Juno News - June 08, 2023


What is the World Health Organization planning？ (Ft. Dr. David Bell)


Episode Stats

Length

59 minutes

Words per Minute

155.0549

Word Count

9,236

Sentence Count

486


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hi everybody, welcome back to the show. Thanks once again for tuning in. Today I'm joined by
00:00:24.920 Dr. David Bell. He's a senior scholar at Brownstone Institute and he's a public health physician
00:00:30.580 and a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization. He joins me today
00:00:36.860 to talk about the World Health Organization's proposed global pandemic preparedness architecture
00:00:43.660 and what that means for a country's sovereignty. So please welcome David to the show. David,
00:00:49.940 welcome to the show. It's great to have you here with me. I'm a big fan of your work and I've read
00:00:56.480 several of your recent pieces about the World Health Organization, which is where I want to start. I
00:01:04.680 want to start by asking you about your piece in The Daily Skeptic that the World Health Organization's
00:01:12.820 draft legal instruments would, quote, fundamentally change the relationship between the World Health
00:01:18.540 Organization, its member states, and their populations, promoting what you say can be
00:01:24.440 described as a fascist and neocolonialist approach to health care and governance. Now, end quote. Now I
00:01:32.140 would, you know, when, when, when, you know, people like Leslie Lewis, the politician, the conservative
00:01:38.900 politician say this, she's branded as a conspiracy theorist and, and it's not just her, but several,
00:01:45.600 you know, others who pointed this out say, oh, this is, this is just a conspiracy theory. There's
00:01:51.180 no such thing. Could you expand on this? Could you explain your concerns about this proposed global
00:01:57.240 pandemic preparedness architecture? Yeah, thanks Rupert. Yeah, it is difficult to talk about because
00:02:04.880 of that. I mean, I actually think we've been sort of trained or programmed almost to think, you know,
00:02:12.160 conspiracy theorists, therefore don't listen to that person. I used to be like that all the time.
00:02:18.620 Until, you know, COVID sort of opened my eyes, I think, because, you know, my background is in
00:02:23.360 infectious disease outbreaks and WHO and big philanthropy and so on. And so I could sort of see
00:02:30.280 this coming and understood there's something wrong. So then I looked a bit deeper. But yeah,
00:02:35.260 it's difficult. So the WHO was set up as a, essentially a, so it's run by countries, one
00:02:45.200 country, one sort of vote in the World Health Assembly. It came out of the aftermath of World
00:02:51.240 War II with, you know, fascism in Europe and there's decolonisation going on globally. So it sort of
00:02:58.660 started in that spirit and it was very strong on community-based care. Countries having their own
00:03:04.680 control of healthcare, et cetera. And it was funded in, you know, to a large extent in that way,
00:03:10.700 based on GDP of countries. But it's all moved to, the funders tell WHO what to do for 80% of its
00:03:18.460 funding now, either specified or thematic funding, it's called. And a large part of that funding,
00:03:24.660 a minority of it's probably 20, 25%, is private individuals or corporations. You know, the second
00:03:32.340 largest donor is Bill Melinda Gates Foundation. So it's an organisation that is instructed by its
00:03:40.940 funders, which are countries with their own self-interest and which are private individuals
00:03:46.700 with big, you know, mostly pharma or big interests in pharma and software. And we can, you can see how
00:03:56.000 it's changed in its emphasis over the last 20 years to very commodity-based, you know, pushing vaccines,
00:04:03.160 et cetera, over community care. So, you know, fine if there's a balance, there clearly isn't now.
