, the WTO constitution in the article. or even saying that even the pandemic agreement says that in article 24 and 26, I think. The most important with WHO is that health is at the center of our lives and health and disease is touching people in business and it has become a business. So this means it’s a massive conflict of interest. And this is very worrying because they say, you know, in the name of equality, in the name, we are inviting parties or associate members or a whole family of private sector without our consent. And they are orienting and not only orienting today, they are directing WHO. So we cannot accept that. Just that fact, we have made that at the end of our statement, just that fact, I will read you the end of the statement. allows us not to belong to the WHO anymore and to ask our government not to do anything. So after the six, seven pages, we say, therefore necessary, we need to put an end to the interventions of private partners and parties who find a financial interest or any interest contrary to that of peoples and individuals in their actions to WHO. Therefore, member states can no longer be bound to the WHO constitution while private partners guide the institution. And we finalize that as it stands, any action undertaken through WHO on behalf of member states and their populations will be contrary to the international law, will violate the sovereignty of member states and the natural law. And this has been signed by… attorney at law, Virginie de Araujo Recha, who is French, who took France as an example, and me, as an expert of WHO of human rights and have worked a lot at the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights. And we are involving now, in all languages, many lawyers, because the whole system is actually illegal, because they have they’re making a one government business, I would say, to make it short. So, I mean, I don’t know if that’s enough or you wouldn’t, I don’t want to take too much time. I don’t know how much time is left. You still have about another 10 minutes if you need it, Astrid. I think your insights are so valuable on the subject of the practicalities. Can it be reformed or is there a better way for health, freedom and sovereignty? You see, when a house is organized with the rooms in such a setting that you have thousands of rooms that have other hundreds and thousands of rooms, You cannot just reform because the procedures and the process that are in place and the people who are in it really believe it. I didn’t believe it myself until I saw a lot of breaches. But what happened since 2020, I’m sure that this is criminal. So I know that this is impossible because it’s too easy to take back power in the current situation. And this octopussy with so many branches in the United Nations. I think I made your presentation or not on the whole United Nations system. You have the whole private business. You have the International Aviation, IATA, and ICAO. So they can control the airplanes. They can control the radiations. They can control the chemicals, the food, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to social determinants of health. I’ve been in many of those departments of WHO only already. I can tell you it has to be simplified because the most important is that the countries on the ground can apply their own sovereignty. What happened with COVID is unacceptable from the beginning. You cannot lock down the whole country with an epidemic that has not been proven country by country. When we were doing this International Health Regulation implementation course, I was responsible of human rights, of health systems, of communication and emergency management. But when we did health system exercise, and it’s adult, so I always do applied exercises in the Master of Public Health already. We have always had a very innovative way of teaching. Every country… had to do a mapping of their health system. And we had epidemiological centers, the focal point of the HR, the focal point of the Ministry of Health or the WHO office. And they had to draw their own health system and imagine any outbreak. chemical, radionuclear, infectious, foodborne, and how would their health system work? If you have a country with thousands of islands like Indonesia, the port of entry is not going to be the same as if you are in the Swiss mountains or Canada or if you’re in Botswana or in any of the countries that are totally contrasted. So it’s just impossible. Culture is there to stay. Culture is very important. You cannot just standardize the whole world. And that’s what I see as one of the very big risks is to standardize the world with one government, the world government, one health. And we have to get that out. It’s beautiful to have culture, different lands, and we have to be very careful also with AI, with the internet of solutions, the internet of things, the internet of bodies, the internet of everything. Because data processing has, and I was addressing that as the EU a lot, I did booklets on that, AI is processing data from home of people with innovation. to the private sector with data breach, data privacy breach all the time, with non-informed consent, especially with old people when you have non-discrimination situation with Alzheimer’s disease or things. So this whole standardization plus internet innovation, which is good, but not AI innovation. that you don’t know where the data goes, like happened with COVID, the vax idea. Even the restaurant knew who was your doctor or who was vax or not. So I see really a problem the way it’s organized. It is organized too much on a hierarchical model of the triangle at top. There are the big bosses that decide for everything. The countries are just the pouch for the business and we are the product. This is how I see the problem. We need really to get back to a completely different system. I don’t know, Ubuntu in Africa, you have a great model. We cannot. I was with Africans and they were talking about it. I said, oh, that’s great. How can we get back to respect of natural law. And when I talked with the Virginie, she says, she’s the specialist, she said, natural law The right to life is the highest law of all. It supersedes any international law. They have put upside down the system that international law is higher than national or individual rights or natural law. So we cannot just reform. We need to dismantle, to imagine another world and imagine another system of communication that where you don’t have your data breach and surveillance and monitoring system 24 hours on 24 by machinery. So I’m really not for reform, because first of all, WHO is not enough. You saw WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is here too, and I’ve been there too, We cannot, this has to all stop. We have to say in the name of people from today on, like we said in our conclusion, no action, no signature is valid anymore in the whole United Nations system. It’s not possible that the Security Council with five countries with veto can direct the whole world Even if they say it’s proportionate to the population, this is not acceptable in our natural conventions law. So I think that I’ve said many key words and I can only wish that people get educated more on what’s going on so that we can turn around this pyramid of power to get this inter-police. Thank you so much, Astrid. I think the ordinary person is really astonished to hear that the World Health Organization is, you know, that there is this power grab going on and it’s very hard for them not to believe their governments when the governments are saying, well, it doesn’t affect sovereignty and don’t worry, we won’t give away your sovereignty. Because the World Health Organization hasn’t really featured terribly much in the lives of ordinary people. It’s sort of been out there as something extra, you know, that, you know, that doesn’t influence government policy, generally speaking. It’s, you know… So I think it’s sort of a lot for people to take on board suddenly hearing that their sovereignty and their national sovereignty and individual sovereignty could be handed over to the World Health Organization in another pandemic, or let’s not even use that word, I mean a hoax or public health emergency of international concern that gets declared. So what would you… say to people who would say, well, this really has nothing to do with me. I don’t care about that big organization. They can go and sign their papers and all of that. It doesn’t affect me in any way. Is that a helpful position to take? Or is that a position that’s going to leave you sort of blindsided and actually handing over sovereignty? Yeah, you’re right. It’s a very good example. They think it’s the big machine there. We don’t care. But actually what happened, I think the example of what happened since four years is to be taken seriously. And they have breached all the laws in what they did. So I think everybody knows what went on. And the lockdown, for example, is totally illegal. They know they have people who are very sick after the jab and all those measures of lockdown. time can happen again and again. The proof is not even in evidence. But when you talk to them, we have to show them that that’s just an example of how their representative, the prime minister, of Kenya and Geneva, of, you know, of Panama, of USA, they are all sitting in their chair with limousines, you know, going to parties every national day, and they’re 194, so they all have… I’ve been to some of them, but it takes so much time that it’s not possible. So there is a… There are two worlds between diplomacy, what’s called diplomacy, and the people on the ground. And they have to understand that they take decisions, and you don’t know how they take decisions, on the people. And that’s what happened exactly with COVID. It’s exactly what happened. So what happened already is an example to demonstrate to them that they can come and take their land in the name of, it is polluted because we found some chemicals in your ground. So we have to depollute it. You have to get out of here. We know they have lied. We know the PCR is not an instrument of diagnosis and they lied to us 97% of positive cases. This can happen in many areas. Their home, their water, their food, everything that belongs to life is trying to be hacked by the system. The thing of the WIPO is appalling. They want to patent the living. They want to vaccinate all the animals, take off the plants, put electric synthetic life instead. And I see that. But it’s true that when you explain the whole system too fast, they can get very scared. I would just say, you need to come and protect the natural rights. Your life has to be respected wherever you are. The right to live, the right to breathe, to eat, to keep your children, to have your children educated the way you want. The government has nothing to say to the education, you know, and et cetera, et cetera. And you can go on, you can go farming, you can sell to who you want, you can live as you want. And I think one of the problem is the taxes because they have overstated taxes and they keep on when we should be living a very, a much easier life. So I think when you take those examples, you know, from farm to food, from, you know, go and cook yourself, you should, everybody should be able to have a nice life and have their rights respected, but that’s not what we see. And there’s a big danger. Thank you. When you reference Ubuntu, it’s really quite special. As we say in Africa, I am because you are. You are because I am. We are because of each other. So thank you very much for your very valuable contribution. Nice. Beautiful. Thank you for inviting us. Thank you. We’d like to invite Dr. Wahome Nangari to speak now and share his very informed perspective on WHO activities in Africa and specifically in Kenya. Welcome Dr. Nangari. I think you’re on mute. Okay. Thank you very much. I’m glad to be here. And let me see if I can share a few slides just to make the presentation a little quicker. All right. While we’re waiting for Dr. Ngari, I thought that was a fascinating presentation really by Astrid, unsurprisingly. But I thought maybe we could perhaps look at one slide on this legal brief. Linda, Dr. Ngari, are you ready or should I just talk to this one slide? Do you have your slides