H5N1 - Part tWHO

In the event it wasn’t completely clear, because I accept that I’m not a wordsmith, yesterday’s article details the below.

• H5N1 was as genuine as liberal tolerance

• In addition to the horrendous culling, it was furthermore used to push through surveillance and poultry vaccines - ie One Health - for livestock

• SARS 2003 was used to push through a Hong Kong equivalent of the CDC, which immediately set out to perform ‘disease’ surveillance as part of their ‘mandate’

• The ESWI is a big Pharma lobby group, funded by big pharma, and partnered up with other recipients of big pharma ‘altruism’.

• This group in 1994 declared its mission to write a pandemic plan, and ‘harmonise’ national equivalents.

• The WHO in 1999 adopted said plan, meaning that the WHO in effect is owned by big pharma.

This article will shine further light upon this absolute, complete stench of corruption.

We will see - fully sourced - how

• The ESWI organised a fraudulent ‘economic evaluation’ of flu vaccines in Hong Kong, a site which had seen no death from influenza during the 1080s and 1990s.

• Said evaluation was released just prior to alleged 1997 outbreak.

• A co-author of the papers leading up to the economic evaluation predicted the next pandemic would be of zoonotic origin (1992), and used Hong Kong and wild poultry as the vector in a 1995 follow up.

• The UK (and others) integrated the WHO plan into theirs, meaning big pharma by then indirectly contributed to national pandemic plans.

• That global surveillance was a hot topic, even prior to 9/11.

• And that the surveillance+vaccine components already by then co-existed in official documents — years before the Manhattan Principles were announced in 2004.

And all of that is sourced. And not just with any level of sourcing, but the documents released by the organisations themselves.

It is frankly so unbelievably corrupt and absolutely explain why they so desperately seek to clamp down on alleged ‘vaccine disinformation’ because if this information was geneally understood, the general public would realise the sheer level of systemic corruption. These people only care about your life to the extent of making money. And like I, you will wonder exactly how corrupt the political system must have become, to allow this to flourish.

And the same people who thought nothing to trade your life for money now demand complete control over it.

-

Here’s yesterdays post

And here’s another absolutely relevant, fully sourced article, showing how you until recently could become a vaccine developer with less than 36 days of education in the EU.

And I strongly recommend you read up on One Health in general which is about surveillance and vaccines. Don’t let them tell you it’s about anything but. They lie.

I also recommend reading up on the United Nations. The Broadband Commission is one of theirs, and that’s the origin of the drive to censor free speech online, through the various, colluding national ‘democracies’ and proposed legislation.

-

Let’s first get H5N1 out of the way. Because there is no way it’s legit. Let’s return to the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI)’s very own bulletin, sourced via their very own website. Well, via archive anyway, as they in the meantime strangely have ‘disappeared’.

The was penned by KA Fizner, who wrote other, similar pieces leading up to this event.

In April 1993 the surveillance commenced, and gradually, this built to become an economic evaluation over four papers, with the ultimate released just prior to H5N1 - thereby leading the ‘scientific’ as well as ‘economic’ case for vaccination in a nation state, which didn’t see a single flu death in neither the 80s nor 90s.

What an extraordinary coincidence.

Next, I wish to direct your attention to the co-author of the first few papers, KF Shortridge. Because in 1992 - same year as Lederberg released his report 'Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States' - Shortridge penned this absolute pearl.

So many coincidences.

In 1995, he followed up with another paper, released in the journal which brought you Surgisphere’s study on HCQ, propagated by the WHO.

We’ve got Hong Kong, zoonotic origin, and he discusses aquatic birds. Two and a half out of three.

He also discusses the need for the WHO to be fast tracked said information, and for the WHO to act as global organiser.

Another extraordinary coincidence.

-

It’s at this stage, we need to take a look at the 1999 WHO Pandemic Plan. Unfortunately, the original document is no longer available on WHO’s website, so wayback to the rescue.

