Saturday, April 22, 2023

The Lancet's ONE HEALTH Commission announced itself on May 9, 2020. It was already poised to assist in the world takeover then.

I decode the language and concepts for you. The article is in plain text. My comments are in italics. What a load of malarkey. Peter Daszak was on the Commission.

The evolution and sustenance of our planet hinges on a symbiotic relationship between humans, animals, and the environment that we share—we are interconnected. (The warm and fuzzy start.) However, this past century has seen human dominance over the biosphere, manifest in technological innovations, accelerated mobility, and converted ecosystems that characterise industrialisation, globalisation, and urbanisation. These developmental trajectories have advanced human health in unprecedented ways. However, they also make humans increasingly vulnerable to contemporary global health challenges, such as emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, (a false assertion as we have less natural infectious disease now worldwide than ever before) as shown by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases. (Again, an evidence free assertion—that technology leads to chronic illness, when it is probably the cheap factory food that is the culprit.) These challenges are further impacted by climate change, poverty, conflict, and migration.

The apparent dominance of the human species comes with a huge responsibility. Thus, in our quest to ensure the health and continued existence of humanity, consideration must be given to the complex interconnectedness and interdependence of all living species and the environment—the concept of One Health. One Health highlights the synergistic benefit of closer cooperation between the human, animal, and environmental health sciences, as well as the importance of dismantling disciplinary and professional silos. The One Health concept has been recognised and promoted by the UN, the G20, and WHO, among several others. The Sustainable Development Goals in themselves can be understood as embodying a One Health strategy aimed at healthy people living on a perpetually habitable planet. (The planet may become uninhabitable if human dominance is not curbed.)

The Lancet One Health Commission comprises 24 Commissioners (appendix) and several researchers from multiple disciplines from around the globe. The Commission's inaugural meeting was held in Oslo, Norway, in May, 2019. The Centre for Global Health at the University of Oslo, Norway, hosts the northern secretariat, with the support of the Center for Global Health at the Technical University of Munich, Germany. The Global Health group at the Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine on the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology campus, Kumasi, Ghana, hosts the southern secretariat. The Lancet One Health Commission aims for transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration to promote original thinking and generate solutions to the complex global health challenges of modern times, most of which require a One Health approach. (An evidence-free assertion that we cannot solve global health challenges without One Health—why would anyone believe that?) The Commission's work is expected to offer a recalibrated understanding of the ways in which these global health challenges are implicated within the complex interconnectedness of humans, animals, and our shared environment, and to provide an approach for harnessing this knowledge to ensure a sustainably healthy future for all species, and the planet we inhabit. (Just leave it to us to provide a new, untested One Health understanding and approaches to the major problems of civilization.)

The main objective of The Lancet One Health Commission is to synthesise the evidence supporting a One Health approach to enhancing health within an environment shared by humans and animals. (In other words, we are going to try to gather and present evidence that will support the assertions we just made about the benefits of One Health.) The Commission's work will explicate the significance of a One Health approach for policy by engaging transdisciplinary expertise and perspectives from both the public and private sectors. The Commission will explore global health challenges through a One Health lens, directing attention to infectious diseases, AMR, and non-communicable diseases—the latter of which have often been left out of the discourse on One Health.

In proposing policy, implementation, and governance recommendations, (the Commission will emphasise sociopolitical dimensions of health that are crucial for engaging and educating communities. Similarly, the Commission will promote leadership to build consensus (we will train a young crop of impressionable leaders like the WEF does who will be the soldiers to carry out our plans) among disparate sectors and foster champions for cohesion and change. Novel financing mechanisms will be assessed because these are key for building resilient health systems nationally and internationally.

Conclusions from the Commission are anticipated to be integrated in policy briefs, international guidelines and protocols, and various high-level global health resolutions. (We plan to shove these ideas down your throat.)

At the core of The Lancet One Health Commission's work is our recognition of several possible approaches to examining the animal–environment–human interface, which we distill into three distinct but interrelated dimensions (figure).

(The most pathetic part of One Health is the awful graphics. Since One Health offers nothing of value except ideology to assist the WHO in declaring jurisdiction over the planet, the graphic artists are unable to produce graphics that have meaning and value. However, the outer circle does tell you what One Health is really interested in.)

The first dimension is the shared environment. We will consider how animals, including livestock, wildlife, and companions, share a common environment with humans in both rural and urban settings. We further explore the positive and negative implications of human activities and human–animal interactions for the shared environment. Within this space, zoonotic and emerging infectious diseases, as well as non-communicable diseases and mental health, will be considered.

