Monday, September 26, 2022

The Australian Academy of Science provides climate truth with one hand, while demanding the truth be censored with the other hand

I like this article on planetary temperatures on the Australian Academy of Science website, which provides facts and seems even-handed:

globally averaged near-surface air temperature rose by around 0.8°C [1.4 degrees Farenheit] between 1850 and 2012 (Figure 2.1c). The rate of warming increased in the mid-1970s, and each of the most recent three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850. The last decade has been the warmest of these….

The temperature of the oceans has also risen. More than 90% of the total heat accumulated in the climate system between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the oceans. The greatest ocean warming has taken place close to the surface, with the upper 75 m of the ocean warming by an average of 0.11°C each decade between 1971 and 2010….

The average surface temperatures over the Australian continent and its surrounding oceans have increased by nearly 1°C since the beginning of the 20th century [1.8 degrees F in 120 years—Nass].

Does that seem like a dire emergency?

However, the Australian Academy of Science last month begged the tech giants to censor misinformation and disinformation, especially on climate change. Here is what the Australian Academy of Science wrote. Yet this was clearly not written by real scientists:

“Anti-scientific content abounds online, with climate science being an area of particular concern.

Despite a well-established evidence base for anthropogenic climate change, and the efforts of organisations including the AAS to provide accessible online resources to communicate this information (e.g. AAS, 2021), climate science denial content proliferates on social media globally…

Research into Twitter content found the phrase “fake news” in more than half of the top 500 most retweeted posts contained climate change denialism, or the belief that climate change is not anthropogenic (Al-Rawi, O’Keefe, Kane, & Bizimana, 2021). These included tweets that attributed the cause of Australia’s 2019/20 bushfires to arson rather than being associated with the changing climate.
Climate denialism is just one example of how misinformation results in societal harm.

Disinformation on health matters (such as false and misleading vaccination, sexual and reproductive health information), or ecological and environmental matters (such as material misrepresenting studies of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef) are a barrier to good policy and a healthy society. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were clear links between climate denialism and anti-vaccine movements (Hamilton, Hartter & Saito, 2015). The Code must therefore consider broader instances of misinformation and disinformation, including in issues-based advertising in all areas, especially climate change.”

Coincidentally, this was published one day before the Washington Post ran a long piece on how Australia’s Great Barrier Reef now has more live coral than it has had in decades. Oops.

It is of course sickening for any “science” body to try and censor scientific discussion.

But beyond that, we can clearly see that the new meme of ‘misinformation and disinformation,’ which I was accused of when my medical license was suddenly suspended in Janary, is to be used globally to suppress not only medical knowledge, but other types of knowledge. Welcome to the new global Dark Ages.

UPDATE Sept. 26:   Former head of Australia’s Climate Center disputes the CO2/carbon footprint/carbon credits hypothesis of climate change.

A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.

The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.

WEF twists the meaning of words to make austerity sound desirable. I start the conversation about climate change

The term Climate Change lacks meaning. It is always hotter or colder, wetter or drier than the last season. The term used to be Global Warming, but when the warming slowed down, the PTB segued smoothly and without explanation to Climate Change, and somehow managed to make everyone think it meant the same thing. As it became clear that temperatures were starting to go down, the PTB made another pivot to atmospheric carbon dioxide as ‘the Problem.’ But we don’t actually know whether high levels of CO2 are a problem. The elevated CO2 does help plants more easily trap carbon and grow larger. James Corbett has been on this scam for awhile. He is a wonderful teacher about what is really happening.

The heating of the planet from about 1960 to 2000 occurred reasonably fast, as if it was starting up from the low point on a sine wave, as 1960 was relatively cold. There is some confirmation of this in a Royal Society publication of 1966. It noted that there was a warming in the early part of the 20th century, followed by a distinct cold weather trend around 1960. I like this article on the Australian Academy of Science website, which says

globally averaged near-surface air temperature rose by around 0.8°C between 1850 and 2012 (Figure 2.1c). The rate of warming increased in the mid-1970s, and each of the most recent three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850. The last decade has been the warmest of these….

