|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last week, the Aligned Council of Australia held an international press conference to discuss the World Health Organisation’s proposed pandemic instruments that are due to be voted on at the 77th World Health Assembly being held at the end of this month.
Briefing the press and the public were four panellists: Dr. David Bell, Professor Ramesh Thakur, Professor Augusto Zimmerman and Professor Ian Brighthope.
Prof. Thakur has two major concerns about WHO’s pandemic plans: they are a major power grab and national sovereignty is at risk.
Dr. Bell said WHO’s two proposed pandemic documents are clearly unready and unfit for purpose. The rational approach would be for countries to not adopt either and push for a deferment.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The Aligned Council of Australia (“ACA”) is a group of over 37 Australian organisations with over a million members “and growing,” It began in February 2024 following a large number of groups coming together to call for a full analysis and accountability of the public health response since 2020 through a Covid-19 Royal Commission.
The press conference was structured in a question-and-answer format where the moderator put questions to each of the panellists followed by questions from the press and the public.
Katie Ashby-Coppens, moderator and member of the ACA steering committee, kicked off the press conference by giving an update on the status of the negotiations of the texts of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty, and the recent US and UK government reactions to them.
During the first 56 minutes, Ashby-Coppens posed questions to Professor Ramesh Thakur and Dr. David Bell. During the following 30 minutes, Ashby-Coppens questioned Professor Augusto Zimmerman and Professor Ian Brighthope. The conference ended with panellists taking questions from the press and public.
To avoid our article being too lengthy we have limited it to the first hour. We have embedded the video recording of the full almost two-hour, very informative, press conference at the end.
Please note: WHO is attempting to have two instruments adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly to implement its pandemic plans: Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”); and, the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).
Background on the Four Panellists
Dr. David Bell is a former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, USA. You can read articles written by Dr. Bell HERE.
Professor Ramesh Thakur is an emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University and former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. He is the author of the book ‘Our Enemy, the Government: How Covid Enabled the Expansion and Abuse of State Power’. You can read articles written by Prof. Thakur HERE.
Professor Augusto Zimmerman is a professor in law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education and Constitutional Lawyer in Western Australia.
Professor Ian Brighthope is the founder and past president of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. He has over 40 years of experience in lobbying for reform of the pharmaceutical-dominated medical industry. He is also an honorary council spokesman for The Aligned Council of Australia. You can read articles written by Prof. Brighthope HERE.
The Problem with the United Nations …
Prof. Thakur explained that a long-standing criticism of the UN is that it exists so that nations that are unable to do things individually, can get together to decide that nothing can be done collectively.
The other problem with the UN, he said, is that it is run by governments – and over time, governments inevitably pursue their own interests not the interests of the people. Added to that, the UN officials are human beings with individual career interests.
In 2002, Prof. Thakur wrote the then United Nations (“UN”) Secretary-General Kofi Anan’s second reform report, also known as ‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All’, which covered the entire UN system including WHO.
“So, I know more about UN reforms than I ever wanted to know, including the limitations and challenges,” Prof. Thakur said.
One of the problems that was noted in 2002 was the “distressing and increasing trend” of funding for key activities and agencies coming from the private sector.
“Don’t get me wrong,” Prof. Thakur said, “In principle, we welcomed public-private partnerships. But not to the extent where the private contributions begin to dominate and therefore distort the priorities, where effectively you end up subsidising, socialising the risks and privatising the profits.”
That is the first risk we face with WHO today with 80% of its funding coming from voluntary contributions for a specific purpose. The second risk is the centralisation of power.
Not only is centralisation of power happening in governments and the offices of prime ministers or presidents, but increasingly there is centralisation of power at the global level. There is a risk of over-centralisation and control being handed over to international technocrats rather than elected political leaders, Prof. Thakur explained
“We saw, essentially, what amounts to a de facto coup by the expert class against elected governments, domestically, in managing covid,” he said. “That led, in my view, to a lot of mismanagement, major problems and democratic deficits.”
“We need to reclaim power,” Prof. Thakur said.
He has two major concerns about WHO’s pandemic plans. Firstly, they are a major power grab; and, secondly, national sovereignty. WHO says that the treaty fully respects national sovereignty. That is the case, Prof. Thakur said, but the distinction they make is between “legally binding” and “sovereign decision.” Using the example of countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he explained what this means.
Countries that signed the nuclear treaty gave up the sovereign right to get the nuclear bomb but retained the right to exercise sovereignty and withdraw. Withdrawal cannot be unilateral; it has to meet certain conditions. However, if a country withdraws, as North Korea has done in the case of the nuclear treaty, it risks becoming an international outlaw.
So, “we shouldn’t just take [WHO’s] word for it, we need to look into [the sovereignty issue],” he said.
Different disciplines and different people will have different views of what sovereignty is. But as far as the UN is concerned, Prof. Thakur knows more than most what sovereignty means.