00:04:10.040 And there are other organisations that have arisen beside it, CEPI, which is just for pandemics and
00:04:14.720 vaccination, Gavi, which is just for vaccination. So these are all commodity-based and public health has
00:04:19.720 sort of moved from the idea of people deciding on their own healthcare to people taking commodities
00:04:26.660 that are given from a central level. So what do you, what do you mean by community care in the
00:04:33.540 context? You know, how do you, how would you define community care? Well, okay, decentralisation for a
00:04:40.380 start where people and, you know, public health has to be decentralised if you're going to do it
00:04:44.540 properly because life is complex, disease is complex, populations and their behaviour are extremely
00:04:50.440 complex. And, you know, I don't know the priorities of a woman in Burkina Faso and her sick child. I don't
00:04:58.380 know the priorities of someone in Japan. But I might know that there are certain threats to their health
00:05:04.580 and I might have, you know, some expertise in malaria or in gastric cancer in Japan or something. So I can give
00:05:12.140 that person information, but they need to make the decision on how they use that in the context of
00:05:16.700 their life. And this is basic in public health. We even know that in public health that if you take
00:05:21.740 decision-making away, people are worse off. So the Whitehall studies in the UK are pivotal in, you know,
00:05:29.040 in showing this in that people who have less decision-making, less social capital, they're much,
00:05:35.480 they have shorter life expectancies for a whole range of reasons. And so, I mean,
00:05:41.800 that's leaving aside the issue of human rights and that if we are sovereign individuals,
00:05:46.760 the government should be dependent on us, not us dependent on the government. So…
00:05:50.120 Was human rights an important part of the World Health Organization's,
00:05:57.640 you know, vision when it started out, when it first came about?
00:06:03.160 It arose in that era. So there are certain things in the constitution. I mean, it's not a human rights
00:06:10.440 body, but it was from the era of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, et cetera.
00:06:15.880 Okay.
00:06:16.440 And there are various, you know, there's the Helsinki Accords and, you know, the Nuremberg
00:06:21.080 Code is well known that the WHO is supposed to agree with, which are very strong on the idea that
00:06:29.320 individuals cannot be told what to do with their health, that they have to have a choice. So,
00:06:37.640 but I mean, WHO, it's important here that it's seen as a tool of what's going on. It's not,
00:06:44.520 WHO is not trying to take over the world. WHO is being used by people who would very much like to
00:06:51.400 have that sort of power. We've seen through COVID, these same people who were pushing the agenda and
00:06:58.120 the response to COVID, which is being now has been far more harmful than COVID would have been,
00:07:04.840 even just on health, leaving aside the social consequences.
00:07:09.640 So these people have gained massively to the tune of, you know, hundreds of billions,
00:07:14.280 probably trillions of dollars, while most of the world has become impoverished.
00:07:19.000 These are the same people who have been changing this agenda in WHO and who are now pushing the
00:07:25.720 pandemic preparedness agenda that goes forward. So they are, you know, it's corporate authoritarianism,
00:07:32.120 which was one of Mussolini's definitions of fascism. That's what they're trying to do. It's the idea that
00:07:38.680 large corporations and sort of the technocratic type approaches are the best way to control
00:07:46.840 the world and to, you know, save it from itself, as I would say. And so they think that, and you can
00:07:52.920 see this in the World Economic Forum, the way it functions, that they see themselves as the repository
00:07:59.240 of knowledge and expertise, and they have a right for the rest of the world to tell the rest of the
00:08:05.960 world how to function and what to do. And so WHO has become part of this.
00:08:13.320 So let's go back to the global pandemic preparedness architecture. You've expressed some great concerns
00:08:21.240 about these amendments, legal instruments. Can you tell us what exactly, you know, is problematic here?
00:08:31.320 And yeah, let's start with that. And then I'll ask you a couple of follow-up questions from that.
00:08:36.280 Yeah. Yeah, there's two instruments. One's what they call a treaty on accord. The other one is the
00:08:43.560 the international health regulations that have been around since the 1950s in different forms.
00:08:48.760 But it's amendments to those, and they're the important ones. So the international health
00:08:53.080 regulations are supposed to help countries sort of coordinate in times of diseases crossing borders,
00:08:58.840 essentially, pandemics. And almost everything in them is voluntary. It's a recommendation.
00:09:06.040 So the main change is that that recommendation is essentially becoming mandatory. So countries
00:09:12.680 undertake to follow the recommendations. And the wording non-binding is actually crossed out in the
00:09:18.760 current amendments. So these include things that we've seen in COVID, like border closures and
00:09:25.320 mandated vaccination, mandated medical examinations, mandated testing, quarantine, etc. So incarceration of
00:09:36.840 individuals. And I mean, we saw this in an unprecedented way from national governments.
00:09:43.560 What this is doing is saying that an individual in Geneva, the Director General,
00:09:48.040 should be able to essentially mandate these, and the countries will undertake to follow.