The second dimension is safe food and food systems. People rely on animals both as food and to help produce food. As such, the link between One Health and food safety and security will be explored. Among other things, the Commission will critically examine evidence for the hypothesised link between AMR and agricultural practices and we will proffer policy recommendations for scientific work to measure the association using innovative research methods.

The third dimension is shared medicines and interventions. Several drugs used to treat health conditions in humans originated from animal agriculture—eg, praziquantel and ivermectin. The potential for a more integrated approach to the implementation of health interventions that target both animals and people will be explored. (It should be apparent that One Health is reaching hard for relevance with its 3 dimensions, but there is little relevance to be found.)

Each of these three dimensions will be examined in relation to infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and AMR (figure). Operationalising One Health will require integrated animal and human health systems, including surveillance; robust modelling efforts that use big data for animals, humans, and plants; and engagements with digital health. Now more than ever with the COVID-19 pandemic, concerted knowledge and evidence generation must inform and catalyse responsive leadership, context-driven governance, progressive policy, and legislation that are sensitive to gender, community, equity, and ethics (figure). This work is vital for ensuring a sustainably reconnected approach to defending and synergistically enhancing the health of humans, animals, and our shared environment.

(Did you gain any understanding of how One Health might provide value to any animal, human or plant? I sure didn’t.)

The RFK Presidential campaign launch

 All the MSM covered it, which in itself is a magic trick. Maybe his voice will get through...

Tickets ($5 so they weren’t scarfed up by Bots) were sold out. Security was maximal, and very serious. Loads of old friends attended, including doctors Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole and his wife, Robert and Jill Malone, Liz Mumper and so many others. There were so many people whom I’d known from Zoom or through email and was finally able to see and talk to in the flesh, which was very wonderful. The air was electric.

There was a band. There was a short movie. There were brief introductory remarks by Jamal, a Democrat and New Jersey state Senator whose party made war on him for resisting mandates, and now he is out of office. Former Congressman and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich introduced Bobby and is assisting with his campaign.

Then Bobby spoke. No notes, no teleprompter. A tiny glitch here or there. Lots of talk about corruption, about agency capture. The futility of the Ukraine war. A broad, big picture speech about what was wrong with our country and how to heal it. Many standing ovations.

“My mission over the next 18 months of this campaign and throughout my presidency will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power that is threatening now to impose a new kind of corporate feudalism in our country,” Kennedy said.

In the middle of his talk, a loud beeping started, then a recorded voice told us this was a fire alarm and we all needed to leave the building! However, the security chief told Bobby it was a false alarm, and that he should continue. Bobby did so, everyone stayed put, and Bobby said, “Good try!” And so it begins.

When he was done, people said he had spoken for an hour and 45 minutes. I had no idea; if you’d asked me, I would have guessed he spoke for 30 minutes.

Bobby said he would be a terrible candidate in normal times. He joked that he had so many skeletons in his closet, if they could all vote, he would be king of the world. But in this special time, when we are on the verge of losing the world as we know it, he said he is the right candidate.

And he is correct. He is an honest person. He has the common touch. He has a soaring intellect and extensive knowledge base, which were on display in his talk. He is a gifted speaker. He has gravitas. He has travelled everywhere, he knows the way our government works, he knows a zillion people in government.

He doesn’t need to run, he is risking everything to run, and he is running not for his ego, not for fame or money (since he already has them, and the beautiful wife) but because he needs to tell the world the truth with the biggest possible megaphone, to help save it. He is putting his body against the machine.

Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, no matter what quibbles you might have with him, you know he is risking his life for us, to preserve America and our Constitution and to make things better, not worse. He is somebody you have to respect. You have to take him seriously. Godspeed.

Friday, April 21, 2023

Anger and frustration are understandably at fever pitch after the last 3 years.

Unable to get retribution, some take aim at the Malones. Does this remind you of the guy who gets beaten up by his boss, then comes home and kicks the dog?

I went to Bobby Kennedy’s Presidential launch, which I will write about in the next post. But this post is not about that happy event. It is about the hurt, frustration and rage that continue to boil under the surface for many of us, unsurprisingly after the abuses we continue to suffer from this ‘plandemic.’

I heard a lot of stories at the CHD dinner the night before. There is so much pain and anger resulting from the last three years. It was palpable. It wasn’t going away. Stories about being unable to visit a relative in hospital before they died. Lost careers. Sudden deaths in vaccinated friends. A child with new onset seizures after a jab. Loads of people are still reeling from these assaults and insults. And why not? The assaults continue. The un-COVID-vaxxed still cannot work in healthcare in Maine. The (presumably vaccine-derived) deaths and injuries continue to mount, even though few are being vaccinated these days. Does it ever end?