The temperature of the oceans has also risen. More than 90% of the total heat accumulated in the climate system between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the oceans. The greatest ocean warming has taken place close to the surface, with the upper 75 m of the ocean warming by an average of 0.11°C each decade between 1971 and 2010….

The average surface temperatures over the Australian continent and its surrounding oceans have increased by nearly 1°C since the beginning of the 20th century.

Does that seem like a dire emergency?

However, the Australian Academy of Science last month begged the tech giants to censor misinformation and disinformation on climate change. The same language used to silence doctors. The international language of suppression of anything but the single narrative.

Now we expect cooling due to decreased sun spot activity and other factors over the next ten years, so the focus has shifted to CO2 rather than planetary warming.

Creating a fake global threat of planetary annihilation from a natural cycle’s vicissitudes was bold and brazen. Meteorologists who did not drink and expel the Koolaid lost their jobs. USG weather statistics were corrupted, which it seems is very easy to accomplish nowadays. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Maurice Strong formed, took care of getting out a single cohesive message. I currently rely on the Australian Academy of Science for my facts, but how long will they last?

James Corbett took a peek behind the curtain to identify Maurice Strong as the main inventor of the Global Warming scam and most of the world’s environmental movement. Strong ran the UN’s first 1972 Conference on the Environment and its 1992 Rio Earth Summit. As James Corbett develops the history:

David Rockefeller was there with Strong in Colorado in 1987 for the "Fourth World Wilderness Congress," a meeting of world-historical importance that almost no one has even heard of. Attended by the likes of Rockefeller, Strong, James Baker and Edmund de Rothschild himself, the conference ultimately revolved around the question of financing for the burgeoning environmental movement that Strong had shaped from the ground up through his work at the United Nations Environment Program.

It was at that conference (recordings of which are available online, thanks to whistleblower George Hunt) that Rothschild called for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a "second Marshall Plan" that would be used for third world "debt relief" and that favourite globalist dog whistle "sustainable development."

Rothschild's dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio "Earth Summit." Although perhaps best known as the conference that birthed Agenda 21, much less well known is that it was the Earth Summit that allowed the World Conservation Bank to become a reality.

Do read all that James Corbett has to say on the matter. But I now want to shift to the WEF and its website, where its current plans are laid out.

“3. Raised awareness and ownership for nature and environment – In the last few years, there is an increased awareness and public concern on climate change and specially among youth. The UNDP’s “Peoples’ Climate Vote” reflects that over 64% of people believe climate change is a global emergency. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies found widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change: 80% of citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many public surveys.

* Note the intense concern with what people believe, rather than with what is actually taking place.—Nass

“What next? Sustainable cities enabled through smart communities

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives by enabling public-private partnerships to help curate this program. It is suggested to drive a three-way approach to shape this movement.

See the buzzwords (I have bolded them) that don’t mean much? What I think Klaus is saying, between the lines, is that they have snowed enough people, especially the youth, to now move forward with rationing, justifying it with “public-private partnerships” to make the rationing appear to be a charitable endeavor and not government-imposed reduction in living standard.

See below for what comes next. Increased costs, induced guilt, and a new definition of your ‘fair share’—Nass

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives for sustainable cities…

Finally, it is significant that all stakeholders across the value chain come together and contribute towards achieving a net-zero future by leaving no one behind.

Who will be today’s Maurice Strong to push the “My Carbon” (we get to ‘own’ the austerity, it seems) initiatives and the sustainable cities? I don’t know what stakeholders across the value chain means, nor a net-zero future. But I do know that in this context, '“leaving no one behind” means corralling every last (powerless) human into a life of want.

The idea is to insert false beliefs into us and then use them to peacefully have us give away our possessions. And then, disarmed by poverty, we will give away, or have taken, the rest of our rights. If any still exist.

UPDATE: The Sept. 24 WSJ shows how the system works to enforce the single narrative. The head of the World Bank, David Malpass, appointed by Trump, apparently failed to reinforce the climate narrative during a Q and A.