00:09:54.920 The other thing it's doing is greatly expanding. So it doesn't, the scope, so it doesn't have to be
00:10:01.000 a demonstrated harm to health. It could be any sort of threat. And the surveillance mechanism that's
00:10:06.280 funded, particularly through the treaty mechanism, is there to find viral variants. And you know, any
00:10:13.000 nature is full of viral variants. That's how, you know, evolution works that way. We constantly,
00:10:17.320 viruses change. And any of them could, you could all a threat, and therefore you can declare an
00:10:23.960 international emergency and put these powers in place. So in reality, they're almost never a threat.
00:10:31.640 So we've had, you know, since the Spanish flu, where most people died through lack of antibiotics,
00:10:38.360 secondary infection. There's, in the 1950s, we had Hong Kong flu, in the 90s, Asian flu,
00:10:44.920 you know, killed a million people, less than tuberculosis does every year. And that's about it
00:10:50.280 until COVID. So, you know, something like SARS-1, it killed 800 people. It's, it's not even a,
00:10:58.120 barely, you know, classes as an outbreak in terms of other diseases. So this is, it's not a real threat,
00:11:07.240 unless someone is releasing viruses or allowing viruses to be released from a laboratory or
00:11:12.520 something that could be harmful. But it is from nature, we don't see this threat. And
00:11:18.280 historically, the idea that, you know, we've been told that because of habitat destruction,
00:11:23.240 there's more and more contact between humans and wildlife. And that's a threat from, you know,
00:11:28.760 coronaviruses and bats, which is, I mean, it's just silly, because when you destroy habitat,
00:11:33.800 you destroy the wildlife, they don't move into cities, they die. And, you know, we used to live
00:11:40.280 with bats in our houses all the time. Now we don't. So human-animal interaction is greatly decreased,
00:11:46.680 and there's decreasing all the time. So, you know, the, the basis of what we were being told is this
00:11:53.480 existential threat is, is false. But it's repeated over and over again, as you would if you, you know,
00:12:01.000 with these sort of totalitarian ideologies, and it's not being questioned at all in the media,
00:12:07.800 you know, that, you know, we will be assuming that these threats are getting more common,
00:12:14.360 getting more deadly, they're not, they're getting less common, they're getting less deadly. And the
00:12:19.000 risk of them is much, much lower, you know, putting aside man-made threats from a laboratory.
00:12:27.320 What if the people drafting this, these, these amendments, I know this sounds like a conspiracy
00:12:34.360 theory, but I'm going to ask this anyway, because I think it's, it's based on something you just said
00:12:41.720 a few minutes ago, which is, your assumption is that these viruses are just naturally occurring,
00:12:47.480 as they always have. But what if there is a nefarious agenda somewhere, some lab somewhere,
00:12:56.840 or some, some, some, some country is developing, let's pick on a country, North Korea, for example,
00:13:04.200 is, is, is, is doing something to that effect, and they release a virus or something very deadly into
00:13:12.520 the atmosphere. Now, that would be seen as an existential threat, it's not seen as it's, it's,
00:13:19.080 it's something that's been manufactured and released into the environment, would then in that,
00:13:24.120 in that kind of context, would a pen, a pandemic preparedness, architecture of the sort, make any sense?
00:13:32.200 Well, absolutely not, because North Korea has just been elected to the, the executive board of the WHO.
00:13:41.000 I mean, so, I mean, yes, that is a potential threat, and it has been for a long time, I guess,
00:13:48.200 since World War One, really. Yeah. You don't deal with that by handing powers to
00:13:55.160 a body that has far less expertise in your country, is far away from your population, and is instructed
00:14:02.600 by, essentially, military dictatorships, which are competitive to yours. I mean, China, for instance,
00:14:08.520 is, yes, it should be involved in the WHO, but the WHO then should not be in any position to tell
00:14:15.000 us what to do as countries. Yeah. So, same with North Korea. So, it would make no sense in that
00:14:21.240 situation to delegate any authority or decision making power to the country, to an organization
00:14:28.920 that is influenced by the country that's causing the problem. Yeah. Well, so, and you said, you said
00:14:34.600 something interesting that non-binding has been taken out of these, this amendment. You know, my
00:14:41.800 position was always, well, you know, it's an international organization, none of this is binding on any
00:14:46.920 country. How exactly would you go about enforcing this? Why would a country like North Korea agree
00:14:56.440 to this? Why would China agree to this? Or Russia, for that matter? Okay. Yeah. A few reasons. One,
00:15:04.040 they'd agree to it because they don't care and they would never intend to do what it says. So, you know,
00:15:10.360 obviously, China is not going to take instructions from the World Health Organization. It's a non-starter.