Prof. Thakur was one of the main authors of a new principle adopted at the 2005 UN Summit that re-conceptualised sovereignty as “responsibility on the part of governments and citizens being treated as rights-bearing individuals.”
“So, we as citizens have rights; states have responsibilities to us and also to the international community if they default,” he explained.
The new principle was adopted unanimously and remarkably quickly, within four years after the International Commission published its report in December 2001, which is very rare in international affairs, he noted.
“For me, having worked in the UN [and] having worked on the coal face of these issues [and] the reform report … it was done essentially to ‘effective decision-making power’ on health policy,” Prof. Thakur said.
He explained further: “Effective decision-making power to declare and respond to a pandemic under the present text of the two accords will be transferred to the WHO to the extent that many of these are legally binding and/or, [as it] states in various clauses, undertake to follow guidance from the WHO.”
He gave a real-world example. The first instance of a unilateral decision by WHO’s Director-General to declare an international emergency was monkeypox in July 2022.
“I’m not sure how many of you are aware, at that time the total number of deaths from monkeypox worldwide was 5,” Prof. Thakur pointed out. “10 months later that emergency was lifted. The total number of deaths worldwide was 140.”
He continued: “Let me remind you, 500 people die on average every day in Australia. That number 140, is reached within six weeks in respect to road accidents. The latest figures we have from ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2022 altogether 340 people died from falls – just in Australia.”
Monkeypox was a demonstrable instance of badly flawed judgement on the part of WHO’s Director-General, Prof. Thakur said. “But with the new accords, he will not only be able to declare an emergency, once he does so (on his own again), countries undertake to do various things at his request.”
Any organisation that has been around for 70 years has built up a huge equilibrium of vested interests that serves the interests of the organisation, even at the cost of the core mission for which that organisation was set up, Prof. Thakur warned. This problem is not peculiar to WHO or the UN he said, “that’s [just] how bureaucracies evolve and grow and wither away.”
The Problem with WHO …
Dr. Bell was working for WHO when it began to change. When he first joined WHO there was relatively little private funding. But now 80% of WHO’s funding, as Prof. Thakur had explained, is specified, i.e. given for a specific purpose.
“So, WHO has changed dramatically,” Dr. Bell said, “from an organisation that has some expertise and is a pure representative of countries to an organisation that is a tool for funders.”
The top funders are the USA, Bill & Melinda Gates, Germany, GAVI and the European Commission. “So, two of the biggest countries in pharmaceuticals and one of the biggest investors in pharmaceuticals [Gates] plus a pharmaceutical public-private partnership [GAVI] are in charge of WHO in terms of what most of its work has to be,” Dr. Bell said. Inevitably, WHO has to serve the needs of those funders or it won’t get money, he explained.
“[WHO] is essentially a bureaucracy that is working for its funders,” he said. So, if you’re handing power to this organisation, you’re handing power essentially to these funders and to what their specified funding is for.
What it boils down to is that WHO is a public-private partnership and a large bureaucracy that has some but very limited expertise – it may be useful for having meetings but not for telling countries what to do.
“It’s intrinsically bad Public Health to centralise control over a complex problem,” Dr. Bell said. This, and the funding, are two of the problems with WHO.
Another problem is the gross exaggeration of the risk of pandemics. A narrative began shortly before covid that there is an existential risk to humanity from disease outbreaks. “There’s a deliberate reason for doing this,” Dr. Bell said.
“It goes back to the funding of the WHO and the funding of the public-private partnership – which is GAVI and CEPI that is based on, again, vaccines for emergencies and pandemics – they have to [exaggerate risks] because their careers and their existence is based on getting funding for this problem,” he explained.
Outbreaks of disease, although they happen, have a tiny health burden compared to diseases humans face every day, such as tuberculosis or malaria. Of the diseases that WHO lists as having potential outbreaks in pandemic proportions, no more than 1,000 have died from them, in total, Dr. Bell said. So, WHO added “Disease X” to the list.
“Politicians need to understand when they go to the WHO for advice,” Dr. Bell said, “they’re getting the advice that WHO is paid to give.”
Regarding its pandemic preparedness plans, WHO does not follow the evidence. Even the references they use as evidence to claim, for example, that there is an exponential increase in outbreaks of disease contradict the statements WHO makes.
There was an increase in reported outbreaks since the 1960s, say, simply because new tests, such as PCR tests and serology tests, were invented to detect certain diseases. But “in the last 10 to 20 years, the mortality and the number of reported outbreaks has declined,” Dr. Bell said.
Dr. Bell was a co-author of a Leeds University report published earlier this year titled ‘Rational Policy Over Panic’. The report examined the evidence used by WHO, a report from the G20 High Level Independent Panel and a 2022 document published by the World Bank to support the pandemic preparedness agenda and the One Health agenda that’s attached to it. An article summarising the Leeds University report stated:
By making claims contrary to the data, international health agencies are misleading governments of Member States down an unevidenced path with correspondingly high estimated cost and diverted political capital. This currently stands at $31.1 billion annually not including One Health measures and surge funding and at least 5 new global instruments; or about 10 times the WHO’s current annual budget. The urgency involved in the pandemic preparedness agenda is either contrary to evidence or poorly supported by it.