ready? They’re uploading. Yes, we’re good. Wonderful. There we go. There you go. So maybe Shabnam and Tim, one of the things that is important to emphasize is that world population and the need to reduce it has been at the forefront of the UN from the time it was established. And there is this almost pathological need to reduce the population of the world. And I love this slide that shows the true size of Africa and all the continents that would fit into it, including the whole of Europe and Eastern Europe, China, the US and India. And just to compare the populations in those continents and subcontinents and countries with a total of 4.1 billion and with Africa with an estimated of 1.4 billion people. And what we find is that neither Africa nor the world is overpopulated. The problem is actually not Africa’s population, but the greed of corporates, corporate owners who are interested in appropriating Africa’s natural resources. And I think if we focused on this as a problem, we might be able to find solutions sooner rather than later. Now, It’s important for us as the people of the world to understand that what happened during COVID-19 was psychological torture of the highest order. That in every country we were told how people would die based on some fictitious figures or projections. And then every day we were read the number of people who had been tested positive, the number of people who had died. And for about six months, this torture was kept on and we were told how there is no medicine for the disease and how only a vaccine will be able to save us. And this media campaign was not really about healthcare. It was about marketing the vaccine. By the time these so-called vaccines were made available, majority of the people were not rational. it was not possible to have a rational discussion with anyone. And the population of the world was basically herded like animals to slaughter. And soon after, of course, there was mandating of these vaccines, whether actual mandates or coercion, you can’t go to work unless you’re vaccinated. And it becomes obvious that really the end game was to inject everyone with this stuff that they had produced. And I’d like to invite those of our colleagues who are medical doctors to look at this so-called vaccine again. And what you’d understand is it is actually a man-made virus. It is an artificial virus. You have a capsule in which you have genetic material that is artificial. and you inject this into someone and it actually behaves like a virus. It goes and infects cells of the person you have injected and produces spike protein, exactly the same thing that was causing disease in COVID-19. So we’re talking about an artificial virus with artificially made genetic material that is producing exactly the same thing that was causing disease. And we’re injecting this into people. And when you think about it rationally, it actually doesn’t make sense unless you think of this as a bioweapon. Now, the PCR test has been mentioned. It was promoted by WHO again as the gold standard. And they recommended that everyone, even those without symptoms, to be examined, to be tested. Yet we know that PCR would test the genetic material of the virus and not the actual virus, which then means that you cannot use the PCR to know if somebody has an active disease or a disease that had actually healed. And we also are wondering whether the PCR was picking up influenza cases, because according to the WHO influenza laboratory surveillance information, 2021 influenza disappeared, and this is WHO’s data. We also now understand that the vaccines are a national security risk. Here in Kenya in particular, we are very concerned about vaccines because if anybody wanted to reduce the world population, All they would need to do is create a disease and then say that they have discovered a vaccine. They would fund a media campaign that would target the population. These are made by psychologists to instill fear. And then you make sure that the taxes of the people are actually used to pay for the vaccine. And this injection, only you know its content because they did not release phase one and phase two clinical trials. That only laboratories approved by them could test the contents of the vaccine. Up to today, we still don’t know what was in those injections. And then only they could determine the safety and efficacy without releasing those phase one and phase two clinical trials. Now, it means somebody could actually literally make poison and offer it to the population for free, despite the fact that it is taxpayers’ money being used to pay this. All the monies that Africa was given for these vaccines, we are going to pay back. It was in terms of loans. And because of the fear, people would actually queue to happily get their vaccine. And if you try this once and it doesn’t work, all you need to do is create another vaccine, another disease and repeat the cycle. And I hope if people are listening with an open heart, they would see where all this is headed to. Now, we also now have evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused COVID-19 was created in a laboratory through gain of function research. And instead of WHO condemning and calling for a moratorium on gain-of-function research, WHO is currently preparing us for another pandemic. And they’ve told us it will be caused by disease X. If WHO was serious about preventing the occurrence of such issues like COVID-19, then ideally, they would be calling for a moratorium on gain of function research, not telling us that they already know of another disease and another pandemic that is coming up. Then of course, there is the pain of the phase one and phase two clinical trials. We had many doctors, many, many, many doctors who encouraged people to get these injections, even pregnant women. And none of them had seen the results of the phase one or phase two clinical trials, meaning they had no ethical standing to encourage anybody to take these vaccines. And then December 2023, we find the final documents that show that the vaccines were actually causing great harm. This was very heartbreaking, especially when doctors would stand in public and say the vaccines are safe and effective, knowing very well they had not seen the results of the phase one and phase two clinical trials. Then WHO is pushing for the uptake of the HPV vaccine. And this is another vaccine we have major concerns with in our country. It has been rolled out in most of the countries of the world from 2006. And it is being marketed as a vaccine against cancer of the cervix. Yet it is a vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus. Those who have not had sexual intercourse are not at risk. Those who get infected, 90% destroy the virus, just no more natural immunity. You cannot get a vaccine with an efficacy higher than 90%. Now, of those who have persistent disease, maybe 1% to 10%, it takes 15 to 20 years before they are at any risk of cancer. And a simple test of pap smear would reduce that risk, would pick up the changes that lead to cancer 8 to 10 years before the cancer. And then a very simple treatment of the cervix would then prevent cancer. Now, Europe and the US had already reduced the deaths from cancer of the cervix to negligible levels long before 2006 when this vaccine was launched. And then it has serious side effects and I’d encourage viewers to watch Sacrificial Virgins. It used to be on YouTube, but it was pulled down and you can find it now on Vimeo, just to see what this vaccine has done. Yet WHO is popularizing and pushing. In fact, it has set targets for countries to achieve up to 90% vaccination rates for little girls who are up to the age of 9 or 10. Then we have a famous malaria vaccine that is targeted specifically at Africa. Britain became malaria free in 1921, the US in 1951. WHO has had a malaria eradication program for Africa from 1955. They still haven’t succeeded and yet the other countries were able to eradicate malaria without using vaccines. But all of a sudden, WHO labs African children so much that they have developed a vaccine with a 36% efficacy to be used to prevent malaria in our children, promising to give us another one with a 70% effectiveness. Yet malaria is treatable. is a treatable disease and it has always been the standard that if you have any disease that can be treated, you do not produce a vaccine for it. This is another element of dishonesty that we find in WHO with this sickening need to inject everyone with something. Now, Two of the most important medicines, most effective medicines for treating malaria are derived from herbs that grow in Africa, Artemisia anua and Artemisia afra. And the quinine is also produced, 80% of quinine derivatives, the trees that produce quinine, 80% of that comes from the Congo. So again, Africa has and can grow herbs that can treat malaria effectively. In fact, this paper put up here was a young man from Congo, a doctor who actually used WHO standards for a double-blind study and compared just herbal tea made from Artemisia annua and Artemisia afra and compared it to conventional treatment and was able to demonstrate through a double-blind randomized clinical trial that the herbal teas worked just as well if not better than conventional medication. Just boiling the herb and drinking the tea was treating malaria and he was able to prove this and was able to publish this paper And two years later, it was retracted. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand why it was retracted. It was compromising a lot of business needs and had the risk of saving African children from death, from malaria. And that is not good for business for some people. Now, has WHO ever been involved in clandestine use of vaccines? Yes, again, in the Kenyan context, we have an experience with WHO. WHO sponsored the production of a tetanus vaccine, fertility regulating vaccine from 1972 to 1992. And when this product was developed, it never appeared in the market. In 1993, WHO launched a campaign to eradicate neonatal tetanus. And this was started out in South America. And WHO did not work alone. The funding also came from UNDP, which is the arm for reducing world population, UNFPA. And even the World Bank was involved in this funding, this research program. Now, in 2014, 2015, WHO rolled out this campaign in our country, in Kenya. And because of previous knowledge, we were able to get a few vials from the campaign period. And we tested them and we found that they had HCG. Now, when you connect tetanus with the HCG hormone, the HCG hormone is the hormone that sustains pregnancy. Now, if you inject a woman with this fertility regulating tetanus vaccine, they produce anti-tetanus. antibodies that protect them from tetanus. But unfortunately, they also produce anti-HCG antibodies that destroy HCG. What happens then is that the woman becomes infertile or has recurrent miscarriages or has threatened pregnancy loss with bleeding in early pregnancy and many, many other terrible outcomes. And when we mentioned this, we were able to push back through government. Unfortunately for us, WHO eventually declared Kenya free of neonatal tetanus in 2017 and left us alone. But we were able to publish this letter, this paper, through the help of some very good colleagues led by Professor Ola from the US. And within a few months of this paper being published, there was a threat to retract it. And we had to do an addendum and fight very hard to make sure that the paper remained on is still available now. It gives a big history, a long history of how this was possible. And all these things I’m mentioning have been done through the support or with the support or by WHO. So in conclusion, WHO is no longer a health promoting body. It has become an imperialist arm of global corporate interests. And the proposed amendment to the pandemic treaty and the new pandemic treaty basically would facilitate the creation of new pandemics using man-made viruses, mandating vaccines as countermeasures and would be aimed at reducing wild population through induced infertility, maiming and killing. And the use of pandemics to establish a one world government to totally obliterate the sovereignty of member states and eroding the citizens’ individual liberty. This is what, in a nutshell, those two documents would do. They would turn WHO into the biggest monster the world has ever had to deal with. And once those pandemics start, they will never stop because every year they’ll create new viruses, create new pandemics, and insist on lockdowns and other things that they have put in those documents. So in my own opinion, WHO cannot be reformed. What we need to do is come together as people who care about the world and create a better way. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Wahome. Such a brilliant presentation. You know, you and I were both speaking at the African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty. Very well received from various politicians, MPs and speakers and lots and lots of robust questions. One of them that caught my attention was where will we get our budget from as African countries? if we’re not members of the WHO or member states of the WHO. And you would have heard my response around if Africa’s mineral resources belonged to Africa, then there wouldn’t be a need to extend this begging bowl. Do you think that’s realistic? Because today I was observing the WHO and Tedros put a lot of attention through this World Health Assembly on Africa and mobilizing Africa to vote in a particular way. Why is Africa so pivotal for the WHO? Well, WHO And most of the European countries and even the US, the governments are run by corporate interests through lobbying and funding. And the UN and WHO are just an extension of that. So even when we hear that there are global interests about China and Russia and the US and they’re not seeing eye to eye, it’s important for the world to understand that all those governments are basically being run by the same corporates. It’s really just a game that they’re playing with the minds of people. They all have the same end game. Whether it is China that will get the African resources fast or whether it is Russia or the US, the end game is the same. The people who will own the corporates, who own the corporates in all those countries are the same. That’s the essence of globalization. And the other thing, Shabnam, is that if we are poor in Africa and we are not asking anybody to come and help us, why should it bother anyone? Why should it bother you if I live in a mud hut and I am happy? You know, who says development is living in a stone house? Because in terms of morality, I think Africa stands out quite clearly when you look at many, many other aspects. So it is not about any interest in the African people. It is all about resources. And if Africa was just allowed, like President Museveni was saying, if we were allowed to add value to the products that come from Africa before we export them, Africa would be in a much better place. Africa has been exploited for very long. It looks like the plan hasn’t changed. I think it is time for Africa and the people of the world who are interested in sovereignty to stand up against this madness. Thank you, Dr. Nyari. Yes, we have a question. Well, it couldn’t be better said. And I think those examples are so important for people to really understand how… evil the system has become, how deeply corrupt. I was recently alerted to interventions around Alzheimer’s, for example, and apparently there is a similar parallel that can be drawn with the way the corporate influence in the field of Alzheimer’s, which is a massive issue in the Western world, certainly probably because of poor nutrition. And there’s been the influence of the pharmaceutical lobby there such that the WHO hasn’t updated its guidelines to reflect the new advances in nutritional evidence, which shows that Alzheimer’s can be prevented. And I feel similar things would be found in areas of cancer and all these things that haven’t been allowed to be looked at without looking at it through a pharmaceutical lens. So, you know, I just want to thank Dr. Ngorri for his insights, and I hope we will have a bit of a panel discussion. But what I’d like to do now is really hear from Farid Hassan, who has that real in-depth knowledge of how the imperialists have… how the globalists have infiltrated the structure of the WHO and the United Nations and hopefully what we can do about it. And I’m quite sure that Curry knows that there’s a better way and has some ideas on that too. So I look forward to hearing them. Just a quick reminder before Fahri begins, to all of our speakers, if you could please wait till the end. We’re hoping to have a group vote on the topic for this public interest event on whether the WHO can be reformed or is there a better way for health, for freedom and for sovereignty. And as we’ve shared with Fahri previously, President Museveni from Uganda after our interventions made a very clear statement Thank you for vaccinating me against the WHO. So everything is possible on the subject of the WHO and the better way. Over to you, Fahri. Thank you very much, Tess and Shabnam, for inviting me. And I’m actually humbled going after Dr. Ngari and Astrid Stuckelberger. But be that as it may. Yeah, so… I was asked the question, can the, or at least tonight we’re asking the question, can the WHO be reformed? And my story basically starts, and as you can see, the slide on the screen is corruptions and conflicts of interest. And having identified and researched around the corruptions and the conflicts of interest within the WHO system, you know, I, state right up front, you know, that actually I believe that we should actually exit the WHO and all countries should because the World Health Organization has actually become a colossus and in fact has become a burden on the world population to the extent where they’ve become actually a criminal organization that we cannot trust anymore. And so, yes, the next slide, please. So this is the plan that they have for us. And the sad thing about it is that the pandemics that they are planning, and later you’ll see that they’ve actually got the future pandemics already lined up. And this is the danger. that if we give the WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments of the IHR, and we allow this to take place, the pandemic to be voted in, this is what we are looking at. And they will have the sole power to dictate and determine and also tell us what the pandemic was. And none of the governments will actually have a control over this. A unelected body will have this. Next slide, please. And this was confirmed by Marion Coopmans. In fact, she was the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens. But she was the one that actually exposed it. that the World Health Organization has got this 10 year pandemic plan. And guess who is the major funder? You don’t have to guess. I mean, you know, for those who’ve been on listening to my presentation for a while, will know that there’s one organization, one philanthropic organization that is the main planner behind this, you know, and there’s within the WHO fraternity, there is a they call it global vaccine action plan grouping and the berlin berlin the gage foundation is actually the main entity behind this in fact he’s invested 10 billion uh ran and and in in a interview I think it was fox interview that he did some years ago he said it was the best uh investments ever made because he’s accrued something like two 200 billion already from a 10 billion investment. So, so clearly, it’s it’s one is of course about money. But as Dr. Ngarian Aswath said earlier, it’s also about depopulation. And this is because they’ve got this crazy notion among these globalists that, you know, there’s too many people on the planet, and then they reduce it to 1 billion of elites only, you know, so know how they anyway, let’s continue. Next slide, please. So I think this is also a slide that you’ve seen before. And of course, I’m not going to speak to the whole of it, but the international health regulation, as you can see in yellow, is clearly indicated, right? And this is part of a global health security agenda. And next week, you’ll see there’s a global health security agenda consortium. And by the way, this is that consortium, it was fully put together by the Americans, basically, you know, driving this process, right? You know, so they’ve got a stake in this. And as you can, I’m sure people who have read the pandemic treaty and the IHR regulations, will note that the American contingent and backed up by the British contingent have got a major say in this. but I want to focus on the left hand side encircled in blue there and you’ll see the partners that has been drafted together to draft this global health security agenda and I i was quite interested when I heard uh dr suckleberger mentioned about um the animal health and as you can see one of the partners is the world um animal uh organization for animal health there that is a partner so yearbrink comes in the h5n1 uh avian flu thing you know so we know that they are planning these things and lo and behold the food and agriculture organization also involved as this partnership so they they’re planning a a and as you see you know the one health is a consortium of uh the areas of of life that they are planning uh to um and if you go on to the right hand side and you see the other one I’ve basically highlighted here the private sector roundtable now lo and behold you know as uh when I when I researched that I was you know I was surprised but also not surprised I’m sure you guys will also not be surprised and the audience will not be surprised guess who’s the coaches astrazeneca johnson johnson uh pfizer and so on and in fact they interchange by the way you know and and this private sector roundtable listen carefully if you know it makes perfect sense The World Health Organization and Tedros at one stage, can’t remember the date now, has actually said that, you know, they need the private sector roundtable because, you know, these are the guys that do all the trials. They do all the investigations. They do all the products and whatever. And they’ve got all the knowledge. So therefore, we’ve got to listen to them in order to advise us on health. I mean, isn’t that draconian, you know, and so on. And of course, as you can see on the right hand side, this IHR and the pandemic treaty ties very much into these UN Sustainable Development Goals, you know, and I mean, that’s for another time. Next slide, please. And of course, we earlier we spoke about One Health as well. And this is just one organogram of areas that they have already cornered in terms of the One Health agenda. So everything, and later on you’ll see I’ll also speak to the climate in health, and you can see they’ve cornered every industry and every area of life. will come under this one health and control basically. So that is what it’s about. It’s about controlling everyone. And as Dr. Aschel-Suckelberger said, you know, it’s about controlling everything about us and what constitutes a human being and our interaction with nature and so on. Next slide, please. Yeah. So I think this was also a statement I’ve made before. So there’s three types of contributions that the World Health Organization is funded by. So the one is assessed contributions and voluntary contributions. And the third one, which I may or may not have mentioned earlier, is a pandemic influenza preparedness. And there’s a reason why I’m not going to focus so much on the others, because I think I’ve mentioned before. But the reason I’m mentioning this is because the pandemic influenza preparedness contributions is solely and principally funded by corporate interests. The funding comes from pharmaceutical industry and so on. And guess what? More than 50%, as you can see there below, more than 50% of these contributions comes from vaccine companies. So clearly, this is an indication that the world health organization is putting a lot of emphasis on vaccine on that on vaccines and the next slide will show you why I’m saying that next slide please okay so and I took that from you uh dr suckleberger it’s a vaccine company and this is what the the conclusion I also came to by the way because if you look at the bottom first of all because before I start explaining in the slide if you look at the bottom these are the sponsors of the World Health Organization’s vaccine drive, right? And you’ll see that the vast majority of the vaccine