The MSM and politicians continue to pretend the shots are safe and effective, despite contrary admissions by public health officials, which is more than infuriating.

Along with the pain was fury. People wanted justice, but they really wanted retribution. They wanted punishment for the many evildoers, and they wanted apologies from their friends and relatives who refused to let them attend family events, demanded damaging shots, stopped taking to them. But few are apologizing. No one seems to be admitting mistakes.

They wanted to take names and dole out punishments. Now, I have been posting some of the names of those responsible, and have urged others to do likewise. We definitely need the list of crimes and particulars. We have to trust there will be a future reckoning.

But what I saw in some people was an impotent rage, a boiling kettle of anger, looking for a place to aim it. A future reckoning was not going to satisfy.

The name Robert Malone surfaced yet again in a private conversation, like the proverbial bad penny. I think there are two reasons for this. One is that the globalist trolls keep stirring the pot. “When you’re taking this much flak, you know you are over the target.”

But the other reason is the burning kettle of anger looking for release now, not in some far-off future. People want a flesh and blood target, today not tomorrow, and they want to take out the anger and frustration that constantly gnaws at them.

And so I got into the discussion of what was known about the vaccine, when, and by whom? Who should have warned the public about the shots? Whose voice could have gotten through the pervasive censorship and propaganda?

So it went again: “Why didn’t Robert Malone warn us? He invented this stuff!“

Not so fast. What did he invent? A method for using RNA as a vaccine about 35 years ago, when he was a grad student in his twenties. He did not invent the methods that make the mRNA so long-lasting in the body, which is presumably a key part of what makes it so dangerous, such as the long tail, the codon optimization and the replacement of uridine by pseudouridine. He also never chose spike protein for the vaccine antigen. He happened to make an important discovery once upon a time that led in a circuitous fashion to the current vaccines.

He didn’t invent the lipids (that were never before injected into humans) and facilitate the entry into cells of the mRNA, as well as having other putative effects like immune stimulation.

Did he know the vaccines were toxic and fail to warn us? If he knew they were toxic, he and his wife would not have gotten vaccinated—but they did. That alone should end this conversation. But there has been blood in the water, and some people cannot let it go. They need an enemy. They need a target. An eye for an eye. Sometimes whose eye it is may be less important than the need to blind.

A vaccinologist, and familiar with the FDA’s requirements for using drugs and vaccines, Robert and his wife Jill (a biotech PhD) blithely trusted that they were getting a tried and true pharmaceutical product. They took the Moderna vaccine in early 2021, and didn’t give it another thought. They got their second dose. Then Robert got really sick and they started to figure things out. On a steep learning curve, they went from trusting loyal Democrats to ‘conspiracy theorists’ like me in just a few months. They started to grasp why Amazon had censored Jill’s book about COVID. By July 20221, when I met them, they were in the process of fitting the pieces together. It didn’t take that long, which impressed me: both have keen intellects and were able to logically process the facts, unlike most academic types I know.

I watched their conversion. Robert and Jill couldn’t possibly have warned us about something they didn’t know, and they were were equally victims of the so-called vaccine, just like several billion others.

When they did finally figure it out, they gave up their careers and life as they knew it to try and stop the carnage. They are immensely honorable. They are extremely hard-working. Robert’s silver tongue—his ability to explain complex things simply and calmly for lay people—and his secret weapon Jill, have led to fame but not fortune. He is one of the most valuable people in our movement. And they are good people. I wish the naysayers would do their homework and cease accusing him of things he never did, and omissions he never made.

If we are to win this war, we need to get clear on who the real enemies are, and we need to aim accordingly. Most importantly, we need to talk to each other, try to come to terms with our bruises and our anger, and find ways to release it so we can function better as the crack troops we need to be to overcome the coup we face.

Ursula von der Leyen, world's most powerful and worst woman

The lady who texted with Pfizer's president over the price and number of doses of COVID vaccines the EU would buy--10 doses per person. What else has she done?,achieving%20the%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals

The 2022 Global Goalkeeper Award, which was presented by Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates, recognizes a leader who has driven progress on a global scale toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This year’s award was presented to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission…

She led the efforts of the European Union to support lower-income countries in responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, including a commitment of €1 billion from the EU to boost manufacturing capacity in Africa in order to increase access to vaccines, medicines, and health technologies. In June 2020, at the Global Vaccine Summit, von der Leyen also announced a new European Commission’s contribution of €300 million to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. This is more than the sum of all previous EU contributions to Gavi.

