All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 21, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
56:56
DR. MERYL NASS – Biological Warfare and the WHO’s Biosecurity Agenda
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Um, hi.
Hi everyone, we're back.
It's the False Flag and Conspiracies Conference 2023.
I'm here with Dr. Merle Naz, and I just want to say I'm very excited about what she has to share with us today.
It's all about the Great Reset, COVID, the WHO.
Oh my God, she's covering the whole kitchen sink, and it's going to be quite fascinating, so strap in.
It's going to be a wonderful presentation, and I'll be back at the end, Dr. Naz.
See you soon.
Thank you.
Okay.
So, as Lorianne said, I'm going to be talking about a lot of different things.
You can reach me at doortofreedom.org, which is my new organization that has one purpose, which is to fight the Great Reset, or at Twitter, X, or by email.
And Klaus Schwab already was telling us by the end of 2020 that we were not going to go back to the past, that we were not going to solve COVID and return, but we were going to have a new world order.
And yes, now it's four years into this so-called pandemic and we're in the midst of the Great Reset to take over the world.
And these are some of the important pieces of it that the cabal needs to have working for them in order to accomplish this.
So biological weapons or basically organisms that through gain-of-function type research Have been created in labs, the pandemics they may cause, and the vaccines that are allegedly designed to save us from them are all important.
As is the whole huge issue of energy, where it comes from, what kind we're using, and whether, in fact, it's going to save the planet.
The reduction of food production and the control of food is something else.
And I and Children's Health Defense produced a very detailed seven-hour symposium on the attack on food and how to respond to it back in March, which you can watch if you like.
17 presenters.
There are also many false narratives about climate change being an existential threat and about pandemics coming from spillover, from animals to humans, which most of the recent ones have not been due to spillover, and they're not due to climate change either.
And the final thing that's tremendously important for the cabal is the control of information.
You know, Lorian, you're going to have to Cue me about time because I was planning to use the gender view to follow how much time I had and now I'm not in it anymore.
So I'm going to need some cues.
Can you do that for me?
I'd be happy to.
Thank you.
All right.
So things are changing.
David Stonebrun and I came up with three slides to explain what is going on, because we are being attacked in a huge number of ways, all of which dovetail together.
To basically attack our traditions, our family life, to create enemies, so that we fight the wrong people rather than the cabal, and to control us.
So you can see many ways in which the culture is being attacked, our health is being attacked, and the health of our economy has been attacked.
You've heard many heads of state talk about Build Back Better.
This is a video on YouTube where you can watch a lot of them use the same phrase.
Obviously, they too are being forced to do what the cabal wants.
So they look like a bunch of talking monkeys, and those are the people who are running our country.
What are components of the New World Order?
Global control, individual control through surveillance, and the increasing lawlessness of governments.
What's the new normal going to be?
A lot of things that we don't like, many of which are here already and some are on their way.
The criminality of the US government.
government is something I want to talk about for a while.
So in the last few slides, I mentioned how the definitions of words, the meaning of words, is being changed to control us.
And this was a good example to start with.
Tom Massey is a wonderful congressman from Kentucky.
pointed out that the CDC changed the definition of vaccination twice since 2015.
So it used to be something that you did to prevent a disease, then it became something that it might not prevent a disease, but at least it was giving you some immunity.
In other words, they could show that it was creating antibodies even if it didn't protect you.
And then finally, It's not to produce immunity, but to produce some sort of protection from a specific disease.
What does that mean?
Well, what it seems to mean is that the CDC and other regulatory agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency, have now begun claiming that, well, despite the fact that the vaccines don't prevent disease and don't prevent transmission, they still make the COVID disease less severe.
And that's the reason, that's the indication for which they're being used, and they still have every right to be sold.
Since there have been many legal challenges as to how can you possibly sell a vaccine that doesn't prevent a disease.
All right, here's another way in which language has been distorted to gain control over us.
So there is something called the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of Homeland Security.