companies are there funding, as well as the philanthropic organizations who are the main drivers of the vaccine business. And in lieu of this, the World Health Organization has put together a consortium of about 15, 16 entities under the umbrella of the World Health Organization to govern vaccine, the vaccine business of the World Health Organization. And I’m saying this as a business because this is what the World Health Organization has ended up as, as being a vaccine business. And I’ll just focus on one entity right in the middle. And you see there, I earlier mentioned it, that the IPAC, the Immunization Practice Advisory Committee, is to strengthen the global vaccine action plan, vaccine to service delivery that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has decided for the World Health Organization. And just going to the next slide, you’ll see here I’ve just put together the entities that is funding IPAC. Now, it’s a pretty Carl isn’t here on the Carl isn’t here on the show, you know, coming from the South America, you’ll see that power who plays a significant role in this as well, you know, and then of course, you have Gary, the global alliance for vaccine and humanization, and of course, the Bill and Bill and the Gates Foundation, you know, who would say, and look at the bottom right at the bottom and see here, is an entity called the Immunization Action Coalition. And were they? None other than all the vaccine companies that have come together to fund IPAC. This clearly indicates that the WHO is in the business of pushing vaccines, and they’re making money from it, by the way. Next slide, please. So let’s go on to the corruptions, you know, and this is the nuclear cover-up, right? So next slide, please. And on the WHO website, you’ll find there, and I’m referring here to the Chernobyl. They’ve got it well documented on the WHO website of the Chernobyl disaster that happened in the 1980s. But, you know, it’s actually not a laughing matter. It is quite a serious problem. know indictment on the who because next slide please on the website next slide yeah you’ll find that this next uh just go one slide back please no no back please yeah you’ll find things you’ll find that they On the website, the only the World Health Organization only states that 50 deaths has actually occurred over the last 20, 30 years. Only 50 deaths have occurred as a result of this disaster. But next slide, please. But a New York Academy of Sciences study has actually found that more than just under a million deaths, and this is very conservative, by the way, that the study has come up, and a very in-depth study, by the way. The World Health Organization then went on a media campaign thrashing the study and destroying the credibility of it. Next slide, please. And actually, what happened was many of the researchers that have contributed to the study, I mean, world-renowned specialists in their field, was actually threatened with their careers and their persons can you imagine like a mafia the world health organization acted like a mafia threatening the people with their careers and their lives and this was one of these gentlemen was one of the contributors so this is what the world health organization has become like a mafia next slide please yeah so then next slide please the opiate conspiracy so The World Health Organization, as a guidelines, 2011 guidelines, they claim that the opioid analgesics are safe and effective, right? That sounds familiar, right? You know, it’s so sad, you know, and they’ve got the guidelines that states it’s safe and effective. However, upon further analysis. Next slide, please. Next slide. You’ll find that what what they’ve done is and I mean, I’ve got quite a number of slides. on the issue, but I just thought I’d like, I took the most important slide for this presentation. So Purdue was a company that was producing opioid analgesics, right? And they were the one, can you just go one slide back please? Yeah. So Purdue basically paid the WHO, right? Paid the WHO in order to massage the guidelines. you know, to massage the guidelines, you know, and in fact, as you can see there, this WH collaborating center was paid 1.6 million from Purdue. Next slide, please. The problem with this was that next slide, please. The problem with this was that it turns out that hundreds of 1000s of people died from the opioid epidemic that ensued. In fact, as you can see, only one statement from this presentation was that only 50,000 lives in 2017 alone. Can you imagine, over the 20-30 year period, can you imagine the amount of deaths that has taken place as a result? And Purdue was actually influencing WHO guidelines on this. Next slide, please. and you’ll see here I managed to put together I mean this is not exhaustive research at all by the way you know as you can see here on the left hand side in 2002 the purdy farm gave 3 million to the pain center at massachusetts you know purdue farmer pain center this was a who collaborating center receiving and taking money from you know now you know the the way the world health organizers got away with it’s it’s not the wh that’s receiving money it’s a collaborating center but they give credence to the this institution and then you see um at the top because of this 20 30 years later purdy was forced to to reach a settlement worth 8.3 billion and the and and one of the main findings was that they influence doctors to dispense these medications where they knew that it was causing this damage. And of course, right at the bottom, one of the papers that I researched, the finding was that the patient who stays on prescription opioids for a year is 50 times, 51 times more likely to die. And this, I think, I can’t remember, I think it was a Lancet paper that actually published this. Next slide, please. then of course next slide please then of course the tobacco scandal you know now the world health next just go back one slightly yeah so the world health organization um had a anti-tobacco um you know anti-tobacco uh position right but what they forgot to mention uh to to the public was that on the board that was deciding on WHO guidelines was this guy, Paul Dietrich, who was a tobacco industry lobbyist, and he was drawing up WHO guidelines, total and utter conflict and corruption, you know, going on. Next slide, please. I mean, I don’t need to mention, you know, everybody knows now about the H1N1 flu, what happened in 2009. Next slide. I mean, you know, Bangla Chan declares a level six global pandemic. Next slide, please. And there was going to be 2 billion deaths, if I remember, or 2 billion was going to be affected, and there was going to be millions of deaths and so on. What they didn’t tell the world was actually that in lieu of the H1N1 so-called pandemic, companies, the vaccine companies had already produced vaccine before the pandemic was in force, you know, or took place, you know, the vaccine companies. So then what happened, the vaccine, sorry, the pandemic never took, it was a damn scoop, it never took place. So what did they do? In partnership with the World Health Organization, they fabricated the pandemic, they fabricated the pandemic. in order to sell the vaccines. This is what the World Health Organization is actually about, you know, I mean, a mafia, you know, like organization that has got no bounds in corruption. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Yeah, and of course, they even fabricated, you know, change definitions in order to fabricate this. Next slide, please. Okay, so a lot of this, Dr. Ngare has already mentioned, so I’ll just run through this. We know about the COVID crimes, you know, fudging the stats. I’m sure we’ve heard about Neil Ferguson a lot. You know, the 500,000 that was going to die in Britain and the 2 million that was going to die in the US, all over the world. And he was totally wrong. And the pandemic transmission model was shown to be a fraud, basically. Next slide, please. And of course, there was a crime of the healthy. Next slide, please. We know what happened here. As Dr. Ngare already mentioned, asymptomatic, became sick. Next slide, please. And of course, out of that, this was the reason why we had it. Next slide, please. We’ll just run through this. The Corwin-Droxton paper. One aspect that Dr. Ngare maybe didn’t mention is that only people knew that the paper was never peer-reviewed. Next slide, please. It was never peer-reviewed. And guess what? It was never peer-reviewed and guess what? It was entered onto the World Health Organization website before the Corbin Drosente was even published. It became the gold standard before Corvin Droshen even published the paper publicly. So they accept this. It’s just unbelievable that these things were allowed to happen. Next slide, please. And of course, we know this was… Next slide, please. Next. Yeah. And of course, based on what I think… Yeah, that slide, please. Dr. Ngari, you mentioned about the… You showed that slide about during that year, suddenly the influenza disappeared. Well, what people don’t know is that the CDC actually produced a communique, in fact, saying that the CDC PCR test had failed its full review. And the reason why it failed, it couldn’t distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, right? So this was clearly one of the reasons why we had this anomaly in 2021, where influenza just disappeared, because everything was just rebranded as COVID. So this was, again, the PCR hoax. Next slide, please. And then, of course, we know this, I’ll just run through this, because everybody knows, not saving lives as a treatment. And of course, all the academic institutions largely were basically cornered in terms of funding and basically, yeah. Next slide, please. And of course, we know this famous case of the Lancet, the New Link Journal of Medicine. Next slide, please. Fraud, if you want to call it that. And we know that this was a famous case of dihydroxychloroquine, where the Lancet published a study, 96,000 patients, 670 hospitals. And what happened? everything was a fraud. There was a company called surgery sphere that had made the minds and none of these none of this was true. And basically, this is this is the reason that the World Health Organization use to to knock hydroxychloroquine, you know, but it was based on the fraud. Nothing came of it. Yeah, next slide, please. And of course, this is where the World Health Organization, in response to this paper, the WHO announces they’re going to stop the solidarity trial. And we know, of course, the ivermectin fiasco. I’m sure Tess knows this guy, Dr. Andrew Hill. And this is all these conflicts of interest. We won’t go into it. Next slide, please. And of course, we know this famous interview. And of course, he admitted that he received money from the Gates Foundation, as well as that the UNITAD influenced his studies. Next slide, please. And then, of course, there was a vaccine. So I’ll just run through this. We know this. Next slide, please. Efficacy line. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And we know the Pfizer trial was already mentioned. know 139 000 adverse events listed there next slide please and of course part of that sudden unexplained death myocarditis all of this was listed and somehow the doctors today just ignores this next slide please and of course we know the deaths in the trial was actually three percent you know which is a crazy that we that this was trial was actually allowed by the FDA, accepted by the next slide. Yeah. And of course, this is the man on the inside. Next slide, please. This slide speaks volumes, doesn’t it? It just speaks volumes. We know where his bread is buttered, so to speak. Cedric Gabriel is a lackey of the World Economic Forum. And this, of course, was mentioned on many occasions that despite the fact that the USA has designated the Tigray Liberation Front as a people’s liberation front, as a terrorist organization, still they, you know, despite these, and of course, that he was accused of covering up for them. Despite this, he was still elected as a WHO head. Next slide, please. Right. And of course, we know that this individual had played a central role in corrupting the WHO. Next slide, please. And these are, I mean, this says it all, that the Bill Gates, allied with Gavi, is the second largest contributor to the World Health Organization in terms of funding contributions. So which means that, yeah, this slide, this shows that he completely controls the policy directors of the WHO. Given that, we can go one slide back, right? One slide back. Yes. Given that this is the value estimation of the investment that the Gates Foundation has made in every COVID-19 vaccine, in every COVID-19 vaccine, the Gates Foundation had a major investment in. Given that. Next slide, please. Would you say that this person was now got The control of the policy directors of WHO will go against the investments that is made. Clearly not. Next slide, please. And I mean, here’s just another I won’t go through. I’ve already mentioned that. Right. Next slide, please. And this one I’ve also already mentioned. Dr. Ngari forgot to mention that this documentary is a very important documentary. It covers much of the work that they have done on the HCG tetanus vaccine cases. Next slide, please. Yeah. So the reason why I’m mentioning this is critically important for Africa. because I believe that the African health security architecture is principally intertwined with the global health security architecture. And the World Health Organization plays a pivotal role in undermining Africa. And it is so tied into, it’s a pity I ever got a longer time to present, maybe at another time, to the geopolitical ramifications of this. Because I’ve also researched that, the geopolitical ramifications. And the role that the World Health Organization, I would say the World Health Organization almost plays the role in Africa of the foreign policy arm of the globalists, you know, the US, UK and so on. They in order to impose this on Africa, they are putting in the mechanisms in order to control the resources of Africa through health. Next slide, please. Yeah. So on the left hand side, I’m just coining Dr. Ngaris, I hope you don’t mind me coining your phrase and so on. On the left hand side, you’ve got, before Europe came to Africa, you’ve got all these 20, 30, maybe, you know, 50,000 different type, different tribal, and you have got all these Africa populated by all these different tribes, right? Then after the 1884 Berlin Conference, this is what we got on the right-hand side. You know, I am putting forward that the World Health Organization is in the process of recolonizing Africa for the global corporates. Next slide, please. Right. And the World Economic Forum and the WHO Africa CDC Nexus is part of this. Now they’ve got a new public health order for Africa. It almost sounds like a new world order for Africa plan, right? Next slide, please. And I’ve already gone through. So they’ve got at the top, the policy distributors, the enforcers is Africa CDC and African Union. And as you can see, the corporate part is below. Next slide, please. And you’ll see in the center that the Africa CDC plays a pivotal role in this. Now, the Africa CDC is touted as being created by the AU. And I am saying that this is a Trojan horse. complete Trojan horse as you see if you look at the on the I’ve got the partners and at least like the who’s who of the World Health Organization funders and then next slide please this is the individual that was elected to head since 2020 to hit the Africa CDC and if you look on the left-hand side here He was a senior advisor in the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Emergent Response Team. And he was a technical coordinator for the Global Vaccine Policy Committee on Meningitis for the World Health Organization. Next, he was a senior country director for the Clinton Health Access Initiative. And if you look at the bottom, he was a technical officer for the CDC. And he had a job with Gavi, UNICEF, European Investment Bank, And he was a global leader of the Africa polio team for Bill and Lenny. This guy was handpicked to implement the World Health Organization policy in Africa, basically on behalf of the corporates. Next slide, please. Next slide. Yeah. And here is the partnership that the Africa CDC has basically formed with the World Health Organization. They signed it now recently, 2024, I think, or 2023. My memory serves me good. Next slide, please. And here’s the partnership. Next slide, please. It’s called the Joint Action Plan for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. I say this is like an economic hitman. They are the economic hitman courting Africa and wanting them to turn over all resources under this umbrella, which we’re trying to denounce tonight, the pandemic treaty and the IHR. Next slide, please. And guess who was the funder? None other than this. Can I just wrap up in one or two minutes? You’re so knowledgeable and I know that you could probably keep going for a few hours. Thank you very much. You know, I can go on and on and on. So thanks for stepping in there. Next slide, please. Okay, so earlier the World Bank was also mentioned. They’ve got a pandemic fund in conjunction with the World Health Organization called the Pandemic Fund, right? And listen to the what it allocates grants to help countries better prepared for future pandemics and look on the right hand side who’s the contributors right and the as you see the africa cd is also there next slide please oh by the way this guy uh sabine nazimana he comes in very and and tess you will be very interested to know who this guy is next slide please yeah He is the Minister of Health of Rwanda, and he is accepting the, that was the Rwanda checking on WHO pandemic preparedness. Next slide, please. You remember this test together, COVID trial? Look who is one of the trial investigators, this guy, right? So this gives you an idea of how, It’s almost like a cabal. They’re all in it. All of them are in it together. Next slide, please. And then I’ll finish off. And there’s the PAVM, the Partnership for African Vaccine Manufacturing, also a WHO-driven entity. Next slide, please. And here’s the African Vaccine Acquisition Trust, driven by a person called Srivi Masihewa, the richest man in Africa. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And this guy, he was also appointed as the Africa Union Special… Yeah, look, I mean, there’s lots to say. I mean, let’s stop it there. Then I hope I’ve given you a… Can you just go right to the last slide? Oh, okay. No, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Just to the right to the last slide. Because that is basically my… Yeah, next. Right to the last, last, last, last, last, last. And this is my message for tonight. I believe as my research has shown that there’s no way in heaven that the WHO can be reformed. The only other option is to exit the group, basically. That’s my last statement on this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Fahri, for another brilliant presentation. Of course, Fahri and I will be presenting a course on understanding and addressing conflicts of interest. during the course of June. So please do look out for that. Tess, I thought we’d share a couple of comments before we bring Dr. Meryl Nass in. People are responding quite positively. I am Maha says, dismantle the WHO as it is. Definitely get rid of Tedros and a few other comments there. Sphurti Kachare, Ph.D. : Craig falling as a scientific research Councils in every country composed of retired eminent scientists with no conflicts of interest for democratic the election new members so it’s independent imagine them hosting debates renewing evidence and rendering legally authoritative. assessments conservative governments might even give them legal standing sounds like he’s talking about the world council for health so that’s pretty fantastic with our different country councils in over 30 countries around the world and if you’re watching on the newsroom some wonderful comments coming there as well thank you so much uh ruins says I think no reform if tedros remains in his position Mario Leblanc, there is a better way for health, freedom and sovereignty. Also saying increasing the power of WHO and the UN would be the ultimate game for the one world government. Mark Fredericks, there is a better way. Create independence from these global corporations. I’m all for cooperation, but I’m wary of hyperdependence. The specter of totalitarianism looms large currently. Sustainable Health Care says, absolutely agreeing with the other people talking in this chat and people from different parts of the world. So it’s pretty fantastic. Marina from Cape Town, South Africa, I agree. There’s no way the WHO can be trusted or reformed. Tyler says, love the WCH team. You are the very best. Thank God for you all. few other rather amusing comments emma kelly no the who cannot be reformed and yeah have a look at the at the comments it has to be a better way great speakers honest people thank a wonderful thank you to dr stickleberger sustainable healthcare take back control take back responsibility for our health et cetera, et cetera. So thank you, everyone, for your wonderful comments from Holland, UK, South Africa, et cetera. We appreciate that very much. Daryl Hardy as well from South Africa. Thank you for this important session to the whole WCH team. Of course, please do support our work if you can. World Council for Health, of course, is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which makes us free of conflicts of interest. If you can support our work, please do. Tess, back to you. Please introduce Dr. Meryl Nass. Go ahead. Thanks very much, Shabnam, and to everybody watching and commenting. It really does, you know, it’s food for our souls and it’s lovely to have the engagement. Now we have a wonderful Dr. Meryl Nass who has been at the forefront of the battle to raise awareness about the WHO and the US and elsewhere. Dr. Nass, would you like to take the stage? Thank you so much, Tess and Shabnam. And I just have to say the three speakers who preceded me were fabulous. I mean, this is a wonderful presentation and I hope I can live up to what they’ve done. For the audience, I’m a medical doctor. I lost my license for treating patients with COVID and spreading so-called misinformation. I’m also an expert on epidemics, anthrax, vaccines, and biological warfare. And this is actually a little coin that I got from the Director of National Intelligence for consulting for them on biological warfare. Now, so… What can we say about the WHO? What’s good about it and what’s bad about it? Well, I think the first thing is if they want to rule us, they want to be the ones telling us what to do during a medical emergency that they get to declare based on their own standards. We don’t know what those standards are. That means they’re not following the rule of law. And in fact, they never do. So the WHO has many rules and it breaks them all the time. In order to keep negotiating the treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations, they broke their four-month rule that the amendments needed to be put on the table for everyone to look at ahead of time, and that the treaty and any other document that was to be discussed at this meeting needed to be put on the table six weeks ahead. They didn’t bother with either of those. They didn’t bother two years ago when they put forward a group of amendments that the United States had initiated and said they were passed. But when 12 members of the European Parliament asked for the evidence that a vote had taken place at the end of November of last year, The WHO Director General and no other WHO officials ever bothered to even answer the members of the European Parliament. Clearly no vote took place. We saw what I would call a bogus consensus procedure happen in Committee A and that was it. And people went along. Why did they go along? They’re used to going along. The officials who work at the WHO have a good deal. Somebody wrote recently that the average income of WHO employees is $120,000 a year. That’s an extraordinary amount of money for an average. And they get vested, they get a lot more benefits after they’ve been there 15 years. So they do not want to leave. And that means they do not want to rock the boat. So what do you have? You have an institutional culture of yes men and yes women at the WHO. Let’s go back a little bit. During COVID, what did the WHO do for us? Well, the WHO initiated