00:15:15.640 Yeah. Small countries, small, medium countries might have to because there may be sanctions
00:15:23.400 from other countries. There may be World Bank influence, IMF influence, etc. Because, I mean,
00:15:27.960 the World Bank is very involved in the pandemic preparedness agenda, etc. So, they will push this
00:15:32.520 and make it very difficult for countries not to comply. The US has legislation, the National
00:15:40.840 Defense Authorization Act 2022, that includes wording about complying with, you know, following the IHR,
00:15:48.200 supporting that, and addressing countries that don't abide by the IHR. So, it doesn't say how,
00:15:58.520 but there's a clear intent in the riders of that, that countries should be abiding by it. So,
00:16:05.320 and the top of countries is often, as we know, not, it's not the people necessary that is being
00:16:13.400 reflected. And, you know, we go back to who is funding the WHO, that, you know, the World Economic
00:16:18.760 Forum, which is a club, corporate club of a lot of these people. They have said that, Klaus Schwab,
00:16:25.240 the head of it, has said, you know, they have infiltrated cabinets. They have a very strong influence
00:16:32.120 on decision making in what we thought were Western democratic countries, and they're very open about
00:16:37.160 this and about how they do it. So, there are a lot of ways that they also, you know, the larger
00:16:46.040 members of the Investment Houses and so on, who sponsored the World Economic Forum, also own larger
00:16:51.560 shares in a lot of the large media operators, including AP Reuters and so on. So,
00:16:57.240 the, it is going to be extremely difficult if this is in place for most countries not to comply,
00:17:06.200 because, or for a politician to stand up against it because of the weight of the media, the court,
00:17:12.200 the force of, the corporate force, et cetera, the other countries that have vested interests in this.
00:17:18.280 So, you know, the WHO doesn't have a police force, but, you know, this is, we have to see this as,
00:17:23.880 again, as part of a much wider movement. You know, we see it also with, I mean, with the climate
00:17:32.520 emergency agenda, et cetera, where we have this, I mean, it's interesting because we have the same
00:17:38.920 funders behind it, the same modelers often, or same institutions doing the modeling. We have the
00:17:44.120 same sort of vilification and, you know, conspiracy theorist type labeling of
00:17:50.120 experts who disagree with the main narrative, and the same people are gaining from it, we gained from
00:17:57.160 COVID. So, you know, I think there's, we have a situation where some people in the West have gained
00:18:06.200 so much wealth and so much power, that they can now, you know, subvert and take over these agendas,
00:18:12.760 which have a legitimate basis to them often, and use that for very different interests.
00:18:20.200 Would you say that the pandemic, you know, you talked about how community care is what's relevant
00:18:27.640 here and not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach that we saw during the pandemic.
00:18:32.840 Would you say that the World Health Organization's evolution from being focused on community care to,
00:18:43.160 as you describe, essentially being like a pharmaceutical giant, right? In a sense,
00:18:51.000 selling commodities and that kind of thing. Do you find that the World Health Organization's
00:18:56.120 credibility has been shattered because of how they responded to the pandemic?
00:19:03.880 A lot, among a lot of people, but perhaps not among most, I think most people still,
00:19:11.160 it's hard to tell. I mean, a lot of people still think that the response was appropriate
00:19:18.120 and was based on public health. I mean, it clearly wasn't. We knew from the very beginning that
00:19:24.520 the tactics used would cause far more harm than good, that the average age of death was 75 to 80,
00:19:30.840 they had comorbidities. We knew this was very early 2020. So it was clear, and you know,
00:19:36.120 it's even more extreme in most of the world, lower middle-income populations. So we knew that the
00:19:42.280 response was wrong. It was very clear that WHO was doing something which would cause massive harm
00:19:48.680 and was undoing a lot of their work over the last two, three decades. But I'm not sure that most
00:19:55.000 people understand that because they are just bombarded from the main media with the same message
00:20:01.640 that there's an existential threat, pandemics are getting more, you know, more dangerous and more
00:20:07.080 frequent. And we have to let these experts save us from them. And, you know, I think there's a
00:20:15.720 discomfort, I think, generally that something is wrong, but I don't think people are really
00:20:19.640 understanding the tactics that are being used. Yeah. And how likely do you think these,
00:20:26.520 how likely is it that these instruments will end up making it to the final
00:20:33.720 document? How likely is it that they're going to pass?