And they have a mission to protect critical infrastructure in the United States.
What they did was to redefine the minds of American citizens as critical infrastructure And by this slate of hand, or legal fig leaf, they were able to justify massive censorship.
We don't know the full extent of it.
I suggest you follow Schellenberger and Taibbi because they and and Sorry, Mike Benz, B-E-N-Z, at the Foundation for Freedom Online, because they are following this and it's a critical area.
If we can't get back to sharing true information with each other, we're not going to be able to win this battle or war for the world.
Of course, we all know that it's the government that is doing most of the law-breaking right now.
And I'll just mention, in terms of the emergency use authorizations that were issued for COVID vaccines, initially for remdesivir, even for masks, for ventilators, for monoclonal antibodies and other drugs, Emergency use authorizations are something very, very new.
They did not exist before 2005.
They were issued initially, we thought, in response to a lawsuit that I was involved with in which the anthrax vaccine license was revoked because that vaccine had never been shown to be either safe in response to a lawsuit that I was involved with in which And although the FDA had let it have a license and did a lot of law.
Lying about what the evidence really showed, a judge in the federal district court looked at the paperwork and said, no, it had never met the requirements for a license.
However, looking back, it seems that the law, which is called the PREP Act, that led to the EUA was actually put in place to enable what's happened during COVID.
So, it was a way to use experimental products, experimental or investigational products, which are You know, managed under the Nuremberg Code and under laws for clinical trials and the use of experimental products in human beings and get outside of those laws.
So what the PrEP Act did and what the EUAs do is to create a gray area and an area for which there is very little law in between the use of licensed products Which have to meet strict standards and the use of experimental products which also have to meet strict standards.
Right.
So, this is part of that law, the PrEP Act, U.S.
Code 360 BBB 3, and the Secretary of HHS authorizes the emergency use of the product, and the FDA Commissioner also has to weigh in.
And it's required.
So instead of informed consent, which was trashed, they were required to make known the significant known and potential benefits and risks of any EUA product.
And they also had to give people receiving it the option to accept or refuse that product and tell them what consequences there might be for refusing the product.
Now, the consequences issue was always interpreted previously as being the medical consequences of refusal.
But in this case, the government reinterpreted that as being the consequences such as losing your job or your ability to go to school.
Um, if you refuse the product, so they took away the ability to opt out without coercion, which is part of informed consent and the Nuremberg Code, which doesn't allow you to coerce people to take an experimental product.
The government also had to do something about this word that you were required to tell people that there were, if there were alternatives to the product that were available and what their benefits and risks were.
Now, of course, there were many alternatives.
Government didn't want to tell us about any of them.
And that's one of the reasons they, one of many, that they've denied telling the truth about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and other products.
So, as you know, EUAs have a very broad liability shield, so you cannot sue the manufacturers, but most vaccines also have a similar but not quite so broad liability shield as well.
I just want to point out that at least with the other vaccines, It's possible to pursue a claim for damages if you've been injured, and you might actually succeed.
But for the EUA products, there have been only eight people so far who have succeeded in getting any damages, and the total amount for them is tiny, like averaging about $2,000 apiece.
So if you take an EUA product, do not expect to be compensated if you're injured.
Over a thousand people have been turned away and there are 11,000 waiting to be adjudicated.
This is another sneaky thing the government did, which was to pay bribes to healthcare facilities, hospitals, doctors' offices, etc., for using the drugs it wanted, such as remdesivir.
And this was actually still in force up through the end of October of this year.
A 20% add-on payment if a hospital gave you remdesivir.
Or Molnupiravir or Paxlovid, none of which work very well and all are dangerous.
There's at least double the amount of deaths from kidney failure since remdesivir, since this 20% add-on was created by the federal government for remdesivir, which causes a lot of kidney failure in two states that have been examined by John Bowdoin.
Also, another thing that I have never in over 40 years practicing medicine heard of anything like this before, insurers paid massive bonuses for vaccinating people.