The World Bank chief has been under criticism since Tuesday over his response to questions regarding whether burning of fossil fuels has led to rapid and dangerous global warming. At a New York climate event hosted by the New York Times he declined to directly answer, saying, “I am not a scientist.”

Since then, unspecified climate activists have called for his resignation. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said “Treasury will hold him accountable to this position.” Malpass has since corrected himself, stated that the World Bank is taking a forceful leadership position on climate change, and said he won’t resign.

I missed another important data "mistake" in the WSJ article

Funny how all the mistakes end up overstating the number of vaccinations

According to the Wall Street Journal, “After some 77% of adults got the primary series, however, roughly 52% got the first booster according to CDC.

However, CDC’s website says today: Only 67.8% of the US population completed the primary series. (The WHITE tab is what we are looking at. You can click on the green tabs for different information on the CDC website.)

79.5% are on CDC’s website to have received at least one dose. Which means that 11.7% of Americans (79.5% minus 67.8%) said “No thanks” after the first shot, or 14.7% of those who started the series. More than 1 in 7 decided to stop at one. (11.7 divided by 79.5 = 14.7).

Yesterday's WSJ: "Some Who Rushed to Covid-19 Vaccine Hold Off on Boosters

Health authorities hoped new shot targeting Omicron would lift sluggish booster rates, but some say they don’t need it"


SOME? What a farce.

The NY Times, updated yesterday, presents CDC’s numbers for Americans who have received at least one booster: 109.6. There are 333 million Americans.

Thus the needle remains at 32.9% of Americans who have received at least one booster.

That number (33%) has not risen in September despite the shiny new useless bivalent boosters that don’t even work in animals and cleverly avoided any testing in humans.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since the new boosters became available earlier this month at pharmacies, doctors’ offices and elsewhere, about 4.4 million people have received a new booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.” The article also claims that “After some 77% of adults got the primary series, however, roughly 52% got the first booster according to CDC.

But that isn’t right. 4.4 million divided by 333 million Americans is 1.3%.

At the September 1 ACIP meeting, which I live-blogged, CDC told the committee that 49% of those eligible (who have completed a primary series) had gotten a booster. Well, here it is September 23, and guess how many of those eligible have gotten a booster (as of September 21)? 48.7% according to CDC’s website. Yet 49% (Those claimed to have gotten a booster on Sept 1) plus 1.3% (those claimed to have gotten a COVID bivalent booster since Sept. 1) equals 50.3%.

Is 48.7% the same as 50.3% or “roughly 52%”? I don’t think so, even with the New Math.

So the WSJ or the CDC or both are putting out false data.

I don’t think anybody wants to offer themself up to test a vaccine that FDA and the manufacturer wouldn’t give to a guinea pig or rabbit.

And just as I was typing this, I got a Robocall from Walgreens telling me it was time to schedule my flu shot and new COVID booster. Good luck upping those numbers in this household.

WaPo editorial on the Lancet Commission Report makes it easy to see the limited hangout

“The ability of the public health system to identify cases, trace contacts, and isolate infected individuals can be overwhelmed in just a few weeks of uncontrolled community transmission,” the report says.

Right, so you stop doing contact tracing when you know if doesn’t work. Instead, contact tracing was started after it was known to have had no chance of success. Because it was another surveillance tool being prototyped.—Nass

“National responses were often improvisational, occasionally bordering on the absurd,” the commission states.

Right, and this ‘revelation’ should be called out loudly, but was buried.

Governments “showed themselves to be untrustworthy and ineffective,” and “rancor among the major powers” then “gravely weakened the capacity of international institutions” to respond, especially the World Health Organization, which comes in for sharp criticism for repeatedly erring “on the side of reserve rather than boldness.” The panel calls for strengthening the WHO and giving it stronger powers and more solid financing.

The WHO criticism for not being bolder (WHAT?!!) is meant to add juice to the tale of this report, so that it gets more eyeballs. Admitting governments lied is meant to engender trust in the reader.