00:20:36.680 Very highly likely, I think. There'll be some tweaks, you know, there's clauses where the WHO can
00:20:46.120 take intellectual property from countries and give it to competitors, etc. Those sorts of things may
00:20:52.120 come out because they may actually harm the sponsors of this as well. But by and large,
00:20:56.840 there's a huge momentum here, not from people and populations asking for this, but from the sort of
00:21:04.120 international bureaucracy that is pushing this. If you want to get a job in public health, in global
00:21:11.640 health, this is where you go now. If you stand against it, you're in a very difficult position. So
00:21:18.120 most of the people in the field will back it or say they back it because that's their
00:21:23.400 livelihood. The media is backing it. So it's very, that makes it very difficult for politicians. I think
00:21:29.800 quite a lot of politicians are realizing that something is wrong, but not enough to stop it.
00:21:37.000 I think, I mean, what may happen is that this will go through, it'll prove a disaster and people will
00:21:46.280 start, you know, defunding the WHO, getting out of it, etc. But that's going to be difficult,
00:21:51.480 and it's going to cause a lot of pain before that. I mean, my hope is that it won't go through.
00:21:58.920 My hope is that there'll be a dramatic change that some large countries will just say, you know,
00:22:04.520 their populations will tell their politicians that this is unacceptable to be corralled and used by
00:22:12.200 a health organization that has poor expertise and has nothing particularly to do with their country
00:22:16.920 in order to enrich a few. But people have to realize that first, and it's very difficult to get
00:22:23.640 that message out. And has there been that kind of pushback at all from any country?
00:22:32.920 I don't think from any country. There was a round of amendments that the US put up
00:22:41.320 in 2022, and only one of them got through, which is to shorten the period that you can opt out of these
00:22:47.560 things. But other countries push back on them. But I think that is much more likely because
00:22:54.600 there's a huge amount of money on the table here, they're talking about 10 and a half billion a year,
00:22:58.760 extra funding, etc. And in those amendments, all the funding seem to go or most of it to
00:23:04.760 high income countries and people in them. And I think other people want a slice of the cake. So
00:23:09.880 I think there's more interest in, you know, they can see this happening, the bureaucracies at the top of
00:23:18.040 health, and they want their part of it, rather than thinking this is fundamentally wrong from a public
00:23:23.960 health point of view, it's going to harm health of our populations, and therefore we should oppose it.
00:23:29.880 Yeah, I mean, one of the things that you mentioned is that the this according to this, the World Health
00:23:34.520 Organization will have the power to take away patent rights and intellectual property rights from
00:23:44.280 pharmaceutical companies who are on board with this, with this, with these amendments. So why would
00:23:52.360 they, why would they sign on to something like this? Why, why is there no pushback from that, from that
00:23:57.800 section of the, from, yeah. So, so that's what I suspect, there's bits like that that I suspect
00:24:04.360 won't get through. And, you know, it's difficult to know when this is done and, you know, how much is
00:24:09.800 intended to get through, how much is, you know, put in there so that we can call it back and make
00:24:14.600 it look like we're listening to the people. There, there was a review by a review committee of the
00:24:21.240 Director General, but it was an external review, and it's actually quite a good one looking at these,
00:24:26.840 that pointed out that some of these would be non-starters from a legal point of view within
00:24:31.080 countries. And so that couldn't happen. The, the, I mean, the amendments are put by countries,
00:24:40.360 I think it's about 15 countries put amendments. It's very difficult to know for a given amendment,
00:24:45.880 is this actually a country saying we want this? Or is this a much more powerful country using that
00:24:51.560 country as a proxy? Or is it pharmaceutical interest using that country as a proxy? It's hard to know,
00:24:57.640 you know, with every amendment where it comes from. And it's not like there's one person sitting there
00:25:02.680 writing them. So the, the, the thrust of it is very clear, but there's going to be some back and
00:25:08.760 forth on some of the details. Yeah. In, you know, in several of your writings, you've expressed concerns
00:25:16.280 about, you know, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries gaining more influence. And how, how
00:25:24.440 is that changing the, the landscape in terms of global health? You know, what, what are,
00:25:30.600 what are the potential consequences of this?