For Ursula, you give away the EU’s money to Bill Gates’ charity Gavi, and you get an award from GATES. I looked in 20 places but could not find the monetary value of the BMGF award to Ursula, which makes me wonder if it is huge?

Ursula, yet another physician, is widely hated in Europe. A mother of seven children, whose father was a politician, she practiced little medicine, instead moving into politics at about age forty. In 2005 she joined Angela Merkel’s cabinet, where she remained through the duration of Merkel’s Chancellorship, eventually becoming Germany’s Defense Minister. From Wikipedia:

On 2 July 2019, von der Leyen was proposed by the European Council as the candidate for president of the European Commission.[3][4] She was then elected by the European Parliament on 16 July;[5][a] she took office on 1 December, becoming the first woman to hold the office. In November 2022 von der Leyen announced that her Commission will work to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for the Russian Federation.[7]

Von der Leyen was included in Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2020[8] and again in 2022,[9] and was named the most powerful woman in the world by Forbes in 2022.

In Germany, plagiarism of a doctoral thesis is very serious, and von der Leyen was accused of this and found guilty, but skated by it. She became a Board member of the World Economic Forum in 2016. She has been an extremely loyal globalist flunkey. And has also dodged several corruption allegations.

Von der Leyen and Henry Kissinger at the Munich Security Conference in 2014

Below I have selected excerpts from an article in Zero Hedge yesterday about the ways farmers are being squeezed by impossible EU standards that are designed to put farmers out of business and reduce European food production. Ursula’s response? Let them eat cake.

"Why Does Brussels Hate Us?" Livid EU Farmers Hit Back At Green Agenda

European farmers are furious over a plan by the European Union which would force then to be treated as industrial plants, similar to steel mills or chemical works, in order to force them to cut greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, the Financial Times reports.

Greek farmer Takis Kazanas, 66, and his four sons run a 230-acre ranch with 300 cattle ranch in the mountains overlooking the Thessalian Plain. While the farmers already capture biogas from cow dung, and use homemade manure vs. chemical fertilizer, Kazanas is one of many farmers up in arms over environmentalist bureaucrats who want to impose crippling new rules on them in order to cut emissions by 55% by 2030 vs. 1990 levels.

"That’s what the EU says and that’s what I do," says Kazanas, regarding the 'earth-friendly' measures he already employs. "Today, everyone blames cattle for methane production and pollution . . . I have a different opinion."

The sheer scale of the transformation that the European Commission is asking for in its Farm to Fork strategy — halving the amount of pesticides applied by 2030, cutting the use of fertilisers, doubling organic production and rewilding some farmland — would be remarkable even in less urgent times.

…According to Brussels, nitrous oxides found in fertilizer, as well as animal urine and poop, are a large part of the problem.

One problem facing farmers is thin margins between organic producers who survive on local trade, to pig farmers whose profits are being whittled away by international competition. As the Times notes, "even a small increase in the price of feed can wipe out annual profits."

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU almost immediately unveiled 'Farm to Fork' pollution targets. According to a senior commission official, "the debate has changed."

The goals of the program, via FT, are to:

  • Cut the use of chemical and hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030

  • Reduce fertiliser use by 20% by 2030

  • Lower by 50% the sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture

  • Increase the amount of land devoted to organic farming to 25% in 2030 from 9.1% in 2020

  • Bigger livestock farms to comply with clean air and water regulations that apply to heavy industry

Boeren op een Kruispunt, an independent non-profit offering mental health counselling to farmers in Flanders, northern Belgium, has reported a 44 per cent increase in demand in 2022 compared with 2021, he says.

According to the French Institute for Health, farmers are three times more likely to commit suicide than other professionals. As Caroline van der Plas, leader of the BBB, told the Dutch parliament this month: “People who provide our daily food . . . are dismissed as animal abusers, poisoners, soil destroyers and environmental polluters.”

EU environmentalists don't care.

"It is a significant change for our farmers, but inevitably they will have to be part of the solution," said Virginijus Sinkevičius, the EU’s environment and fisheries commissioner, who added: "Maybe that won’t happen overnight."

And according to the office of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, "The commission is convinced that the transition to a resilient and sustainable agricultural sector, in line with the European green deal and its Farm to Fork and biodiversity strategies, is fundamental to food security."