And the conditions under which these bonuses were paid and the amounts varied from place to place, time to time, et cetera.
But a healthcare system or a doctor could receive up to a $250 bonus per shot When they had vaccinated most of their population and the vaccine recipient had not previously received a COVID vaccine.
This shows you the extraordinary efforts to coerce, to incentivize the medical profession to act unethically and get as many people vaccinated as possible.
Also, the HHS, both the FDA and BARDA, which are two sub-agencies, created a series of lies and restrictions to stop people getting drugs that worked early in the pandemic.
Another, in my view, criminal activity.
So, there actually were four articles that I know of that showed that chloroquine drugs worked against coronaviruses that are like SARS-1.
China had an epidemic of SARS-1 in 2002 and 2003.
It extended to Canada and to some other countries in Southeast Asia.
It led to 10% mortality rate.
So it was very serious.
But there only were less than 800 people who eventually died of it.
And then it just wore out.
It mutated.
It was gone.
But it was very serious.
And so nations were very worried about what might work.
And here in 2004, European scientists showed that in tissue culture, chloroquine killed the virus.
And the CDC found the same thing.
Chloroquine killed the virus in 2005.
And here, scientists at the NIH, in Fauci's National Institute of Allergy Infectious Diseases, as well as Canadian scientists, We found that 66 different drugs that already existed killed either SARS or MERS, which was a similar virus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, causing infections in the Arabian Peninsula.
66 different drugs which were suppressed.
And again, the Europeans were up there with us because they also found drugs that worked to kill SARS-1 and MERS.
By 2022, the federal government in the U.S.
was already pushing a global Pandemic response.
This has many names.
International Pandemic Preparedness is one name.
The Global Biosecurity Agenda is another.
And the excuse is that, well, COVID cost us trillions of dollars because, of course, the government wasted most of that money and millions of lives.
So if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars, we can save trillions.
But they really didn't know what they were doing.
They have no technologies to prevent, to detect, to ameliorate pandemics.
Nothing new.
There's nothing really available different than what we've already done before, which is to treat people individually with the drugs and strategies that are likely to work, rather than suppressing them.
This acknowledged that by saying pandemics, how would we detect pandemics?
We would need to accelerate and deploy new technologies.
In other words, they don't already exist.
We're going to steal your hospital data and we're going to share it internationally.
And we're going to do the same thing we did during the pandemic was modeling and analytics, which of course, garbage in, garbage out, whatever you want to find as a result, you can, depending whose modeling you use.
Let me switch over to One Health.
How far along are we?
I was just looking myself, Merle.
Let me get back to you on that.
Okay.
So One Health is a scam that has been created to wrap everything up in the world into the definition of health.
And there have been 61 published definitions for One Health because there really isn't a good definition because nobody's been able to have it make any sense.
But the One Health High-Level Expert Panel, which is the group that's primarily managing this for UN agencies and the World Organization for Animal Health, has come up with this definition.
One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems.
In other words, everything in the world.
It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent.
So, they want to tackle threats to health and ecosystems while addressing the need for clean water, energy, and air, safe and nutritious food, and taking action on climate change and sustainable development.
Okay.
What is it?
The Lancet Commission tried to explain a bit about it.
Their ambition is to generate insight into the interconnected nature of health among humans, animals, plants, and the wider environment, and to galvanize transformations in, get ready for it, global governance.
And of course, equity, sustainability, blah, blah.
The One Health Joint Plan of Action, which is created by these four UN, three of them are UN agencies, FAO, the Environmental Program, the World Health Organization, and then the World Organization for Animal Health is not actually part of the UN, but they together are shepherding this One Health thing forward.
And they describe it in a way that is just more word salad.
It doesn't make any sense.
They call themselves, these four agencies, the quadripartite.
And they consider this international dynamic to be a unique opportunity to take their partnership to a new level, stand together as a global coalition, jointly drive change, achieve the transformations required to mitigate the impact of current and future health challenges at global, regional, and country level.
And if someone can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.