00:25:35.240 Much poorer health. So if you look at low middle income countries, for instance,
00:25:42.920 the best way to improve health, and this isn't a theory, it's well accepted, is improving access
00:25:52.120 to very basic health services. So that means just having good basic clinics with, you know,
00:25:58.840 the basic commodities, basic antibiotics, basic healthcare, maternal care, et cetera.
00:26:05.640 And it means getting access to that. So having a lot more clinics, a lot more health workers.
00:26:09.720 And no one makes a big profit out of that. It's good for the economies in these countries. It's
00:26:15.480 good for the communities. They can, the better health allows you to have a better income, et cetera.
00:26:20.840 But no, no one is going to fund the WHO lots of money to do that because, especially private funders,
00:26:28.360 because they need a return on their investment from WHO. So to get a return on investment, you need to
00:26:33.800 sell a commodity essentially, or a service. And that means, you know, you can sell vaccines, you can sell
00:26:41.480 other drugs, you can sell the diagnostics, but you, you can't sell basic primary healthcare
00:26:50.840 to make a profit, certainly for, you know, for a large company.
00:26:54.280 So essentially the funding has moved WHO in that direction. It's, it's commodity driven.
00:27:06.520 And we are now, you know, we are taught now in medical schools and so on, that vaccines have
00:27:13.240 been this massive impact on health. You know, I was taught in medical school and it's not that long ago,
00:27:20.200 it wasn't, you know, 17th century, but that, and the graphs are there that most of the improvement
00:27:29.480 in say more developed countries, you know, higher income countries occurred through sanitation,
00:27:35.640 better living conditions, better nutrition, and even diseases like measles, they came down very low
00:27:41.880 mortality before vaccines came in. So vaccines have been important in a lot of these diseases in
00:27:48.440 getting the, you know, getting them a little bit further. So we've got 95% down, it gets another 3% down.
00:27:54.440 But they haven't been the main reason for the improvement in life expectancy in wealthier countries.
00:28:01.640 And the same, you know, people die in low income countries because of diseases of malnutrition,
00:28:08.600 diseases of neglect, etc. And vaccines will help a little bit, but you will make far more improvement
00:28:15.320 by improving nutrition and improving sanitation, improving living conditions. And again,
00:28:20.840 so, you know, this is not a new idea in public health, but it is something that we've moved away
00:28:25.960 from because public health is now funded by people who will benefit from a very different approach.
00:28:33.080 Yeah. I want to talk about this World Bank fund, which is now tied to the World Health Organization.
00:28:44.600 And you've, I think you've expressed concerns that this fund would compromise the World Health
00:28:51.960 Organization's autonomy. Could you explain to us what you mean by that?
00:28:57.720 Yeah, I haven't said that, that there's, the World Bank's got a financial intermediary fund, FIF,
00:29:02.840 which, yeah, so it's essentially a parallel track to the, and this comes back to the World Health
00:29:08.840 Organization's not running the agenda here. They're a tool of bigger players. Yeah.