a whole series of clinical trials for many drugs and then gave us misinformation about which drugs were the good ones and which ones were the bad ones. The WHO had an arm of its clinical trial of drugs for COVID that did use hydroxychloroquine. It wasn’t going to initially, the WHO planned to avoid all the chloroquine drugs, but because the nation states demanded that they study chloroquine also, since that had done the best in trials in Marseille and in China, hydroxychloroquine was added to the list. But what happened? The WHO used a dose that was poisonous. And about 10% of the nearly 1,000 people that were enrolled in that trial and received very high doses, much higher than have ever been used clinically for any disease or diagnosis. About 10% of them are said to have died in the hospital. WHO, that was higher than the percent who died, who got placebo, who got nothing. What else happened? The WHO, according to Reuters, called up the Ministry of Health of Indonesia and also the Organization of Pulmonologists in Indonesia and demanded that they suppress the use of hydroxychloroquine in Indonesian patients. We don’t know about the rest of the world, but I think we can assume that probably the WHO was employed to do that in many nations around the world. So why would that happen? Why is the World Health Organization doing things that harm health? Because it’s captured. Only 13% of the WHO budget comes from dues. They’re trying to increase that by 50% over the next five years, which means that instead of 13%, possibly up to 20% of the entire budget will come from dues. The rest comes from private entities or nations that have pharmaceutical industries or so-called philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The WHO dances to the tune of its funders. It is a captured organization. It got very interested in public-private partnerships about 20, 25 years ago and has maintained more and more and more of its budget from private interests, meaning that the entire organization is basically one big conflict of interest. Let me say a few other things about that. Recently, over the last few years, the WHO has been utilized by globalists in an attempt to take over the world. Now, what do I mean by that? That’s a pretty strong statement. Well, not only was the WHO starved of funds, but public health agencies around the world have basically been starved of funds. So what came in to replace the money that has been taken from them was new funding for anti-humane, anti-health initiatives like One Health or pandemic preparedness, pandemic planning. So the health agencies of the world have been given money through the WHO, through its pandemic fund, which has pledges for about $2 billion, through the United States, and through other organizations that have already been mentioned by everybody else. to embark on a program of pandemic preparedness and response for which there is no evidence that anything in this program has ever prevented a pandemic, helped anyone respond to a pandemic, or in any other way has helped individuals. so what’s happened lately so we’ve had over two years of negotiations for a pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations which were two documents that if they passed would have turned the who into the governor of health worldwide whenever a public health emergency of international concern was declared by the director general It would have done a lot more than that because the pandemic treaty was going to be enforced 24-7 with or without a declaration. So there would be many aspects of health control that would have always been active, while some would have only been active during a declared emergency. But the director could also declare a likely emergency or a potential emergency, and the director general would be able to decide when that emergency ended. This would have been a level of global control that no dictator in the history of the world has ever achieved. It would have been extraordinary. And what happened is that it has failed. So despite the millions and billions that have been put into this agency to completely corrupt it and take it over, This prospect failed the two negotiating committees, one for the treaty and one for the amendments to the international health regulations. Both were unable to come up with a consensus document last Friday, three days ago. Now some people are saying they’ll still pull, pull a rabbit out of a hat and come up with something at the meeting, which starts today and goes through Saturday, June 1st. I don’t think that is going to happen. And let me tell you why. The avowed policy throughout these more than two years of negotiations of the pandemic treaty was that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Well, at least half the treaty has never been agreed. That means the rest of it cannot be agreed. unless everyone lies and pretends that this basic premise for the negotiations doesn’t exist. But it does exist. Everybody knows it exists. So we will not get a pandemic treaty this week. What about the amendments? Some of the amendments have been agreed to, but most have not. What might we see going forward? Well, basically what’s been agreed are non-entities, unimportant issues that really the globalists don’t care about and won’t impinge on the people of the world, except for one important thing. And that is the nations did agree with the WHO on surveillance and censorship. So is this a surprise? The negotiators are willing to go along with the WHO and demand that nations surveil their citizens’ online presence and censor anything we say or share that goes against the WHO narrative. Is that a surprise? No. This has been happening for quite a while. Since the start of the pandemic, for example, YouTube has had a policy to censor anything that went against the WHO narrative. This plan was put into place more than four years ago. I live in the United States. Our government has been surveilling everything and censoring us for a number of years. It’s gotten tighter since COVID, but basically this persists. And now we have a case about it because this goes against the First Amendment of our Constitution. We have a case going to the Supreme Court, and it’s called Missouri versus Biden. It’s possible that Biden and the federal government will prevail and we will basically lose the First Amendment, but hopefully that won’t happen. Hopefully our Supreme Court will not be corrupted and throw the First Amendment of our Constitution, which is perhaps the most important part of our Constitution, in the trash. We have our fingers crossed and we’re watching closely. How can you improve the WHO? Can it be improved? Well, what we have is a completely non-transparent organization. Money flows in. Most of the money goes to WHO staff and to contractors and to industries in the first world. The first world then trickles a little of it down to the second and third world. If money flowed directly to decentralized health agencies at the local level with transparency so that the people could see how much money was coming in and how it was being spent, we would have a good structure for helping the poor of the world. We do not have that now. Public-private partnerships will have to go. Either the nations are going to fund this organization, or the goal for the pandemic treaty and the international health regulations was that the budget of the WHO was going to increase to 10 times what it is now, from under $4 billion a year to over $40 billion a year. That amount of money would probably fund health services in all of Africa. If we want to spend that money, do we want to spend it on pandemic preparedness? No. The two things that were really dangerous in these documents were the biohub system, which was a set of labs to collect pandemic pathogens, which I call biological warfare agents, study them and share them with all the nations and with other subnational organizations. That would have increased the likelihood of pandemics. The other really dangerous thing was One Health, which wraps everything in the world under the rubric of health, as Fahri Hassan said. and would have enabled the WHO to give us orders about everything. So those two things are gone. I don’t think they’ll be coming back. Finally, I guess I want to say that the WHO is just a microcosm of the UN system, as Astrid Stuckelberger said. And the whole system needs to be revamped. A light needs to be shined on it. We need transparency and we need decentralization. So thank you very much. Thanks very much. Very interesting things. I hadn’t really considered that if one changed the funding structure, that that would significantly change things right now, because I think what’s become apparent over the last few years, just generally speaking, about where we are at as humanity, it seems like people want something for their money. And so any organization that you have any centralization and concentration of power is going to be subject to lobbying by anyone who’s putting in any money. And, you know, I don’t think that I think the issue with the global public private partnership has highlighted this terrible problem. But I think, you know, the structure itself, you know, the concentration and the hierarchy would just, and the basic, as humanity, there seems to be this still this sort of superior versus inferior, you know, as long as we have that system, and I’m I’m remembering a quote of Hale Selassie that I put in my substack this week. As long as we have this system where there’s a sense of feeling better or more superior than another, as long as we’re still kind of imagining that, we are not going to be able to have equity in a centralized institution, in my opinion. Shabnam, do you have… Thank you so much, Tess. And thanks very much, Meryl, for another excellent presentation. We’re getting some wonderful feedback. I’m hoping you can wait until the end of mine so we can do a group vote with all of our participants. Can the WHO be reformed? That’s the question. And we’ll be recording and sharing that vote with the public, especially during what we call World Freedom Week, with what the WHO calls World Health Assembly number 77. Wonderful comments coming through, Tyler. The more I hear from all these brilliant, truthful professionals, the more I’m scratching my head, wondering how the WHO ever materialized. Sustainable Health Care says this information is suppressed in the name of corporate capitalism. We need to revolt personally and then roll out a peaceful revolution. Darryl Hardy, well done. Terz Shabnam, Philippe Kruse and the World Council for Health for delivering the notice of liability to the WHO. Next step will be the arrest and justice. Darryl also says there’s diversity in unity and unity in diversity. Diversity is strength. culture and unique nations it’s the way it’s meant to be it’s beautiful and finally captain long such a vital conversation uh thank you test shabnam and astrid for your courage and dedication in educating us all about the challenges of a mono system of global health and surveillance and lack of consent as currently being proposed all right I’ve got a few slides to share and then of course our all-important vote before we close the event for today please continue supporting the work of world council for health I’m starting with a quote by Stephen Bantu Biko from South Africa. The great powers of the world may have done wonders in giving the world an industrial and military look, but the great gift still has to come from Africa, giving the world a more human face. That’s what the World Council for Health is saying. Health is human. It is not transhumanism and a militarized, centralized system. Next slide, please. Oh, I think I can control them. Okay, well, that’s our event for today. Can the WHO be reformed? This was an event we held about two weeks back. Why Africa should vote no at the WHO. Neocolonialism, corporate coups and debt slavery taking back our health and sovereignty in 2024 with the three speakers from South Africa and two from Kenya. Another excellent event held by our partner at CHD Africa and our friends. Please do watch. Very important. So it leads me to this slide. the WHO’s colonial origins. All the WHO regions last to be formed was the one for Africa, a continent that had formerly