Another lesson is that a failure to grasp the viral transmission route led to cascading — and costly — miscalculations. Early in the outbreak, the commission states, “health authorities concentrated almost exclusively on spray transmission,” the idea that the virus is disseminated when people exhale droplets that fall by gravity after a distance of one or two meters. This led to emphasis on six feet of social distancing, extensive cleaning of surfaces and hand-washing. In fact, the virus was spreading in respiratory aerosols, microscopic particles that stay suspended in the air, not unlike cigarette smoke. Failure to focus more on this airborne route at the outset had serious consequences: “The use of face coverings, ventilation, and air filtration as effective risk reduction measures were not adequately encouraged,” the report says. The incorrect assumptions enabled the virus to spread “almost unabated, for months.”

There was no failure to grasp that the virus spreads by the airborne route. There was suppression of this knowledge at a planetary level. Had it been acknowledged, the plan to allow big box stores to remain open would have failed. Shutting down Main Street, where small, older stores had potentially better ventilation, could not be allowed. Remember that vulture capitalism requires winners and losers, who were chosen beforehand. Makeshift face masks did no good at all and probably caused harm. Now everyone knows that cloth masks don’t work—but they think face coverings that look like surgical masks do. Except there is no difference between the two types of masks. Neither works for airborne spread.

Oddly, the commission report skims over the fact that China’s leadership hid from the public the virus’s human-to-human transmissibility in the first three weeks of January 2020 — a dire mistake that allowed it to spread.

Because to get to the one world government no serious finger pointing is allowed.

Jeffrey Sachs 'whistleblows' what everyone already knew

Throws Fauci, Daszak and Baric under the bus, a year after everyone already knew what they had done, 2 years after those of us paying attention knew it


Questions surrounding the origins of COVID-19 remain unanswered

Jeffrey D. Sachs & Neil L. Harrison
May 31, 2022   |   Boston Globe

Why did some components of the Intelligence Community lean toward a laboratory release as the source of the pandemic?

It’s not yet clear whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 was created in a laboratory or emerged from nature; there is still no decisive evidence for either alternative. To find out, we have recently called for an independent and transparent investigation into the possible role that US biotechnology played in the emergence of the virus.

Americans have heard a lot about the possibility that Chinese laboratories played a role in the emergence of the pandemic, but very little about the role US organizations might have played. When President Biden tasked the US Intelligence Community with determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it found that either “a laboratory-associated incident” or a “natural origin” was possible. The IC said that China should cooperate more to find the truth, but did not make clear, or perhaps did not fully realize, the role that US science might have played in the origin of the virus. More important, the IC didn’t present the details of its inquiry for independent scientific scrutiny. We don’t know whether the IC’s analysis was comprehensive or superficial.

The origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unknown, but may have had an assist from advanced US biotechnology. We do know this: The National Institutes of Health, which funded a lot of potentially hazardous and under-regulated laboratory manipulation of SARS-like viruses, has been less than transparent. And that’s stating matters politely. The NIH has done its part to throw scientists and the public off track regarding the US-based and funded research.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is so easily transmitted because it has an unusual sequence within its genetic code that makes the virus more infectious than other related viruses (including the original SARS virus from the 2003 outbreak). The key is the presence of a so-called Furin Cleavage Site that enhances the ability of the virus to enter and infect human cells.

From the early days of the pandemic, scientists have wondered how an FCS got into the SARS-CoV-2 genome, since it is the only virus among the group of SARS-like viruses that has an FCS. Other more distant relatives, such as the virus that causes the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, have an FCS, but these other viruses are quite distant from SARS-CoV-2 in terms of evolution.

Did the FCS evolve naturally, or was it put into the virus by a laboratory manipulation? This may seem an odd question. Wouldn’t that be a very dangerous thing to do? The answer is yes, it could definitely be dangerous, especially without proper safeguards. Yet remarkably, inserting an FCS was an aim of a US-China research team, using biotechnology developed by US scientists.