All right.
Where did One Health come from?
It's not clear.
It seems to be a concept that started out saying that certain diseases affected both humans and animals, and maybe doctors and veterinarians working together could better solve societal problems with those particular diseases.
And then it was co-opted by the Rockefeller Foundation and these various UN agencies, as well as the World Bank and the World Organization for Animal Health, which used to be called the OIE in French.
They picked it up out of the gutter, I would say, and started creating a lot of fluff and spending a lot of money creating One Health commissions, One Health degrees, One Health grants, etc., and expanding the definition of health.
However, a group of Chinese scientists actually published a paper last year explaining that One Health really didn't seem to make any sense at all.
There's no real-world evidence supporting it.
It can't be applied to policies and practice.
It doesn't have a good conceptual system, goals, or strategies.
So I appreciated them publishing that.
They probably didn't get any grants after that.
This graphic at the top is from the USDA, which was giving grants out for One Health, because One Health has been inserted and embedded into public health agencies around the world through the grant-making process.
Basically, public health was otherwise starved.
They had no money, there weren't enough jobs for public health officials.
Very few of them are physicians, so there wasn't a lot that they could do otherwise if they didn't have an academic job.
And suddenly One Health stepped in and money started flowing, but only if you would bow down to the One Health concept.
And many, many federal agencies and agencies around the world are now dispersing funds to expand this whole One Health concept, which really isn't a concept.
It's a propagandistic term that is going to enable people like the Director General of the WHO to wrap the whole world up into their purview.
This was an article saying we've got to get One Health into the medical schools and the global health centers, and who is writing it?
Catherine Machalava, who worked for EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak's group, William Koresh, who also worked for them, Lawrence Madoff, who was one of the signatories of the letter.
to the Lancet, that Peter Daszak had ghostwritten, saying that if you say this came from China in a laboratory, you're a conspiracy theorist, you know, and you should be banned, basically.
John Amazette is also someone who works very closely with Peter Daszak, and again, more word salad.
What they find doesn't make any sense at all, but it's a lot of flowery words, and you can sort of tell But this is some sort of globalist baloney by the lack of meaning embedded in these words.
They also want to send it into primary schools and middle schools and high schools, unfortunately.
And, okay, health and climate have been joined at the hip by the World Economic Forum, by UN agencies, by the WHO, by Peter Daszak, by Tony Fauci. by the WHO, by Peter Daszak, by Tony Fauci.
And so now pandemics are a result of climate change.
And it's our fault.
It's the people of the Earth's fault that we have pandemics.
According to this UN's environmental chief, nature is sending us a message and it's our fault again.
We have these environmental destruction and wildlife are going away.
It's all our fault.
Peter Daszak was quoted in the Telegraph, a UK newspaper, saying, we may be creating a perfect storm It isn't a blame game or about politics.
It's much more important.
This is about how do we as a species deal with what is potentially an existential threat to our existence.
So what can I say?
Peter Daszak was quite the He was the Henny Penny of the pandemic early on.
He was the person you got to speak on your podcast, your TV show.
He was all over the place, telling us that pandemics, hurricanes, wildfires, recessions, etc.
It's all our fault, and we have to live in more harmony with nature.
Isn't that great?
So, One Health was initially about diseases that spread between animals and humans, and then they added plants and ecosystems, and now it's about food security.
It's also about mental health and about environmental pollution and many other things.
And here is a poster from the One Health Commission that says, One Health is our ray of hope for addressing global challenges.
We don't know what it is, but it's a ray of hope.
And this also from the One Health Commission, One Health involves all these other things, economics, trade, the human animal bond, occupational health, soil health, water safety, you know, you name it, disaster preparedness and One Health is on it.
Oops.
So the United States, unfortunately, has already passed a law which was embedded in the Defense Authorization Act last December, a year ago, that says we will advance One Health.
So it's already part of U.S.
law.
And that National Defense Authorization Act says we will comply.
The U.S.
will comply with a global health security agenda.
