The Immunisation Agenda 2030

'Together we really can build a world where all benefit from the advancements and miracle of modern vaccinology'

And in the context of One Health, it appears increasingly clear where this slots in.

-

I covered this a while back. But sometimes, it’s good to retread old ground, because it allows you to slip in more actors, and a more precise context. And it’s the latter which make for the primary difference relative to my original article.

-

From the get-go of the paper, it’s an ode to vaccination. Not terribly surprising, it’s the Immunisation Agenda 2030, after all. What’s of somewhat amusement is that they draw upon the ‘successful’ Scamdemic-19 ‘vaccines’ to make their point.

It continues by claiming that vaccinations have stopped diseases ‘ravaging the population’ (sanitation and hygiene did, not vaccinations), admits polio is still around (in spite of hundreds of promises to eradicate), and continues along the line of ‘equitable coverage’ - meaning not only the rich will subsidise the poor in the regard, but also that all of us should be lucky recipients, regardless of age, financial state, and locality; ‘A world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines for good health and wellbeing‘.

No one is left behind.

Economic analysis on the topic is typically laughable, carried out by the likes of ESWI with direct big pharma interest in the outcome of the studies. Either way, all of this will contribute towards the SDGs, and Universal Health Coverage.

What matters is the strategic priorities, and there are seven of them.

But this chock-full-of-double-speak carefully crafted message presents an opportunity to outline exactly what they mean by their many, many intentionally opaque and commonly misleading phrases and terminology.

They’re not being honest. If they were, you’d disagree, and we can’t have that. It would endanger democracy.

Links at the end.

-

SP1 -

• Universal Health Coverage
  UHC is really an umbrella term for the Global Health Security Agenda, because it loops in not just vaccines for everyone, but also surveillance to keep track of vaccination state (and you), and digital ID to tie everything together. You can source examples of all three. My substack article on the topic is linked above.

• Comprehensive surveillance
  In the WHA article linked above, I link this to the global database operated by the WHO, which will keep track of everyone, in real-time. It’s intended as an all-knowing global system from which you will never escape. One Health surveillance takes cares of all things… loosely health related, and for all things not, that’s where the Social/Economic/Political/Commercial/… Determinants of Health come into play, also linked above.

• Robust supply chains
  A number of articles hint at the true meaning of the word ‘robust’, and in this context, what is means is an authoritarian takeover by the state. According to the narrative - as we will discover in a later principle - the free market failed during covid-19, because it failed to produce ‘adequate vaccine supplies’ and the ‘equitable distribution of vaccines’. Naturally, both as per their definitions.
  Furthermore, Thierry Breton wanted to take over the supply chain per Politico, Dec 27, 2021 - but only ‘during emergencies’. Which, needless to say, will be all the time under a declared ‘covid pandemic’. Linked at end.

• Effective vaccine management
  Ensuring no-one is left behind, via the ‘robust supply chain’. We are all going to get jabbed, that’s for sure. In short, no interruptions will occour, you will receive that ‘life saving’ ‘vaccine’.

• Health information systems
  All your health - and not health - data on a central, global database, ready for ab/use, and stored at the WHO. This refers to the efforts of ‘digitalising’ all your data, as a number of EU reports indicate, plus all efforts currently taking place in the UK.

• Integration of primary health care
  I’m just going to quote - ’surveillance, data systems, planning and monitoring is the establishment and maintenance of vaccine safety surveillance, involving all stakeholders, and critical for trust in the health system, immunization programme and vaccine acceptance’
  All the surveillance is required, and behavioural science applied too, to ensure you take that ‘vaccine’, safe or not.

SP2 -

• Political commitment for vaccination
  The vaccines will be pushed by the political leaders, regardless of whether you vote for team red or blue - because they signed legally binding agreements in that regard. This does outline why proportional democracy is far better than first-past-the-post however, because with the latter, the likelihood of new political parties arriving on the scene is practically zero. Meanwhile, both Netherlands and Denmark serve as great examples of democracies, where new political parties continuously are voted in, with ‘BBB’ being a great contemporary example.

• Countering mis/disinformation
  Governments and ‘science’ panels have been the single biggest purveuor of misinformation during the scamdemic. And never do they accept faults, they simply attempt to move goalposts in the hope you won’t notice, or eventually give up attempting to reach them. You cannot trust anyone to command a position of controlling information, which also is why western style democracy very much counts on this as an absolute cornerstone. Ultimately, the Broadband Commission and the UN are behind the contemporary drive to push through the various Ministries of Truth.