And in the acknowledgements, we find this. Snacken, Wood, Kendal, and Lavenchy I linked directly to the ESWI in the first article, and Osterhaus - not mentioned in that list - is also connected. Oh yeah, and he contributed to this paper, too, as you’ll find on page 60.

Let’s skip to the conclusion first. There is one overriding message, and it’s one of harmonisation. Essentially, all plans need to get in line. Coveniently, this is penned in a document which… can be used as a template.

The meat of the document resides elsewhere.

Surveillance, behavioural modification, mass vaccination, legal complications, who should pay, and - of course - exemptions from ‘unexpected vaccine reactions’.

And all of this in a document from 1999, written by a big pharma lobbying group.

I could carry on here. There are other bits of note - including surveillance - but in the interest of brevity, I will finish this paper by pointing out that their suggested vaccination development schedule looks strangely familiar to those who paid attention during the scamdemic.

-

Next issue is implementation. Did anyone actually adopt the WHO Pandemic Plan?

Yes. But let’s start in 1993, though this print was out in 1994. Here’s the PHLS response to a pandemic of influenza.

I will be fairly brief here, because it’s not terrible exciting. It’s early days, clearly. Surveillance is paramount, and it does a decent effort to detail what should be included - at this stage, mainly samples taken from various general practitioners. But it does also touch upon vaccines.

It proposes 6 phases during a pandemic, and details reponse in relation to each.

'It is important, early in the pandemic, to document ..., the efficacy of vaccination...'

This could be read as though the real trial is carried out on the population, because time from viral emergence to vaccine deployment is very short. Key is intent, which is hard to pick up from this.

The follow-up, titled ‘The PHLS Plan for Pandemic Influenza’ was released in 2001 - after the release of the 1999 WHO Pandemic Plan.

And this document is somewhat more interesting. The 6 phases from the first document were 'harmonised' with those of the WHO, and the surveillance component has now been enabled not just when necessary but always during winter months, and in general, a 'constant state of alertness is required'. Ie, do not switch off at least some of said surveillance.

It also drags in 1997 H5N1 Hong Kong, connects this to zoonotics, and requests a ‘central resource’ in relation to gathered surveillance.

But this is really only the start; the gathering of 'winter' surveillance data is revealed to be... 32 weeks... with the possibility of extending throughout the year. Which will obviously happen 5 minutes after report is out. And never mind the inclusion of 'novel data sources', which could hypothetically cover literally anything.

The new Phase 1 isn't terribly different from prior (0-2). But there are hints here, that something is a bit... different. A lot of effort relating to managing the media response - as was outlined by the WHO in section 5.6; ‘communications issues‘. In general, the WHO is set to increases its presence.

The new Phase 1, however... is all about the WHO. And it refers to 'predetermined national pandemic plans'. And - vaccine availability? Really?

In short, in terms of vaccine composition, the UK will comply with guidance outlined by the WHO. What this entails, we will soon get to.

Phase 3 is largely about the various forms of surveillance, and cooperation with international partners. 'Preparation of candidate vaccine strains' 'Rapid dissemination of information gained... from other parts of the world'. You do realise what this calls for, eventually?

That’s right - a central database, with all gathered surveillance.

Global surveillance.

The second part of Phase 3 opens for 'second or later waves of the pandemic', vaccines, and finally calls for evaluation of the pandemic plans. Yes, plans. Both that of UK and that of WHO.

Given contemporary knowledge, and with the vote on the Pandemic Treaty set to take place in 2024, it would appear a reasonable assumption that the plan is to merge all of these into one.

-

Related recommendations can be found here, in a 2002 document which is nothing short of being an utter sales pitch for vaccines and surveillance, which furthermore - predictably - bangs the drum of the 1997 non-event that was H5N1.

Safe and effective. There it is!