We will fund Gavi, which is a Bill Gates NGO to push vaccines on the whole world.
We'll be part of an early warning network for pandemics, even though we've tried several in the U.S.
None of them have worked.
You know, this is a very bad law and it needs to be revoked.
All right, let me move to the United Nations.
United Nations is also trying to get in the act of taking over the world, giving us some global governance.
And it has created, in the last year, it's published 11 different platform brochures that tell us what the future will be like for us in all these areas.
One of them is about global shocks and how the UN needs to step in and start managing global shocks for us.
And the UN wants not only the ability to manage them, but it wants the standing authority to do so and to automatically operationalize An emergency platform for global shocks.
In other words, it doesn't want to ask the nations that are members of the UN permission.
It wants to define the global shocks and then tell us what to do when they occur.
So what are the global shocks they mentioned in their brochure?
These are seven of them.
Note that the last is a black swan event, which means they can call a global shock for anything.
And.
What are the objectives of the UN's emergency platform?
And these are what they claim are the objectives.
If you look carefully, you'll see none of these are really objectives.
These are mechanisms, methods, by which they claim they're going to solve problems.
Equity and solidarity, how can that be an objective?
But the number six is probably the most important.
They want to secure commitments, which means financial commitments, and commitments for accountability.
They want the nations to promise they will obey.
Okay, a little bit more on the who.
So this is from Kaiser Family Foundation.
Actually, a few months ago, the WHO increased the dues that they were charging their member nations by 20%.
So now about 15 to 16% of their budget will come from dues.
The rest will come from special interests who are voluntarily giving them money.
To almost completely carry out projects that are specified.
So the WHO has very little say in how it's approximately $4 billion a year gets spent.
Instead, it does the bidding of its contributors.
So these are the people who give 85% of the budget.
When Trump ceased paying for the WHO in 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other Bill Gates organizations such as GAVI and CEPI were the top funder of the WHO.
Two documents, two new documents have been proposed by the WHO to enable it to manage pandemics globally.
The first document is massive amendments to the existing international health regulations.
Um, which have been recommendations up till now, they didn't really give countries orders apart from asking them to report on certain diseases that occurred, you know, within their jurisdiction.
The other is a pandemic treaty and both of these documents are being turned into governance documents.
So they will give orders to nations and the nations will be required to obey.
They will become binding.
I wrote dual surveillance.
It's actually triple surveillance.
They will surveil Your nose, your wastewater, your animals and wild animals and livestock for potential viruses or other potential pandemic pathogens.
They will perform surveillance.
They demand that nations perform surveillance of your social media and only push out the one WHO public health narrative.
And they require surveillance of your hospital and medical records as well, which, as you saw earlier, the Biden administration demands be shared.
Potential pandemic pathogens is another word for biological warfare agents.
Nations are required to go find them and then share them with the WHO, which will share them globally.
That is actually forbidden by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and by a UN Security Council Resolution 1540 from 2004.
But both of those existing international law rules or laws are being ignored by the WHO, WHO, which pretends they don't exist and demands proliferation of biological weapons.
And requires nations to set up genomics laboratories to decode the genomes of viruses and maybe of us and share those as well.
There is to be very rapid development and production of vaccines.
Although it doesn't say so in either of these two documents, it says in other documents that have been put out by the European Union, the US and the G20, that they're calling for vaccines to be developed in 100 days and manufactured for the entire country in 130 days.
Of course, there will be no liability attached to these products.
There can't be.
So we will be on our own, probably.
Also, the treaty asks us to give a blank check to the WHO, which will create a conference of parties and a new directorate to manage all of this, but we don't know what they will do, what their rules are, any of that.
And of course, the WHO budget would jump considerably.
Now, the problem for the WHO is that they've never really succeeded at anything, and they're widely thought to be a corrupt organization with a lot of nepotism and other problems.
So when we had the Ebola epidemic in 2014, WHO was a failure.