In a Project DEFUSE research proposal to the US government from the University of North Carolina, the EcoHealth Alliance, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the team wrote, “We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential Furin Cleavage Sites. . . . Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures.” Much of this work was to be carried out in a Wuhan laboratory with a low level of biosafety control.

In plain English, the researchers would look for FCS in viruses, and when they didn’t occur naturally, would insert them. Notably, the UNC-EHA-WIV team also mentioned “>180 bat SARSr-Cov strains sequenced in our prior work and not yet examined for spillover potential.” These sequences have not been made public.

Why would scientists propose such dangerous work? As one of the leaders of this research at UNC wrote in an editorial in 2018, “the study of zoonotic and human CoV [coronaviruses] outside of their natural host often times requires genetic manipulation and GOF to be useful.” GOF, meaning “gain-of-function,” is research in which the coronavirus is manipulated in the laboratory and then tested for its ability to infect cells and reproduce in tissue. It’s used in drug and vaccine development.

Now, here’s the thing: The DEFUSE proposal was rejected. But was the work undertaken anyway? We have no idea, but it is standard procedure to carry out preliminary work, or even a whole project, whether or not a particular grant is accepted. And in truth, the DEFUSE proposal is part of a much larger, and still hidden, research agenda overseen by the NIH. When the NIH was asked to release its 2020 Strategic Plan for COVID-19 Research, it did so — with all 290 pages fully blanked out.

The fact is that NIH has not told the American people, or the scientific community, what it knows about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In a conference call on Feb. 1, 2020, NIH leaders heard top virologists explain why the FCS in SARS-CoV-2 indicated the possibility of laboratory manipulation of the virus. Yet just a few days later, NIH encouraged a team of scientists to prepare a paper declaring a natural origin of the virus. Subsequently, NIH has resisted the release of critical documentation and dragged its feet until forced to make disclosures under Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, often providing only highly redacted materials.

The Biden administration and the scientific community need to do better. What work did NIH, DOD, and other US agencies fund that might have contributed to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2? When did agencies of the USG first learn of the virus? What evidence might there be in the United States in the form of laboratory notes, electronic communications, virus databases, and other troves of information, that can shed light on this matter? Why did some components of the Intelligence Community lean toward a laboratory release as the source of the pandemic?

There has been enough obfuscation and foot-dragging. Let’s open the books and get the facts from US organizations to see what light they can shed on the origin of this tragic global disaster.

No time for COVID complacency says W.H.O. today

No time... When there is still money to be made on vaccines, tests and treatments.

IMHO the bivalent “new” boosters were designed as a publicity stunt to convince more people to get vaccinated and justify new mandates. Why is it so important to government officials and the WHO to inject us, and do it over and over again?

They are despondent that interest in the new vaccines, rolled out on September 1, has “stagnated.” Below is the press release, just out.

Who is Jeffrey Sachs

Anyone remember structural adjustment? Vulture capitalism?

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Shock Therapist was the NY Times title of an article from which I excerpt below:

By Peter Passell

New York Times, June 27, 1993

“… Jeffrey D. Sachs, a boyish-looking 38-year-old Harvard professor who is now probably the most important economist in the world. He has appropriated a cluster of comfortable armchairs for a meeting with two members of his team, Americans who work full time in Russia…

As an adviser to reform-minded governments from Bolivia to Slovenia to Poland, Sachs led successful battles for fiscal and monetary discipline in economies written off by more cautious practitioners of the dismal science….

"Poland, with its reforms in place, is the fastest-growing economy in Eastern Europe," says Sachs. "If Poland can do it, so can Russia."‘

The man who so loves the poor designed their nooses 30 years ago.

This is from the top of his Linked-In:

"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy."

This is the piece:  The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China - Other News - Voices against the tide

This may be a plea from someone who cares and thinks deeply about world problems. Or it may be intended to get us ready for a one world government, perhaps the only way nuclear weapons might be abolished. Now, gentle reader, keep your eyes open for talk about the use of nuclear weapons. Do you now see one of the narratives that the Ukraine war serves: to gin up the nuclear weapons fear?