What is meant by resilient, sustainable and food security? Lower yields, hungry people, and yes, less pollution—but other regulations could lower pollution without skyrocketing food prices, hunger and increased starvation. The globalists have hijacked our language and our desire for a healthier planet to impose suffering and population reduction. Ursula leads the way.

Getty Images / Harry Wedzinga

Sunday, April 16, 2023

WHO, Gro Brundtland, the Plan to leave no one unjabbed using untested 100 day vaccines, and how portable vaccine factories will allow the entire human herd to be jabbed simultaneously--but with what?

The WHO has had a set of international health regulations (IHRs) aka a sanitary code to deal with multi-nation infectious disease outbreaks since 1969. In 2005, developed primarily under WHO Director-General Gro Harlen Brundtland, a major update was adopted, which is called the IHRs (2005). We did not know it then, but Brundtland was quite the globalist apparatchik, an inventor of sustainable development, and has worked closely with Fauci on COVID pandemic issues, as seen in FOIA’d emails.

[Brundtland was the] first female prime minister of Norway, serving for three terms (1981, 1986–89, and 1990–96), and later was director general of the World Health Organization (WHO; 1998–2003). Trained as a physician, she became identified with public health and environmental issues and with the rights of women…

In 1983 Brundtland became chair of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, which in 1987 issued Our Common Future, the report that introduced the idea of “sustainable development” and led to the first Earth Summit. In 1998 she became director general of the WHO, where she tackled global pandemics such as AIDS and SARS; her term ended in 2003. In 2007 she became a member of the Elders, a group of world leaders that addressed human rights issues. That year, together with Han Seung-Soo, former minister of foreign affairs of South Korea, and Ricardo Lagos Escobar, a former president of Chile, she was appointed a special envoy on climate change to Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations.

While Gro turns 84 this week, she was until very recently in a key position, serving as Co-Chair of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board with Sir Jeremy Farrar, convened by the WHO and World Bank to force its version of preparedness on the world. Gro has also been called the Mother of Sustainable Development. Maybe she actually wanted a better world once. Jeremy was “named 12th in the Fortune list of 50 World’s Greatest Leaders in 2015.” Two smooth operators.

Women Leaders Must Pave the Way Forward in Preparedness

By Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland

As the Co-chair of The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), established by The World Bank and World Health Organization in 2018, I have seen first hand what the global landscape for pandemic preparedness looks like.  Last year, we launched our inaugural annual report A World At Risk, sounding the alarm about the many gaps in our preparedness, and warning of the great risk our world could experience with a highly infectious respiratory virus.

We now find ourselves in the middle of the devastating novel coronavirus crisis. Collectively, we must learn from this crisis to set forth a bold course of urgent actions that countries and our multilateral system now must swiftly take up in order for everyone’s future to be more secure. 

During this year’s UN General Assembly, the GPMB is once again calling on the world to urgently act with our new report, A World in Disorder. The report puts forward multiple calls to action for governments, multilateral stakeholders, and individuals–actions we are all responsible to take if we want to not only recover from this pandemic, but be more capable to handle the next. It is not enough to stop this pandemic currently wreaking havoc on not only our health systems, but our economic and social systems as well. We must also take this moment to build the strong, sustainable, and inclusive systems we want to see in the future to help us be prepared for the next pandemic when it undoubtedly comes. 

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was ginned up and coopted in order to smash small businesses, impoverish many millions, convince billions that infectious disease had suddenly become an existential threat—and thereby provide the justification to remake our world in many different ways.

The rulers bought the best public relations experts, and have continually refined the language they use to convince us we are being herded into a better tomorrow. The term ‘New World Order’ just didn’t have the right connotations. ‘Build Back Better’ made smashing our current systems sound like it was perhaps a good thing. But when leaders around the world starting saying it in unison, the people got suspicious and the term was dropped.

The current preferred terminology includes: sustainable and inclusive. And equity: which to the rulers means we all get the same justice; we are all exposed to the single narrative and we all get the remdesivir but not the ivermectin or HCQ. It is of great interest that the WHO and globalists do NOT use the word equality, which is much better understood. Equality means we are all equal. The globalists don’t want that, so they chose a word that sounds very similar but means something different, and they hope you think it means equality. Bold means we will turn your world upside-down. Urgent means before you have time to grasp what we are doing.