• ‘While still allowing open discourse’
  I really only include this to mock it. They currently seek to criminalise disinformation, yet can’t even provide a clear, honest legal definition of how this is determined relative to ‘misinformation’. Even the UN struggle here, outlining two conflicting definitions on ‘disinformation’ within the same page of their own document, seeking to clear up this confusion.

• Vaccine safety systems and real-time data
  Look, the same still insist that Covid-19 vaccines are safe. And when data becomes undeniable, they simply stop reporting. We’ve seen this taking place just about everywhere in the world, including the UK, US, and Australia. It’s no coincidence.

SP3 -

• Equitable vaccine coverage
  Again, this is the sort of double-speak they always employ. It means everyone will get vaccinated, and those who currently cannot afford to be so, are oppressed by those who can. It’s divisive, and entirely in line with Frankfurt School Critical Theory.

• Covid-19 disruptions to our lives
  … which was entirely caused by them. Covid-19 never was dangerous to those under - certainly - 50, and in otherwise good health, and I couldn’t care less about yet another passive-aggressive Susan Oliver compilation of lies.
  The lockdowns destroyed economies, caused severe fragmentation in the population, and led to depression in a large amount of teenagers. And yet, these people attempt to cash in on this argument?

• Values of justice / public good
  Ah, the old, Marxist favourite. ‘Justice’ is completely and utterly meaningless, because it represents a different set of values to each of us. You might think welfare recipients should have more money, and I might think taxation is already very high as it is. There is no ‘right’ answer here, it all depends on your personal context, and reasoning.

• Life-course (vaccination)
  And there it is. Gently massaging in the ultimate aim of vaccinating you throughout your life, whether you like it or not. And keep in mind - this information will be kept on a WHO server, so should you not keep up with your schedule, well…

• Evidence based approaches
  In the event it’s not obvious, all the ‘evidence’ they relied on during Covid-19 was almost exclusively fraudulent (like Surgisphere’s HCQ study), or arrived at through using exclusion of data not palatable to narrative, for self-serving reason. The ‘science’ was absolutely not science, and ‘evidence’ was cherry picked and commonly run through opaque ‘models’.

• Integrated immunization with disease control perspectives + UHC
  Well, this is one of the more interesting phrases. ‘Disease control perspectives’ per the Manhattan Principles could mean culling, for instance, already used in the UK BSE ‘crisis’, 1996-2001, along with ‘pandemic potential’ H5N1 in Hong Kong, 1997. Consequently, it could hypothetically mean mandatory vaccination to cull the herd, as there’s already too many of us.

• For the benefit of…
  Again, showing what they do, and how they do it. Initially, ‘high-risk groups’ meant those of age and with existing adverse conditions. Before you know it, women and children are casually thrown into the mix.

SP4 -

• Life-course and integrated
  Builds upon the principle in SP3; the aim is to routinely integrate this with your normal, routine healthcare procedures, delivering you a ‘vaccine’ every 3-6 months. You know, as they tried with the ‘booster shots’, and the vaccine passport which would expire did you not keep up.

• Adherence to scheduled timepoints for infant vaccination
  Yeah, no-one-left-behind indeed. They will aim to inject their ‘vaccines’ which may or may not have been tested on 6 mice into your newborn.

• Vaccine registers
  Ultimately, the global WHO database mentioned above.

• Priority adult groups such as pregnant women
  And et voila - priority groups are typically those of ill health - ie, those of age and already compromised. Pregnant women should absolutely be the very last to get ‘vaccinated’, especially when it comes to speculative medicinal products.

• Other vaccines, such as…
  Here are all the other ‘vaccines’ you soon will have to routinely accept, should they get their way.
  Live in Northern Sweden? Ooh, you’ll need at least 2 Malaria shots, plus 3 new preventive Ebola shots when you come in for your routine visit.

• One Health approach / zoonotic diseases
  One Health is the integrated surveillance + vaccine approach, which also comprise animals, and specifically, the biodiversity of the planet.

• Mointoring vaccination coverage at different ages
  Again, surveillance will absolutely be the norm. Should you refuse your shot, then your digital ID will cease to work. Best of luck buying groceries should your vaccine passport aka Digital ID be disabled, and consequently, your CBDCs not be accessible.

SP5 -

• Public health emergencies
  The WHO get to declare pandemics, and consequently, emergencies. It is a completely and utterly undemocratic construct in nature.

• Detect and respond to outbreaks
  Or rather, what they detect of outbreaks. Because once you have total control over all surveillance data, who’s to stop you from injecting false data into a geograpical region, thereby necessitating endless lockdowns for those people?