Rational Policy Over Panic, Brownstone Institute, 15 February 2024
WHO speaks of “misinformation” and “disinformation” as being one of the biggest killers of humanity; “in the top 4 killers,” Dr. Bell noted.
“That may well be right because if we go down this road of misinformation that they are clearly promoting and we put over $30 billion a year … [using] circular referencing [WHO publishing a report that G20 quotes, and then WHO updates their report quoting the G20 report] with extremely poor methodology [and] extremely opaque … If we put these resources [$30 billion] into what is proposed in this [pandemic] agenda then it’s going to have huge costs for the rest of health, particularly the diseases WHO has traditionally dealt with,” he said.
“So we are in a real risk that [WHO’s] misinformation that is being promoted for this agenda is going to do huge harm to health,” he added.
Dr. Bell explained why there’s such a push to amend the IHR and implement the Pandemic Treaty while warning that even if these two instruments are defeated the pandemic agenda is not yet over.
WHO’s pandemic plans are a perpetual cycle of disease detection and 100-day vaccines for the diseases they detect – with profits going to pharmaceutical companies. “From the business point of view, it’s an unbeatable business case for them and that is why there is so much pressure and so much momentum behind this,” he said.
Not only will countries not be given ample time to review the WHO’s proposed documents but with just a couple of weeks until the World Health Assembly convenes, WHO’s two pandemic documents are clearly unready and unfit for purpose, Dr. Bell said. Instead of adopting either instrument, the rational approach would be for governments to push for a deferment, as some countries are already doing.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
Tried to share this link by email and Outlook blocked me from pasting it. So I typed it in and it says page not found. Actively censoring us from sharing. I’m sure emails I previously sent to Expose have not been delivered to. When these bar stewards finally fall it’s going to be a damned hard landing. And they thought the inquisition was brutal…just wait.
Hi Ian, We have been suffering from a variety of forms of censorship for some years. But we’re not the only ones.
I can’t say what caused it but when I first began writing the article above I was unable to access the Aligned Council of Australia’s website using Brave. I got the 404 screen. I tried a couple of other internet browsers, as well as trying a couple of hours later, but the same happened. The only browser that allowed me access to the website on that day was Tor (Onion). Strangely, the following day I tried again and lo and behold I was able to access Aligned Council of Australia’s website using Brave.
Is it worth trying another email service for example, Proton Mail?
Have you heard of http://www.cairnsnews.org. Take a look I think you will like it.
The people of the world do not need a pandemic treaty. It serves no purpose. The only body that needs a treaty is the WHO itself, as it can then wield control over all the people on the planet. It makes no sense for any country to sign a treaty that removes the right to choose how to handle a problem and to remove their citizen’s rights over what they put in their own bodies.
Unelected Marxist funded NGO’s have no authority to propose a treaty on elected governments.
Fk’em!
quote from above :
“WHO’s pandemic plans are a perpetual cycle of disease detection and 100-day vaccines for the diseases they detect – with profits going to pharmaceutical companies. “From the business point of view, it’s an unbeatable business case for them and that is why there is so much pressure and so much momentum behind this,” he said..”
What he didnt say out loud was that the cycle of 100 day vaccines is actually a cycle of slow kill shots to depopulate the planet. there you are I finished it for you.
Lets not get lost in the Waffle , this is a planned democide simple as that
I saw in Ana Mihalcea’s last substack that she or someone else is finding something resembling spider web silk. She usually also has pictures. You can find her on RUMBLE too under her name. The doctor a few weeks ago on a video from it was talking to a male doctor about new findings on the white blood clots. They found that the clots still grow in corpses and other stuff as well.
“Australia’s House of Representatives has passed the national digital ID law, which will embed the new online identification program into law.”
theepochtimes (dot) com/world/australian-parliament-passes-national-digital-id-law-5651092
Interestingly, the news in Australia was very quiet about the passing of the digital ID law while it was being passed, whereas it had been very vocal about a huge spate of alleged knife attacks over the last month or so (which could, theoretically, be used later as an argument in favour of a digital ID, “to keep everyone safe”).
e.g. alleged stabbing of 6 people at Bondi Junction, Sydney, on 13/4/24
abc (dot) net (dot) au/news/2024-04-15/how-the-bondi-junction-knife-attack-unfolded/103711232
alleged stabbing of a priest in a Sydney church on 15/4/24
www (dot) bbc (dot) com/news/world-australia-68823240
[…] Aligned Council of Australia holds a press conference about WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Last week, the Aligned Council of Australia held an international press conference to discuss the World Health Organisation’s proposed pandemic instruments that are due to be voted on at the 77th World Health Assembly being held at the end of this month. […]
[…] – Aligned Council of Australia holds a press conference about WHO’s Pandemic Treaty […]