What do others say about Jeffrey? Remember Ban Ki-moon, who wrote a blurb for Sachs’ 2020 book: The Ages of Globalization: Geography, Technology, and Institutions:

“As my special advisor on the Sustainable Development Goals, Jeffrey Sachs consistently emphasized that the world can achieve sustainable development only through bold and forward-looking cooperation on a global scale. In his new panoramic history of globalization, Sachs shows why the imperative of peaceful cooperation is more crucial than ever. Our very survival as a species requires that we understand our common fate. This book will help us to reach that shared understanding.” -- Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

Here is another blurb for this book:

This dazzling book makes an invaluable contribution to the debate about the future of globalization by brilliantly summarizing humanity’s existential challenges and providing bold ideas for ensuring our survival. Sachs makes a persuasive argument that applying the concept of sustainable development must be today’s essential mission. His thoughtful proposals for reforming key international institutions, starting with the UN, merit particular attention. The Ages of Globalization is required reading for our times. -- Vuk Jeremić, former president of the United Nations General Assembly

And the below is from Professor Sachs’ own personal website:

The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic

Sachs JD, Abdool Karim SS, et al. The Lancet, September 14, 2022

The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic provides a comprehensive investigation, analysis, and response to COVID-19. The Commission delivers a number of recommendations that are divided into three main areas. First, practical steps to finally control and understand the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, realistic, feasible, and necessary investments to strengthen the first line of defence against emerging infectious agents in countries by strengthening health systems and widening universal health coverage. Third, ambitious proposals to ignite a renaissance in multilateralism, integrating the global response to the risk of future pandemics with actions to address the climate crisis and reversals in sustainable development.

Fauci blames people for the pandemic. Daszak promises thorough investigation. WEF writes the scripts.

It's not that hard to read between the lines...

These slides I made for a talk 2 years ago this month.

Catherine Austin Fitts weighs in on Jeffrey Sachs

Dr. Nass did a great job of warning us about Jeffrey Sachs’ trial balloon for global government through the WHO. 

Meryl transcribed Jeffrey Sachs' 3 minutes on how we should give WHO authority over biowarfare research
Start at minute 20:00 and listen to 23:20. Or better yet, read my transcription below…

We should add some background. 

Jeffrey Sachs helped lead the privatization (rape of Russia) that led to the death of millions in Russia.  The smell was so bad and the genocide so great, it even ended up leaking into too many public forms.... 
including in a Qui Tam lawsuit against Harvard University

Action: Tell your representations to exit the WHO and stop funding the WHO!

My Interview with Gorilla Radio/ Chris Cox


Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Jeff Sachs and giving the W.H.O. mo' money. The Lancet COVID Commission and One Health are important parts of the globalists' narrative

Here is the Lancet COVID Commission Report, chaired by Jeffrey Sachs. Next is an excerpt from its executive summary:

“Section 3 presents our policy recommendations, particularly around multilateral cooperation centred at WHO to address global health crises, and around investments in preparedness for future health crises through strong national health systems and international financing and technology cooperation with the world's lower-income regions.”

Remember, the guy is an economist. And this harkens back to the World Economic Forum goals. The WEF celebrates Building Back Better after Destroying, Debasing and Degrading our economies and culture. Which the WEF and now the Lancet COVID Commission drool over, as it will require massive amounts of FINANCING. The way leeches make their money is from the commissions they get for financing big projects.

Nuggets from the final section of the report follow:

Section 3: recommendations for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, preparing for the next, and long-term sustainable development

WHO, working with the main vaccine-producing companies and countries, needs to intensify its efforts to ensure high levels of immunisation coverage in all countries, especially in the low-income countries where vaccine coverage remains dangerously low. Countries must then implement a vaccination-plus control strategy that includes mass immunisation; the availability and affordability of testing; treatment for new infections (test and treat); rehabilitation and social support for people with long COVID; and complementary public health and social measures such as the use of face masks, the promotion of safe workplaces, and economic and social support for self-isolation.