• Global Health Security
  Replace this with global health tyranny, because that’s what this enables. I strongly suspect it’s why Assange was locked up - he threatened the Global Health Security Agenda. Wikileaks has since his arrest removed all GHSA / One Health material from their database, in spite of headers still existing.

• The right of all people to be protected from vaccine preventable disease
  Typical Marxism double-speak. By taking the hypothetical opposite side of the argument, they attempt to make it sound as though an injustice is committed, and they stand up for the common man. It doesn’t matter if you wish to be ‘protected’. What matters is your ‘human rights’, that you presently are ‘underserved’, and how this should be corrected (by vaccinating you).
  What you want does not enter the equation.

• Sustained integrated surveillance
  Always on, real-time. You will never be able to switch it off, or run from it. All your actions, your spending history, browsed webpages, your business connections will be logged and stored forever. Total, global, inescapable tyranny.

• Universal standards
  Essentially, the request that all governments push through identical legislation and operating standards. Travel to the furthers corner of the world, and you’re still stuck in the same legislative hellhole.

SP6 -

• Sustainable vaccine markets and supply chains
  This is really about two things; the former (markets) mean a predictable income stream for the vaccine manufactorers, and the latter is about (authoritarian) centralisation of the supply chains.

• Market forces alone are insufficient
  Serves as justification for the authoritarian takeover. The market forces didn’t actually fail, that’s yet another lie.

• Vaccine access and supply is timely
  It’s more ‘equitable’ nonsense. Doublespeak to make it sound as though they stand up for the little man, when in reality, it’s about big pharma selling more vaccines.

• Plan for the expected demand
  This relates to the increase in manufacturing capacity, which will be scattered throughout the world.

• COVAX Facility
  This is where the ‘equitable access’ translates from theory to practise. This facility sent vaccines to low-income nations, while the wealthier paid.

• Public-partner investments
  Ie, public-private-partnership. You pay, while the Davos class will cash in.

SP7 -

• Innovation
  In this context, it leads itself more to the interpretation of policy intervention - as in, they will legislate in the direction they see fit. The inclusion of supply chains also lends this credibility, as this has been a specific topic of legislation in several precincts, including the EU.

• Technology transfer
  This is one of the more interesting - and potentially contentious - points in the document. Because there’s more to technology transfer than the technology itself. On which terms will this transfer take place? Is any financial compensation involved, and if so, who pays, who receives, and who are the middlemen facilitating the transfer?

• Vaccines for endemic diseases
  It’s just more of the same. They will invent an infinite amount of vaccines, if that’s what it takes to ‘protect you’, or their bottom line.

• Vaccines for diseases as yet not vaccine preventable
  As above. Prepare for even more ‘vaccines’. If no issue exist, they will invent one.

• Preparedness for a future ‘Disease X’
  Quite possible the single most important point in this entire document. In fact, it’s that important, I reserve comment for a future article on this topic.

• Sustained investment
  Predictable income stream from the perspective of big pharma.

Finally, in the conclusion we have -

• People centered
  To the best of my knowledge, this is fluff talk. An attempt to reassure that you indeed are important to them. What it means is that rest assured, you will receive your due attention just as well in terms of surveillance and vaccines.

• Country owned
  IHR2005 and the Pandemic Treaty here are both fairly clear on this topic - they are legally binding. Any country which refuse to uphold principles, will be held to account.

• Strong and diverse partnerships
  This is where the private sector gains a foothold. It’s where the Gates Foundation fits in, for instance.

• Decisions guided by data
  Again, their data. Their massaged, cherry picked data, processed with an opaque model, and run through 28,614 Monte Carlo iterations before arriving at the ‘correct’ result.

• Ongoing monitoring allows for coordinated course corrections in real-time
  What they try to do is reassure you that surveillance is to protect you. What they in effect admit to is running real-time surveillance.

• Endorsed by all WHO member states in November, 2020
  Yes, your own government - especially your own government - sold you out.

• Beyond the health sector
  What they can think of. You can argue that this translates into ‘Health in all Policies’, or ‘Planetary Health’, or even the labour union of Greek automechanics. It’s absolutely vague, and a convenient loophole for them to slip in whatever they feel like.

• Miracle of modern vaccinology
  … no comment.

-

-

-

EU seeks emergency powers on supply chains

-

A DIGITAL FINANCE PACKAGE FOR THE FUTURE

-

Disinformation: new actions from online platforms and extension of the monitoring programme | EU Commission Press

-

-

-

Information Integrity on Digital Platforms

-

-

-

-

COVAX Facility

-

-

-

-