received scant attention from international health agencies, but was, not accidentally, the leading site of European colonization and colonial medicine. After World War II, all African countries were colonies, except Liberia, South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia. The last two were made members of the WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean regions. Now, the rest of Africa fell into the UN category of non-self-governing territories under the UN’s trusteeship system. But the debate over trusteeship was vigorous. As a compromise measure, European governments were not forced to give up their colonies, but they had to report annually to a UN trusteeship division on the living conditions of the colonized people under their jurisdiction. So the United Nations, which is also deeply problematic and also seeking expanded standing authority over what they call complex global emergencies, including but not limited to pandemics and climate change, wars and nuclear events, thus sought to improve colonial conditions instead of questioning their legality. So Africa, which is the Africa region of WHO, with a few exceptions, embraced countries and territories south of the Sahara. The countries in Africa were amongst the poorest on the globe and were seen to be in dramatic need of help incapable of rising out of poverty themselves and thus dependent on Europe and the United States for development. So there was a civilizing mission in post-World War II Africa which postponed claims to independence by offering expanded services and political concessions to decolonized nations instead of decolonization itself. Quite a diabolical strategy. which of course leads us to what is neocolonialism and corporate colonialism. It is my position that we are all experiencing corporate colonialism and neocolonialism currently through these super nationals like the WHO, which involves direct and indirect influence, often through economic means, characterized by the deliberate and continued survival of the colonial system by turning states into victims of political, mental, economic, social, military and technical forms of domination, bullet point three. Essentially, neocolonialism is a form of imperialism formerly thought of where developed countries exert control over developing countries. But as we realize now, corporations in all of our countries are the entity that’s actually, in many instances, more powerful than our governments. I’ll move on to the next slide. Now, the WHO, as my colleague Fahri Hassan alluded to, many crimes and many failures also during COVID-19. But I want to specifically highlight the sexual abuse of the women at the DRC, which was perpetrated by the workers of the WHO, as well as the workers of the United Nations. and NGO, big name NGOs that perpetrated sexual exploitation in return for, for example, aid or employment. And so when you look at the intention of the WHO-led process to give the Director General the unilateral power to declare a public health emergency in your country, and then potentially deploy their workers into your country, it would leave at least half your population, being women and children, vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Very dangerous indeed. This was the show we did around spotlighting the role of Ted Ross, the director general of WHO in Ethiopian’s genocide, as well as Kenya’s infertility with Dr. Ngare. So certainly encourage you to watch that one. This is the film, Infertility, A Diabolical Agenda, you can find on infertilitymovie.org. It’s a short but shocking film and certainly serves to conscientize us. We’ve also realized through our research and work that the fertility experiments facilitated by the WHO were also perpetrated in other parts of our world. So certainly there is much work to bring this kind of diabolical conduct to the surface. Now, the WHO has also been accused of fraud, corruption, harassment, and other charges, and this came through in an audit report as far back as 2015, much of which continues today. 2015, the WHO was left reeling after an internal audit discovered incidents of fraud, corruption, harassment, failure to comply with professional standards, and sexual harassment skyrocketing. According to the audit, 2015 saw an increase of 66%. the demands for investigation of suspected wrongdoing reported incidents of fraud were up 20 percent over the previous year harassment claims increased 30 percent cases of sexual harassment doubled and instances of fraud shot up 166 percent now in 2022 at world health assembly 75 uh an audit of who finances by india as a member state found again irregular And here’s the WHO now in 2024 demanding more money from each of the member states, certainly money that can be better invested in becoming radically healthy, decentralizing health and improving health care systems in our countries. And I apologize for not warning you of the images that are in these slides, but they’re important. So as a direct result of the recommendations by the WHO that the COVID-19 and other shots are safe, effective and necessary. These are the people in our children, in our continent of Africa that have been damaged and hurt and deceased. On the left, 14-year-old Yamkela Seplani from the Eastern Cape, the poorest province in our country, basketball-sized tumour on her arm. She was forced to take the shot to register at school. She has since returned to her creator. May she rest in peace. On the right, baby Grace from Cameroon, yellow fever injection, up to 20 seizures a day. She’s blind and she’s brain damaged. We’re trying to get her to another country, another part of our world for treatment. That shouldn’t have happened to her in the first place. On the left, baby Hope, BCG injection, deceased after two weeks of receiving that injection. And on the right, baby Freedom, polio shot. The child looks like she has been burnt. from the polio injection adverse reaction. And so the WHO is directly involved in encouraging countries to take up more shots. And they’re doing the same thing at the World Health Assembly. So in South Africa, we have an independent adverse reporting system called SA-VES. These are some of the adverse effects experienced by our children 11 to 17, both physical and cognitive, losing days of work and normal life, an average of six negative effects per child. Economic impact is astronomical. When last we had calculated, if one in four people in South Africa and a country with high unemployment is ill, injured or deceased post-COVID-19 shot, the loss to the economy per month is upwards of $123 billion. Which then makes the agenda of the pharmaceutical industries, which will get to capture sovereign assets that much easier. More statistics from SA VAERS, we’ve had to launch Africa VAERS to have an independent pharmacovigilance system for Africa. We’ve had to launch a stop the shots case here in South Africa, which was dismissed despite the evidence because the WHO’s recommendations are taken more seriously than the evidence of doctors who are seeing the harm or of SA VAERS or of conflicts of interest evidence. This article bringing it closer to where we are now Africans continue to be experimented on, and this is of course the malaria shots that Dr. Ngare talked about earlier, with a 36% success rate, which is absolutely ridiculous for experimenting on Africans in this article. Who will bring WHO and GlaxoSmithKline to justice for experimenting on Africans? I want to talk about public participation. It’s something that I’m very passionate about, which is why also in our World Council for Health events, you will see voting. Like you did at our last people’s hearing about a month ago, where our country councils unanimously voted to withdraw from the WHO. The WHO’s constitutional principle of participation contained in its preamble is that informed opinion, an act of cooperation on the part of the public of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people. Does it happen? No. The Alma-Arta Declaration public participation plays a crucial role in shaping health policies. programs and interventions at the global level. The WHO and the Alma-Arta Declaration have been instrumental in advocating for community involvement in healthcare decision-making, or they should be, because the declaration emphasizes the importance of public participation, equity, and accessibility, which are relevant considerations for any global health treaty, including one addressing pandemics. Therefore, the WHO has violated the Alma-Arta Declaration that itself is signed up into. All of us know this, a two-track process to one health. But of course, if we waste all of our time trying to plug this agreement or fighting that treaty, we’ll never extricate ourselves from the matrix, which is why most of us in the health freedom movement are advocating to withdraw from the WHO because you can’t revise their treaties and you cannot reform the behemoth. This policy brief on the World Council for Health’s website, Rejecting Monopoly Power over Global Public Health, has been translated. It’s also an eight-page summary. So if you are reaching out to your ethical politicians, it’s a document you could utilize. I’m not going to go through the next couple of slides in any detail, except to say there’s many articles in both these treaties that are still under discussion and debate and disagreement, including One Health, pathogen access and benefit sharing, financing, and a new behemoth called the conference of the parties. Similarly, with the proposed pandemic treaty, there’s NGOs who sit at the table who’ve realized that complaining about these issues for years have led us absolutely nowhere. In the words of Albert Einstein, I believe, trying to do the same thing expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. So Africa continues to resist One Health, that wonderful cartoon there by Anne Gibbons on the left. And key themes motivating the resistance is the pathogen sharing, the globalization of giving the pharmaceutical industry indemnity within these agreements, formalizing it globally for any harm caused to us through their products. more public health emergencies of various kinds, lower threshold for declaration, a new conference of the parties, where will the money come from, calls for censorship of what they define as mis- and disinformation, equity, in other words, give us more of those products that are harming us. Africa is very much being trapped into that, as well as other developing, so-called developing countries, calls for increased information sharing and a blank slate on enforcement. Merrill’s talked about Article 55. This has been completely violated by the WHO, as well as other parts of their constitution. In South Africa, we have served a letter on the WHO on the 1st of December, notice of rejection and the previous set of IHR amendments. Absolutely no response. We weren’t alone in that. Other countries did the same. So we had the Philippines, we had New Zealand, we had Mexico, we had Estonia. either as parliaments or as politicians or as civil society organizations. As far as I know, nobody was responded to. I’m going to skip through these slides except to say that Pfizer tried to enforce a clause in the COVID-19 short contracts that would give it as security a country’s sovereign assets, including military bases, embassies and reserve banks. So this information came out through various investigations. I interviewed a whistleblower on this in 2022. The former health minister in South Africa denied that that clause has actually been signed. The case did actually go to court, but because of the non-disclosure agreements, we don’t know. There was a blanket silencing of governments who couldn’t even talk about the existence of agreements. So how does it link back to the WHO and the unilateral power of the director general? Essentially, this capture of sovereign assets is a dangerous weapon of mass destruction. If a country can’t pay its enormous vaccine debt, Pfizer can then just say, well, we’ll take your key assets. It then becomes easier for the WHO to do anything, including deploying WHO workers or UN troops when your assets like military bases are actually stolen by corporate imperialism. So the solution is simple. Exit the who. Please do read this article. Can the WHO and the UN impose sanctions for not obeying them? My research says yes. And of course, the United Nations in September last year, unlawfully in my view, declared a political declaration on pandemics. 