And when it was the number two largest Ebola epidemic in world history, which happened in 2018 and 19, it failed again in exactly the same way.
And in fact, worse, because there were 300 attacks on health workers by the local people during that epidemic.
And why was that?
It was because Well, let me give you this first.
It took 9 and 11 months to declare a pandemic, but the approach that the WHO took was security-based, emphasizing compliance and punishment of the local civilians, and probably trying to corral them into a small area rather than allowing them to escape, allowing them to do the things they thought would be helpful.
And in fact, the death rate was 66%, despite the fact that Ebola vaccines were used during that epidemic, and these were Zaire Ebola, the supposedly, you know, the correct strain.
The other thing about the W.H.O.
is it has no ability to control its employees, so that over the last year, the W.H.O.
had had to investigate 287 allegations of sexual misconduct by its staff.
And then there was another scandal when the W.H.O.
allowed the supervisors of these people to come back to work with no penalties.
I'll leave this alone.
This just tells you that I actually did investigate an epidemic and was able to show it was due to biological warfare, and I did that 31 years ago.
So what I want to tell you is that biological warfare is not only something that happens to people, but it can be used against animals and plants, and has been, and it's The reason why biological warfare is used is because generally you cannot identify that an actual act, an offensive act, or an act of war has taken place.
It works very well for low-intensity warfare, economic warfare, and probably for controlling people.
I'm going to start telling you about African swine fever.
So the African swine fever is just now, just three months, not even three months ago, it just started to be found in Sweden where it had never been identified before in the wild boars or pigs.
But turns out, Fever actually is something that's been used for biological warfare.
This article was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Newsday and possibly the Washington Post in 1997 because there were whistleblowers talking about how they had worked for the CIA and brought this virus to Cuba, where Cuba had to kill something like half a million pigs.
And pigs are the main source of protein for people in Cuba.
So this map shows you where cases of African swine fever have been identified up until August of 2020.
It comes from the UK government.
The purple dots are wild pigs and the red dots are farmed pigs.
You can see that it's fairly extensive and the Method of managing this disease, which is a very old method, it was used in Cuba over 50 years ago, was that you basically killed all the pigs within a certain radius of the affected pig in order to stop it from spreading.
So that is what is still generally done.
However, as we know, viruses mutate.
And so it turns out that at the present time, African swine fever has relatively low contagiousness, in contrast to the old African swine fever.
And the disease develops slowly in the animals.
It doesn't cause a bunch of animals to kill over all at once.
But we're still controlling the disease in most areas in most of Europe and the US, based on the assumption that it's highly contagious, has a high mortality.
And this is the only thing that can be done.
It turns out that if you cook the meat, I mean that it's not contagious to humans, and it doesn't make you sick if you eat an infected animal.
So it's really not nearly as big a deal as one might think.
But nobody's telling us that.
China had a huge outbreak starting in, I think, 2019 or 2018.
And they had to kill half their pigs, which cost them $100 billion, which was almost 1% of their GDP that year.
So the thing is that you have to look at what the disease is like now and figure out how bad the risks are and what is the right way to manage it, rather than using old methods that were perhaps appropriate rather than using old methods that were perhaps appropriate for conditions many decades ago.
You can't possibly get rid of African swine fever in Europe if it's in the wild boar population.
So what are you going to do?
You have to figure out what is the risk to humans, which is basically nil, and do you need to kill all the pigs within a certain radius or not?
Can the meat be eaten?
Because no doubt that meat is probably being eaten.
When pigs are being slaughtered in Africa, for example, as happened when animals died of anthrax, the meat got eaten in Zimbabwe.
So what are the risks and what's the sensible way to approach this?
But right now, Sweden is looking at a potentially very expensive disaster.
And as I said, China dealt with it in such a way that it cost 1% of GDP.
Avian flu is a similar situation.
So avian flu, when it appeared 20 years ago, When it, which it rarely did, was transferred to humans, so when there was spillover, and there were only, again, 461 people who have been killed by avian influenza in 20 years, so that's less than 25 per year on average.