What I find of particular interest is the sheer number of phrases, which - more or less - have survived until this day, in the Pandemic Treaty. Global coordination, licensing of drugs, vaccines, public and private involvement, questions of side-effects, ... and grossly inflated stats.

Plus even an inclusion of NGOs, an increase in vaccination uptake, ‘equitable access to vaccines’ which translated means the wealthy nations pay the bill because big pharma demand compensation, ‘better use of vaccines for seasonal pandemics‘ which is a request for wealthy nations to boost vaccination coverage to attain… more money for big pharma, a request for the public to fund R&D costs, the addition of manufacturing capacity, and much, much, much more surveillance - coordinated by the WHO. It's all there.

Come to think of it, had there been a mention of zoonotics, One Health would apply here as well.

The pandemic was definitely a scam.

Finally, one of the best parts of these documents is that they commonly drag in little known sources, and this one is no exception.

The ‘WHO consultation on global priorities in influenza surveillance and control (Geneva, May 2002)’. Now, this document was actually difficult to track down, I suspect because my VPN provider has been range blocked. Regardless, here it is.

And I can see why they made it hard to find.

It’s the ‘Global Agenda on Influenza’, released in 2002.

Make no mistake, it's about surveillance. Global surveillance. It's about integrating all disease surveillance, even wishes to 'collect additional data' into one central database. And it also drags in One Health, through animal disease, and AMR. Yes - in 2002.

And 'use of polio and other networks to expand surveillance coverage' 'and integrate into the WHO surveillance system other sources of samples and information, including rapid tests, commercial testing and clinical trial samples'. Sounds incredibly familiar.

They further seek to expand into nations w/o level of surveillance, to understand 'how much of a burden flu is'. Really. Nations which at the time were completely untroubled by influenza simply must be forced to understand how much pain it causes!

... and as usual, they want big pharma to be given money; 'political commitment and increase financial investment into influenza control' (control takes place through vaccines).

Was this penned by… big pharma, perchance?

It goes on - expanded vaccine capacity, equity of supply, and for the WHO to 'help' nations ‘implement common agenda’, 'common strategy focusing on global priorities' - centralisation. And global at that.

Let me finally add 'facilitate shipment of influenza isolates and specimens' as was extensively done during the scamdemic. Needless to say, this was not to protect you in any way. It was to add to their already colossal One Health-driven surveillance database.

The Pandemic Treaty must fail.

But finally, let me conclude this by establishing historical context. Because, sure, 9/11 changed a lot, and the Patriot Act is about surveillance. However, here’s another document, which details the Global Agenda development timeframe.

'Proposed contributions for inclusion in the Global Agenda should reach WHO by 7 September 2001'.

The proposals were submitted… before 9/11.

Isn’t that just incredible? Here we have a blatant, overt call for global surveillance - yet the contribution deadline was set prior to the Twin Towers being struck. The Patriot Act hadn’t even had a mention at this stage.

-

You know, when I started writing the first article, I thought I’d have it done within an hour or two. How wrong I was. The sheer quantity of material I find is just astonishing.

Back in July, I posted an article on the Manhattan Principles, because in short, I believed then as I do now, that there’s a message buried.

My conclusion then was -

Stakeholders for the sake of disease control does spend money, surveil and control to help the planet.

In short - the Manhattan Principles boils down to surveillance and vaccines. And given the above documents, I haven’t changed my mind one bit.

-

I also posted this article, taking us from the Manhattan to the Berlin principes. On this, however, my understanding has changed a touch.

And it relates to the concept of ‘Planetary Health’, which was introduced in a 2015 special edition of the Lancet, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation.

A mention thereof exist in the footnotes. Footnotes, which only exist in one version of the document.

It’s not much. But it’s enough.

Before leaving, I want to conclude with a few comments about the ESWI. Here’s from a bulletin of theirs.

And here’s their front page from 2004. Golly, the WHO adopts the distribution monitoring system.

To deny their level of influence over the WHO is… conspiratorial, frankly.