Sustainable means that your standard of living must drop because according to the rulers it is unsustainable. That is true if they engineer depressions, wars and such. Inclusive means you get the jab (preferably mRNA) whether you want it or not. Everyone is included. No one is allowed to opt out. That is why the enforcers are so dead-set against vaccine exemptions. [For a painful example, see the Maine legislature’s Education Committee Democrats vote in unison on April 10 against 6 bills that would allow students to opt out of vaccines.]

No one knows what will be in those future vaccines (let alone knowing what is in the current COVID vaccines), and when the promised 100-days-to-develop vaccines appear for the next pandemic, no one will be able to know whether they work nor how dangerous they are, because they will be rolled out for mass use simultaneously, all over the world. That is why it is so important to the globalists to have little vaccine factories throughout Africa and Asia, see below. So no one can escape, and everyone gets jabbed before we know how dangerous the shots are.

The person who ushered in the Coalition on Epidemic Preparedness and innovation (CEPI) 100 day vaccine promise is Sir Dr. Jeremy Farrar (aka 007 License to Overdose) who was central in planning and funding the 2 UK and WHO hydroxychloroquine overdose trials, who was central in setting up the COVID origins coverup, and has now been given the role of the WHO’s Chief Scientist, where he will play a crucial role in getting the developing world on board with this plan to force locally produced, untested vaccines on everyone.

By the way, Farrar’s boss, when he was President of the Wellcome Trust, was Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, Wellcome’s Chairman of the Board, Co-President of Chatham House and the former Director-General of Britain’s spy shop MI5.

The German company BioNTech, creator of one of the COVID-19 vaccines used here in the U.S., has unveiled a new tool to boost the global COVID vaccination rate: modular factories assembled from shipping containers that produce the mRNA vaccine the company makes with Pfizer. 

Later this year, they’ll be on their way to developing countries. 

The good news is that global COVID vaccine supply and manufacturing capacity are improving, said Krishna Udayakumar, who directs Duke University’s Global Health Innovation Center. 

About 60% of the world’s population has gotten at least one dose. 

“The bad news is the rollout has been incredibly inequitable — so, 10% only of people living in low-income countries have had even one dose of vaccine,” he said.

BioNTech said its first factory kits will be sent to a handful of African countries later this year, and could produce as many as 50 million doses within 12 months. 

Udayakumar said that’s a good start, but BioNTech will need to do more to really help the continent. 

“Ensuring a transfer of the equipment, the technology, that they’re also working on standing up a trained workforce, creating a supply chain,” he said….

Addendum April 16, 2:20 pm: How do you manufacture vaccines in Africa without a trained workforce? It only works if you don’t actually care about the quality of the product. If all you need is to get a certain something (premade elsewhere?) into arms, then it would not matter if the rest of the vaccine manufacturing process does not meet Good Manufacturing Process (or any other) standard. If your goal is a safe and effective vaccine, the quality of manufacturing is essential. But if your goal is simply to use the ‘vaccine’ as a delivery system to get people to voluntarily be injected with that special something, the trained workforce is unimportant.

Please take this seriously. This is probably the most dangerous thing I have ever written about. Worse than biological warfare, which needs to spread person to person and for which some will be immune.

Sending vaccine factories to Africa without a workforce who can safely use them can only be described as nefarious. It only makes sense if there is a hidden agenda.

Don’t dismiss CEPI and its plan for the 100 day vaccine. It is funded and controlled by some of the most powerful entities in the world.

And here is CEPI’s Joint Coordination Group (JCG)

Our Joint Coordination Group is a roundtable of independent institutions with an interest in seeing CEPI’s vaccines successfully developed and deployed in an outbreak.

These independent institutions play a role in various elements of the vaccine development lifecycle, from vaccine research and development all the way through to deploying vaccines during an outbreak.

Members of our Joint Coordination Group come together to discuss how we can best enhance our efforts to deliver and deploy vaccines by addressing challenges related to the research and development, regulation, stockpiling, and delivery of these products. In particular, while the group focuses on advancing our vaccine portfolio, its work also informs the broader field of vaccine development and preparedness.

Members also have a role in planning for rapid response to a priority pathogen or an unknown pathogen. Our Joint Coordination Group consists of 10 to 15 member organisations, which in turn appoint individuals to represent them at meetings.

From time to time, the group may choose to invite other organisations and experts to participate in meetings.

The current members of the Joint Coordination Group include:

The African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (AVAREF)


Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network (DCVMN) member

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics

Gavi, the Vaccines Alliance

The Global Fund

International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) member

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)


US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Wellcome Trust

World Bank

World Health Organization (WHO)

So be prepared, know what their plan is for us, and let’s work to stop these devilish plans together. More on that later today.