Unfortunately the WHO started to reorganize their website and not all links in this section will work. Each webpage has been saved as a pdf and is available for download at the end of each topic.
WHO PANDEMIC definition changes in 2009
http://whale.to/vaccine/who_change.html Reader view backup for download:
These two documents were sourced and provided by Dr Tom Jefferson, and Dr Peter Doshi.
This is the WHO website on 1 May 2009 (Google cache pdf).
This is the WHO website on Sept 2, 2009 (Google cache pdf).
Dr Astrid Stuckelberger – Global Corruption
Interview with WHO whistleblower Astrid Stuckelberger provides insight into the inner workings of the organization. She worked on the International Health Regulations in multiple countries which form part of the legalese of how the pandemic was declared world wide. Listen to her perspective on how the actions of the WHO violate their own regulations. Dr Astrid Stuckelberg BIO: https://www.astridstuckelberger.com/bio/
WHO Bulletin 2011 – Health is more than influenza
The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.WHO Bulletin 2011
Reading this document it became clear to me that memory is extremely short … !
Worst-case thinking replaced balanced risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately.
Irrational vaccination policies against an unusually benign H1N1 virus wasted many billions of euros and eroded the trust of the public in health officials. The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.
In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon.
We therefore need fewer, not more “pandemic preparedness” plans or definitions. Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in exaggeration.
There is no reason for expecting any upcoming pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968, no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.
The key to responsible policy-making is not bureaucracy but accountability and independence from interest groups.
Decisions must be based on adaptive responses to emerging problems, not on definitions.
WHO should learn to be NICE: accountable for reasonableness in a process of openness, transparency and dialogue with all the stakeholders, and particularly the public.
Bulletin online at WHO (not active anymore, new link below) PDF original webpage:
Webarchive link to orginal bulletin https://web.archive.org/web/20210112211808/https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/
New link to article https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086.pdf
WHO Global Influenza Programme (2019)
WHO – Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza
There is no evidence on the effectiveness of travel advice
Surface and object cleaning — there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission…
Respiratory etiquette — there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing influenza transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility.
Face Masks — Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza…
The above link has been removed from the WHO Website – a backup below in pdf format.
Found latest version of above link at the web-archive from April 5, 2021
Search the pdf for “No Evidence”
Personal protective measures
Personal hygiene measures such as hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and face masks are widely used as non-pharmaceutical intervention measures to reduce the risk of acquiring or spreading respiratory infections, and for mitigating pandemic influenza.
However, our review identified a lack of compelling evidence for the effectiveness of hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and face masks against influenza transmission in the community.
Page 99 – 102 Evidence summary. 265 studies referenced. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329439/WHO-WHE-IHM-GIP-2019.1-eng.pdf
WHO Herd-Immunity definition changes in 2020
After rewriting the definition of a Pandemic lets rewrite the definition of Herd-Immunity.
Version June, 2020 –Focus Natural
Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person.
Version October, 2020 –Focus Vaccination!!
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.
Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.
With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. As a result, not every single person needs to be vaccinated to be protected, which helps ensure vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated are kept safe.
The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%.
Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives.
WHO data suggests that virus naturally runs its course
WHO’s most recent global COVID-19 data suggest that virus naturally runs its course in 7-8 weeks regardless of public health measures.
The study, published today in a note in the distinguished medical journal Toxicology, concludes that the global lockdown strategies have had nothing to do with the disappearance of COVID.
Careful analysis shows that the contagion had already peaked prior to implementation of Quarantine measures.
Wishful thinking by influential individuals who saw personal advantages from a catastrophic pandemic, bad judgement by public health officials and political leaders and a yellow press, financed by Pharma, hawking panic and pandemic porn precipitated the global economic collapse that will bedevil humanity for generations.
WHO Europe VACCINE CRISIS COMMUNICATION MANUAL
When the shit hits the fan, this is how you go about it!
A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCE FOR NATIONAL IMMUNIZATION PROGRAMMES
WHO International Health Regulations 2005
Milder pandemics occurred subsequently in 1957–1958 (the “Asian Flu” caused by an A(H2N2) virus) and in 1968 (the “Hong Kong Flu” caused by an A(H3N2) virus), which were estimated to have caused 1–4 million deaths each.
Dr Tedros – No country can ride this out until we have a vaccine
August 21, 2020
🤬 Considering the fact that without a comorbidity, the COVID19 cIFR is effectively zero and flat up to the age of 50, and then increases roughly twenty-fold between 50-59 and 70-79 (from 0.01% to 0.17% for women and from 0.02% to 0.48% for men); you must have:
0 Brain cells to publicly submit a message like this. 1 Brain cell to understand that you are being played out.
The Swine Flu Panic of 2009 – Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria
Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact? A reconstruction. By SPIEGEL staff.
Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic?
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said. Full article
Reader view backup for download:
WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”
Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they wrote. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO.
Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter investigate: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/7759/Feature.full.pdf
The WHO Has Changed and Now It is a Threat
BY DAVID BELL MAY 10, 2023 GOVERNMENT 7 MINUTE READ
The Remaking of the WHO
When the WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health problems issues, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralizing power for a greater good. Those who considered themselves superior would run the world for those less worthy. The WHO once claimed to follow a different line.
Since the early 2000s the WHO’s activities have been increasingly dictated by “specified funding.” Its funders, increasingly including private and corporate interest, tell it how to use the money they give. Private direction is fine for private organizations promoting their investors wares, but it is obviously a non-starter for an organization seeking to mandate medicines, close borders, and confine people. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and human nature will recognize this. But these powers are exactly what the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new treaty intend.
Rather than consider alternate approaches, the WHO is seeking censorship of opinions not fitting its narrative, publicly denigrating and demeaning those who question its policies. These are not the actions of an organization representing “we the people,” or confident in this ability to justify its actions. They are the trappings we have always associated with intellectual weakness and fascism.