Maintain WHO as the lead institution for response to emerging infectious diseases

WHO should remain at the centre of the multilateral response to emerging infectious diseases. Yet WHO needs strengthening. Such strengthening should include new regulatory authority, more backing by national political leaders, more contact with the global scientific community, and a larger core budget to carry out its many crucial responsibilities. The capacity of WHO should also be complemented by far greater international finance to support the health systems, research and development, and biomedical production capacity of LMICs.

Establish a global pandemic agreement and strengthen the IHR (International Health Regulations)

The weaknesses and shortfalls of the IHR (2005) in protecting the world against the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the decision by WHO member states to start the process to draft and negotiate new agreements on pandemic preparedness and response, including a possible new Pandemic Treaty. We echo many other reports on COVID-19 in calling for a global pandemic agreement and for a reassessment of and update to the IHR (2005).96489490492

…the approval by WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization of standing regulations regarding the processing and control of international travellers and international freight and shipping under global pandemic conditions.

Reform of WHO governance

a substantial increase to the core budget of WHO is required to increase its effectiveness at its headquarters in Geneva, at regional offices, and in countries around the world. Moreover, WHO needs the capacity to draw upon large-scale emergency financing in the case of a global public health emergency. WHO should continue to use the infrastructure it has built up so that this infrastructure is in place when another pandemic emerges. An emergency credit line at an international financial institution, designed as a key tool of the new Global Health Fund, could provide the necessary emergency financing channel.

Regulations for the prevention of pandemics from natural spillovers and research-related activities and for investigating their origins

Strategies to prevent research-related releases should include stronger international and national oversight of biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management, including the strict regulation of gain of function research of concern…

It is certain that future pandemics will arise from interactions between humans and animals, and that research on viruses will continue with the potential for accidents. It is therefore imperative that society enacts measures to reduce the possibility of both natural spillovers and spillovers from research-related activities…Calls for One Health approaches to address the risks of the emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases are common among reports on pandemic prevention and preparedness, and many reports have called for greater global surveillance and monitoring of disease risks, with WHO as the coordinating power.

Coincidentally, I warned my readers about Jeffrey Sachs and about One Health in a long post I wrote in May 2022, titled, “A winding tale of the WHO, monkeypox, Jeffrey Sachs' turnaround, and One Health.”  It was subtitled, “Important backstories behind the news you're getting. More coming.”  How prescient was that?

Here is what I wrote then about the WHO‘s International Health Regulations amendments, and about the pandemic treaty that was being negotiated:

The US state department drafted a dozen AMENDMENTS to an existing international health treaty that had been adopted in 2005, termed the International Health Regulations (IHR).  These US-drafted amendments would enable the WHO to assume control over the pandemic response to future pandemics on a worldwide basis. This is the US writing new rules that would give up its own sovereignty (and everyone else's) to the WHO, in the event of a pandemic or health emergency.  In February, very quietly, the proposed amendments were sent out to the WHA members for review, pending a vote this week.

I can promise you the US never gives up even a speck of sovereignty; and that the purpose of the state department is to maintain and expand US power.  The only conclusion I could draw is that the US Government and/or the global elites were confident they could control the WHO, and since using the guise of a pandemic to grab power, influence and money had worked so well for them so far, they were expanding the program to the whole world via the WHO.  People like Astrid Stuckelberger, James Rogusky and others predicted this was the mechanism to achieve a worldwide coup.

Concurrent with the presentation of these amendments to the WHA, a new WHO treaty has been in the process of being negotiated since last fall, and was expected to accomplish essentially the same thing:  a means to transfer national control over health and medical care from individual nations to the WHO under the guise of a pandemic or medical emergency…

Regarding Mr. Sachs I wrote in May:

“The Lancet Commission published a massive 23 page report in the Lancet on September 14, 2020 that seemed to me to be establishing Sachs' group as credible, and buttressing a variety of what we have come to know as globalist narratives and agendas.

Professor Sachs therefore appeared to be a globalist flunky. And when I looked at the publications from his massive Commission, I learned the majority had to do with pushing COVID vaccinations.