00:29:14.120 The World Bank is a tool, it appears, of bigger players as well. And, you know, we just saw
00:29:18.440 the leadership of the World Bank change because the previous director, CEO, whatever, he accidentally
00:29:26.760 put some common sense on climate, which didn't go down very well. So now we have another one. And
00:29:36.200 so, you know, who makes a decision on who is the head of the World Bank and what they're allowed to
00:29:42.040 say is very similar to, I think, who, you know, who is directing the WHO. So the WHO would be a technical
00:29:51.320 partner, a technical lead on that World Bank financial intermediary fund. It's just more money
00:29:57.240 for this agenda, more money for surveillance so that they can find threats, so that they can lock
00:30:02.280 down countries. They'll have a hundred day vaccine from CEPI. The hundred day vaccine will be touted as,
00:30:09.080 this is the way out of the lockdown that we just imposed on you, so that you can get your life
00:30:13.400 back together and see your grandma in the nursing home. And therefore you have the vaccine and then,
00:30:19.320 you know, you'll be given a little bit of freedom again until the surveillance finds a few months later
00:30:26.120 the next threat and they lock you down with another hundred day vaccine. So the WHO is part of this,
00:30:34.440 the World Bank is part of this, you know, the World Economic Forum is very strong in pushing this
00:30:39.800 agenda. The UN is talking about this sort of emergency thing as well. So it's, you know, it's a
00:30:49.720 movement. We need to address what's happening at the WHO, but we need to see that this is a much
00:30:55.640 bigger movement, which in a way isn't surprising. You know, people have got a small group of people got
00:31:00.920 extremely rich proportion to everyone else. They use, they will use that as any human, you know,
00:31:07.320 most humans would unfortunately, because we're often driven by greed, to control the agenda so
00:31:13.800 they can get even richer. So is that what is at play here? Because that was going to be one of my
00:31:18.840 questions for you. I mean, what is the objective here? Why, why is the World Health Organization being
00:31:25.480 used as a tool to, you know, to, to pursue this? I mean, what exactly is the end game here
00:31:32.840 as far as someone like a Bill Gates, the Gates Foundation is concerned?
00:31:39.000 So it's hard to know for sure, isn't it? And there's, I'm sure there's not one agenda. I'm sure
00:31:44.840 that people who are gaining from this and pushing the agenda have different interests. I think one is
00:31:51.880 just a business deal. And you have Vanguard and BlackRock, State Street, etc, who are invested in
00:31:57.960 these pharmaceutical companies that are heavily invested in the media, they're heavily invested
00:32:02.200 in software, etc. They're the biggest shareholders in all of those categories. So to them, using them
00:32:09.160 together to control the agenda and extract more money from people, which is what happened in COVID,
00:32:17.160 this plan, you know, is the basis of the pandemic preparedness agenda. That is in their interest.
00:32:23.320 That's their job for their shareholders. Their job is to maximize returns on all their portfolio of
00:32:31.160 investments. So they're doing that. You know, you have to put aside morals and human rights. I mean,
00:32:39.960 they don't, they're not really tied to national borders. So they don't have a problem with, you know,
00:32:44.920 one country versus another. So if you're sort of amoral in your approach to business, then they're
00:32:52.120 doing the logical, rational thing. I think some, you know, some people maybe just have a bit of a,
00:33:01.560 you know, desperate need for self-fulfillment by controlling other people. I don't know. And
00:33:08.680 the richer you get, the more sort of away from
00:33:14.920 basic values of life you get, maybe you get more and more susceptible to that.
00:33:18.920 Yeah.
00:33:19.800 Now, I don't think, you know, people talk about, you know, trying to decrease population,
00:33:24.440 that sort of thing. I'm sure a lot of people there would like the world to have,
00:33:28.840 they think the world would be better off with less population. I mean, they say that.
00:33:32.600 That's very different from killing people to get there. And I can't see that. But I can see that
00:33:39.640 they don't care much. For instance, with the mRNA vaccines, they don't care very much if people,
00:33:46.440 if there are a lot of side effects and, you know, there are some consequences. And I think some of
00:33:51.080 these people think that they're doing good in doing that. So, you know, they think that they're the
00:33:57.800 repository of knowledge and expertise. And they have the right, therefore, because they're smarter
00:34:04.840 and they're better, that they have the right to tell other people how they should live for these
00:34:10.840 other people's good. And, you know, again, we get back to sort of fascist approaches to life. And,
00:34:17.480 you know, you sacrifice some or you vilify or degrade some, et cetera, for the greater good,
00:34:24.440 or what they perceive as a greater good.
00:34:26.200 You know, you mentioned earlier that, according to this new architecture, you know, we're kind of in
00:34:33.880 this constant game of trying to identify new variants.
00:34:38.920 I mean, one purpose, I mean, an important purpose is to identify variants so as to or viruses or
00:34:54.520 anything out there. So you can effectively deal with it. So how do you, you know,
00:35:01.640 how do you strike this balance while ensuring, you know, while ensuring effective responses to
00:35:09.640 an emerging health threat, for example?