When that happened, All the chickens in a farm would be killed.
And that made sense, because it was a disease that killed people.
So maybe it made sense.
But guess what?
Avian influenza, too, has mutated, and it no longer kills people.
Or it kills them extraordinarily rarely.
So that in the United States, over 100 million chickens have been culled in the last couple of years because a test showed that a chicken in a particular farm was positive for avian influenza.
So the whole chicken house or the whole farm had to be destroyed.
Nobody, no humans that were involved with any of those callings.
Think of it, 100 million chickens.
Think of all the people that would be involved.
Nobody got sick.
Nobody died.
Nobody in the U.S.
has ever died from avian flu or bird flu.
And yet, here, two weeks ago, the WHO was scaring us that two people had come down with bird flu, and one, who was a small child, had died, apparently.
So, one death associated with bird flu, and the WHO is sending out an international warning.
Now, the thing about bird flu is that it's in the wild bird population now, so you cannot eradicate it unless you grow all your chickens indoors and never let them out, which I wouldn't recommend.
And therefore, you can eat the meat from the chickens.
It won't make you sick.
It's already in the wild bird population.
And you can't eradicate it.
So what should our strategy be?
But what we're doing is culling many, many, many chickens with no evidence that anything different is going to be done.
Now this guy, it was a co-discoverer of the original bird flu.
Hyped it into a major catastrophe, which, as I said, it wasn't since we've averaged 25 people per year dying from it.
He's still frightening us.
He's still telling us that bird flu is going to be a terrible calamity, despite the facts, which he doesn't tell us.
He has been moved from the Wellcome Trust's Director to the WHO's Chief Scientist.
He, as the Wellcome Director, paid for and supported the WHO and the UK's clinical trials, which overdosed people on way more hydroxychloroquine than they could tolerate.
And many people, at least 500 people, died in those trials.
And he is most famous now for managing the COVID origins cover-up on the call with Tony Fauci.
Why is the global biosecurity agenda so important to the international power elites?
And the answer is multiple.
So it gives them an excuse to borrow a lot of money, spend it on products that profit their friends, and helps the bank to earn huge commissions.
They use it to justify surveillance of our noses, our medical records, et cetera, and probably even our genomes.
They use it as an excuse to require vaccine passports, which will lead to digital passports, which will lead to digital IDs and digital money.
They want to control our spending and know what we're spending money on.
It also gives them a reason to interfere with agricultural activities and control the food supply.
It potentially will enable them to move populations in order to protect biodiversity and ecosystems and to impose massive surveillance, censorship and enforcement of a single narrative on us for censorship and enforcement of a single narrative on us for ultimate control.
There were only three pandemics during the 20th century.
Most people didn't notice the last two, which were both flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968.
And there was, of course, the 2018 pandemic.
And it's not clear why people died, what was going on there.
There are a lot of different theories, and unfortunately Tony Fauci's group, NIAID, has published a lot on it, which I suspect was to muddy the waters, so I'm not sure the cause.
But in any event, there's no reason to think now that we have antiviral drugs, antibacterial drugs, ICUs, IV fluids, and the rest, that 1918 is going to happen again.
However, we're only 23 years into the 21st century and we've already had at least seven pandemics declared.
Pandemics are good business and they increase the power and authority of the W.H.O.
as well as our individual government leaders.
So, this book just came out a week ago and it is A very, very interesting book, and anyone who's interested in the subject of what's really happened over the last four years, and what led up to it, and what are we going to be facing in the future with pandemics, gain-of-function research, and biological weapons needs to have a copy of this book.
Bobby Kennedy intended to write a fairly encyclopedic Chronology of what has been going on.
Who are the players?
What did they do?
But he also, much better than the Fauci book that he wrote, this is more of a page turn.
It's easier to read and very interesting.
Anyone who's lost family or friends or knows people who have been injured, you need to read this and find out what's going on.
And I want to remind people that we're not, I mean you all know, but we're not over this.