11 countries objected for well-articulated reasons, two of those countries being from Africa. The UN proceeded anyway. As I start to round up towards solutions, please do read this legal brief that has been published by World Council for Health, Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies, Lawful Criteria to Declare State of Emergency. Knowing these criteria means we can stand on and assert our rights the next time a public health emergency is alleged. So there’s five criteria before declaring a state of emergency that the public health crisis must threaten the life of the nation and meet the following four criteria. The threat must be one, actual or imminent. Two, involve the whole nation. Three, place the continuation of the organized life of society at risk of extinction. And four, be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate. When you apply those criteria to COVID-19, it’s very clear that all of our governments in fact violated international human rights law and should be held accountable as a result. The slide is essentially around strategic actions, which you can find on various platforms. I’ve created the slide a couple of weeks or a couple of months ago. Building solidarity, demanding information, translating open letters, serving notices such as the one the World Council for Health served in Geneva, mobilizing direct democracy, debating in parliaments and amending your constitutions, and of course testing your courts. That’s section 231 of the South African Constitution, which we are mobilizing to amend to absolutely and categorically include public participation and parliamentary approval before any international agreement is signed. This is the WHO withdrawal bill that I’ve drafted, which you can find on shabnapalesamuhammad.com. This is an advisory that the state president of South Africa released to the Africa Group. Very interesting. Just a few days ago, and on the second page under recommendations, he says that if there is no compromise and through a consensus on what the Africa Group is looking for, including fairness and transparency, then the Africa Group should either request a postponement or the Africa group should consider standing down from the international negotiating body. Very significant, except this two-page letter only talks about the treaty. It doesn’t talk about the IHR amendments, which is in many ways a red herring or a bait and switch to get us to think that everything is in order when it actually isn’t. So what could happen this World Health Assembly? I believe the vote will happen tomorrow. It certainly was scheduled that way a week ago, but things keep shifting. As Astrid mentioned earlier, Voting could be deferred. If it was, it would have happened today. That was the first part of their agenda a week ago, where they would have to decide which items to defer to the next world assembly that hasn’t happened. They could vote on both treaties. Unlikely to happen because they’re experiencing great trouble on the new proposed pandemic treaty, but they could try and include the articles that they do agree on in a resolution that we agree on these particular articles from that pandemic treaty, and they should become a force and effect immediately. They could vote only on the one being the IHR 2005, the accord could be absorbed into the IHR 2005, or countries could begin withdrawing from WHO because they realize it’s not the better way. And of course, to be wary of saying not now, in other words, don’t sign these treaties now, sign them later, because they will try to trap us by launching other public health emergencies. And of course, the WHO cannot be reformed. These were some recommendations I shared at the Uganda conference. I would encourage everyone to watch this film we made in South Africa called Global Power Grab, WHO’s Global Power Grab. You can watch part one on World Council for Health South Africa’s Rumble channel, as well as CHD Africa. Again, in the words of President Museveni, thank you for vaccinating me against the WHO. Get together and stay strong. And finally, in the words of Professor Angela Davis, you have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do it all the time. And so that’s what we do when we’re mobilizing towards the better way. I raced through that presentation test, but I believe we’d like to highlight this particular slide. Please go ahead. Well, there is a rally taking place this weekend in Geneva. It’s called Road to Geneva. And people from all around the world are gathering in Geneva over the course of two days, Friday and Saturday. And they’re meeting. There’s a long list of speakers there. Speaking on Saturday, there’s a press conference on Saturday morning headed by Philip Cruz, a Swiss lawyer who delivered our notices of liability. And so, you know, on behalf of all the country councils, we wish everybody the absolute greatest trip, bon voyage and most successful trip. and I’m sure there will be calls for celebration, certainly if there’s no vote, and it will be quite a triumphant end of the week. So I do hope that people will watch that, really. It is being live-streamed, and we will keep you posted on Twitter as to where you can find that. Shabnam, I just wanted to thank you for all your great work that you’ve done in raising awareness over the years and the work that you’ve done for World Council for Health in the Law and Activism Committee. And I’d also like to thank all the supporters and funders that we’ve had to date, which are really… We are funded through the small donations we receive on the website, our events, and such like the Bedway conferences and other events, but mainly donations through our Substack and through the website. And so you can see what we’ve achieved. Now, we’ve been talking about great change, and there was that beautiful quote that you ended with, um where you know you have to believe the change is possible and believe it all the time or act like you know and that’s really what we’ve been doing from the get-go with world council for health we just said big change is needed and it’s got to start somewhere there needs to be a different approach to health and and it needs to include choice so our approach has been health sovereignty uh compared with the world health organization and our indeed our government’s approach is now which is health security which is about disease and fear, whereas ours is health and choice and self-determination. So this is the message that our country counts as. You can see how beautiful they are in this background. We have 36 activated so far, and we are in the process of activating some smaller states and so on in countries that are very large like the United States. And just to say that each of these country councils, their mission is to continue this process of setting the world free. So the mission of the World Council for Health is to set countries free of the World Health Organization and to set people free and remind them of how to be healthy and how to self-govern and to facilitate new and better ways in different countries. So this is the overarching mission. And each of these country councils is there to help you, wherever you are in your country, achieve health sovereignty and be in charge of your own health and self-determination. So we do hope that you see our value and that you are able to support us, to continue supporting us. If you already do, monthly donations are very, very most welcome because it gives us some security going forward. But just to know that your contributions are extremely well spent and we’re on an excellent trajectory to getting those 194 country councils up and running so that we can really counter this globalist power grab in the right way and create a better way. Thank you, Shabnam. There’s always a better way, isn’t there? That’s something that we thrive on. It’s why we never get demotivated or dissuaded in any way, because we know we are building a better world for the 99%. Aubrey asks, are there any political parties on the right side of the WHO issue? Because it seems they’re all talking about buying a fire engine when they gain power while the house is on fire. Such a good way to ask a question, Aubrey, who I believe is from South Africa. And yes, there are certain political parties. We’re engaging in town hall debates here in South Africa. There’s been a parliamentary debate on the 1st of March as well, and in other countries as well, if not the whole party. Certainly there are politicians who are speaking out, some of whom you can see in the WHO film that we’ve made, WHO’s Global Power Grab, apart from about 100-plus health freedom advocates around the world. I’ve also drafted a declaration of invalidity, plus a statement of dispute, plus a notice of objection on the UN’s political declaration. It’s a six-page document. We’ve just started disseminating it to various politicians around the world, predominantly in Africa. So hopefully they will use that and give us some hope and faith that they are actually honest and trustworthy public citizens and will make that document publicly available as well. So if you want to serve it as a civil society organization or an individual, you don’t have to wait for a head of state or some member of a political party to do so because the power of the people is greater than people in power. So thank you for that question, Aubrey. And on that note, let us now further illustrate the power of the people by bringing all of our speakers on screen for a vote on the motion. Can the WHO be reformed? And there we go. Here’s Meryl and Wahome, Fahri and Astrid. All right, we’re going to vote together as a group. I think Tessa and I will probably go last. And the question is, can the WHO be reformed? Or is there a better way? I’m going to go in order of the screen. And Meryl, go ahead. Yes or no? I think, unfortunately, with its institutional culture and its lack of transparency, there is no way the current WHO can be reformed. Thank you, Meryl. Astrid. So clearly, no, there is a better way. I mean, there are many better ways than the current WHO management and the UN system. I completely agree with you. Thank you, Astrid. Mahomet. No way. Nice and simple. Thank you very much. Fahri. Yeah, so I likewise agree with the former participants. There’s no way that the WHO can be reformed. And I believe in the principles of the WCH, in the World Council for Health, that there is a better way if we follow the seven principles. Thank you. Thank you, Fahri. Tess. Well, I can confidently say since we held the hearing on the 26th of March and we had all our country council representatives urge to exit the WHO, I think I can confidently say that the WHO cannot be reformed and I can speak on behalf of the country councils that we’ve established that the choice would be to exit the World Health Organization. And lastly, Shabnam, absolutely the WHO cannot be reformed. There is always a better way for health, for freedom and sovereignty, and we’re seeing the greatest awakening in history around the world attesting to people who want to retain their rights of self-determination. So the voting is absolutely unanimous. Thank you, everyone, for participating today in this public interest hearing on whether the WHO can be reformed or is there a better way. Thank you to all of our speakers. thank you to everyone who’s watching us from different parts of the world and thank you to our supporters who ensure that we can continue doing the work that we do at the world council for health until next time take care everyone and remember there’s a better way bye Thank you for watching this episode of Better Way today. If you found value in it, please consider making a value exchange with us. The World Council for Health is a grassroots people’s organization and we rely on funding from people just like you. Your contributions from as little as $5 or £5 or 100 Rand help to power our work. The World Council for Health team is on a mission to serve you. Please make it your mission to support us. Thank you.