So I was surprised to learn a few days ago that Professor Sachs himself had supposedly gone rogue, and published a paper in the PNAS, noting how the US  government and institutions were hiding information about COVID's origins.  He and his coauthor wrote:

EHA [Daszak], UNC [Ralph Baric], NIH [Fauci], USAID [one of many funders of EHA and Wuhan], and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2...

a US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and evaluation.”

Most likely, Sachs is trying to reassert his leadership regarding the original Lancet Commission investigation that was halted due to the notoriety of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. He may also be seeking funding for such investigation, and/or trying to repair his tattered reputation.  Will he team up with Robert Zelikow to whitewash any future origins investigation? Stay tuned.”

Here is what I said about One Health in that article:

I used to think One Health was just a silly concept designed to justify more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance type of voracious grant hunter.  Certainly EcoHealth was a major proponent of the concept.  But well-fed One Health adherents suddenly appeared, tucked into many corners of the world (here is one South American example), including CDC, the World Bank and WHO.  I had been wrong.

One Health is an idea plucked out of thin air:  that in order to manage the health of the planet, we can't think about people in isolation.  We have to consider them in the context of animals too, both livestock and wild animals, and also "ecosystems".  This might have been a good idea if a significant chunk of human disease came from animals, but in fact, zoonoses (infections spread to humans from animals) are pretty rare. Think anthrax. Rabies. Monkeypox.  And while flu viruses do reassort in animals, the risk of influenza has been factitiously ginned up by public health agencies for decades.  I now suspect the reason was to acclimate the public to the idea of yearly booster shots.

It seems that One Health is an integral part of the globalist plan (proposing false health narratives with the aim of usurping authority), so I thought I had better give you a brief summary of this concept as I know it…

Then I marshalled a lot of evidence about One Health. Please read it if you are interested; it is quite the scam. But this piece is already so long, I will stop now. Except for one more nugget.

Here are the conflicts of interest of the authors of the Lancet COVID Commission report, in case you couldn’t guess:

Declaration of interests

SSAK declares grants paid to the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the South African Medical Research Council, the National Research Foundation, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. He is a vice-president of the International Science Council; a commissioner of the African Commission on COVID-19; and a member of the WHO Science Council, the Advisory Council of the Physicians for Human Rights, the Global Medical Advisory Board on COVID-19 for Sanofi Pasteur, and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CBa declares consulting fees from and is a member of the advisory board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. MEB and PJH are co-directors of a team of scientists at Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, who are co-inventors of a COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology owned by Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) that was licensed by BCM, non-exclusively and with no patent restrictions, to several companies committed to advancing vaccines for low-income and middle-income countries. The co-inventors have no involvement in license negotiations conducted by BCM. Similar to other research universities, a long-standing BCM policy provides its faculty and staff, who make discoveries that result in a commercial license, a share of any royalty income. To date, BCM has not distributed any royalty income to the co-inventors of the COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology. Any such distribution will be undertaken in accordance with BCM policy. CBu declares grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan; payment from University of Malaya; and is the president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Oceania. GCB is co-chair of the UHC2030 International Alliance. AH declares grants and consulting fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation. NJ declares support from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and consulting fees from the University of California, San Francisco Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. ET declares consulting fees from the United Nations Development Programme. VV-F and IS are co-chairs of the Nizami Ganjavi International Centre. MAP declares grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to his institution and is a member of the Board of Directors for Management Sciences for Health, and non-executive Governing Board member of Sidra Medicine. JT declares funds from the Victorian Government to BehaviourWorks Australia for surveys and research on COVID-19 related behaviours, from Monash University and from Melbourne Water. AG was a member of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program until February, 2022. MH declares funds from the Victorian Government, the New South Wales Government, the Australian Government, and the Macquarie Foundation to the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia for research and modelling work related to COVID-19, and grants from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences that are unrelated to this work. JVL declares grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, MSD, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from NovVax, all unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This report does not represent the institutions nor the organisations for which the authors work.