The masks have come back in some areas.
Rochelle Walensky admitted that they were planning to bring the masks back whenever they wanted.
The pandemic restrictions are out there, ready to be used.
We have not gotten rid of the laws and regulations that enabled our governments to restrict us the way they had, and so much needs to be done.
What can you do to stop federal and global overreach?
So here's just a few things.
The 10th Amendment says, actually, that things that are not mentioned in the Constitution do not come under federal authority.
They come under the authority of the states.
And that includes education and health care.
So states can assert the fact that they have authority over health care.
And that the federal government cannot turn that authority over to the WHO, nor can it impose health care mandates and other things on the citizens of that state.
So we need to work at the state level on this and get our governors and attorney generals issuing opinions about what the feds can and can't do.
HR 79 is a bill by Andy Biggs.
There are 53 co-sponsors to exit and defund the WHO.
Consider talking to your representative about co-sponsoring and or voting for that bill.
One bill has already passed.
It was the Foreign Operations Bill and it actually defunded the WHO for next year.
So the WHO If this bill passes in the Senate, and if Joe Biden signs it, which are two big ifs, we'll defund the who, and we'll defund John Kerry's climate sinecure, etc.
There are other bills that require the Senate to ratify the International Health Regulation Amendments and the Pandemic Treaty.
Both of those are coming up for a vote at the WHO in May.
And we've already been told at a House hearing two, three days ago that they were not planning on asking the Senate to look them over.
But Congress has the right to demand that the Senate does advise and consent on these two treaties.
It is possible for nations, any nation can add reservations to the treaties it has signed with the WHO.
There can be more hearings and Congressman Chip Roy and Chris Smith both head up committees that could call hearings and I would really urge you if you are in either of their districts to please beg them to hold a hearing on the WHO amendments and pandemic treaty and what the WHO is doing and One Health and the rest.
Obviously you don't want to comply We're not going to win unless we can eventually get good people in office, and that's going to require paper ballots.
And we should realize that there are low tech ways of defeating the high tech measures that are being employed to control us in future.
So the sensors.
Can be defeated.
The visual sensors, the cameras that watch where you're going, or the sensors on these Boston Scientific robot dogs can be made useless simply by spray painting them.
So you have to realize there are many ways that we can fight back.
I founded an organization called Door to Freedom that was Intended to educate people about what's going on at the WHO, let them read the documents for themselves.
We've collected them all in one place.
We have very, very brief two-minute summaries of what's going on there, what all the different parts of the Great Reset are about, vaccine passports, et cetera.
And then we have long, detailed articles that we and others have written.
And we've created a series of handouts about the WHO, the pandemic treaty, pandemic preparedness, et cetera, that you can get and that are now being used in a number of countries which have been translated.
And I've given you several websites, the Sovereignty Coalition that Door to Freedom and Children's Health Defense have joined with to spread this information.
We've also done briefings for Congress.
I have been doing monthly TV shows with James Corbett for Children's Health Defense, and they're also on his site and on my sub stack, where we talk about what's going on with the WHO with these documents and the Great Reset.
And finally, there is a very long but very interesting article that I wrote to educate people at this Door to Freedom site, which shows you how if we go along with the WHO's agenda to keep going out and finding potential pandemic pathogens, we're going to get a lot more pandemics than we've ever had before.
And it's very critical that we stop that.
So, Thank you very much.
Wonderful!
So let me... I'm back!
So, Merle, thank you so much.
That was absolutely riveting, and people can find out more about you where?
Is that at your Substack, and they can get to all these documents?
Through that?
Is that correct?
Well, the best place to really learn about the WHO, One Health, etc., is the doortofreedom.org website, which is a real website, so you don't have to go chronologically like you do in a Substack.
But yes, I have a Substack, and I'm also on a lot of shows on children's health defense.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate it.
And everyone, we'll be back in just a few minutes with our Q&A session and standbys.
We'll be back in a few minutes.
▲
Export Selection