00:35:12.040 Yeah. So one way is to look at disease burdens. And we normally do that in life years lost. So
00:35:19.240 if a child, you know, 95% of malaria deaths are under five years of age, they're young children.
00:35:24.360 They, each of those children loses, you know, 70 years of life. The average person who died from
00:35:30.600 COVID, so in Canada, was I think about 83 or 85 or something. And they're already sick.
00:35:36.360 So they probably lost six months of life on average, something like that. Maybe a year,
00:35:41.000 but probably not because they're already quite sick, most people. So in, you know,
00:35:46.440 if you look at that, and we say COVID is one of the worst ones you've had for a long time,
00:35:50.120 which we're being told, that doesn't compare with most of the other diseases we deal with.
00:35:55.880 And this is why I think early in COVID, we just got mortality numbers, mortality numbers.
00:36:01.080 It was never age, it was never life years lost or disease burden, as we used to describe.
00:36:05.720 Yeah, it would be 2020. And so yeah, so we, you know, it's, um,
00:36:15.160 so I'm losing my thread here, Rupert.
00:36:16.600 I know, it's okay. Take your time.
00:36:21.160 Yeah, I think, um,
00:36:25.720 sorry, ask the question again.
00:36:27.960 Yeah, no, it's, um, you know, how do you strike this balance between finding new variants and viruses
00:36:35.320 and, uh, um, and, and, and also being able to effectively deal with, um, emerging, uh, uh,
00:36:43.320 health threats?
00:36:43.960 Yeah. So if you're going to spend 10 billion, 10 and a half billion dollars extra on trying to find these
00:36:48.680 viruses, and you're only spending three and a half billion a year total in the whole world on malaria.
00:36:54.360 Yeah. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Yeah. Or tuberculosis kills one and a half,
00:36:59.080 1.6 million people a year. It's going up, getting worse at the moment.
00:37:03.080 We spend about the same on that. I mean, it's a few billion rather than 10 and a half.
00:37:07.640 So firstly, it makes no sense to spend this amount of money on this problem.
00:37:12.520 Um, but secondly, what are you then going to do? So it's pretty clear that none of the
00:37:21.800 measures against COVID, um, certainly not lockdowns and, you know, these stupid, um,
00:37:31.240 you know, business closes or, um, perfumes, et cetera, um, helped. And it's clear that closing
00:37:39.320 scores didn't help. It's clear that masks didn't help. Yeah. Certainly not measurably. And it's,
00:37:46.200 there's pretty good evidence. So certainly if you look at all cause mortality, the vaccine hasn't
00:37:50.840 helped either. So none of these things helped. So what are you going to do with, uh, an aerosolized
00:37:59.080 respiratory virus? There's very little you can do, uh, except encourage people to be fit and healthy
00:38:06.280 and to live more normal lives and improve their innate immune spots, which is the opposite of
00:38:12.760 what you do if you shut people down and keep them out of parks and keep them out of gyms.
00:38:17.640 So, I mean, one thing you can do for pandemic preparedness is to have a fit and healthy population
00:38:23.400 and to emphasize that. Um, but even then you also have to decide, you know, what is important in life.
00:38:33.640 And this comes back to this whole thing that is going on and the other, you know, what else is driving
00:38:38.920 these people? Um, you know, is avoiding death, you know, even living another year from 80 to 81,
00:38:50.440 is that the most important thing in our existence?
00:38:56.120 So, you know, how many of these old people who died in nursing homes after not seeing their family
00:39:01.640 for a year, how many of them would have rather die, you know, taken the risk of dying months and months
00:39:07.720 earlier, but seeing their grandchildren a few more times. And I will guess most of them probably,
00:39:16.360 but you know, different people have different values and that's why they have to make their own decisions.
00:39:21.240 But we are being told that everything, everything about life is centered on avoiding dying.
00:39:30.280 Hmm. Well, we're not giving away of doing that. We've seen, of course, mortality increase over the
00:39:35.640 last two, three years, you know, after COVID has gone down, probably as a result of, um,
00:39:42.840 the lockdowns and so on and the harm that they did and perhaps some vaccine injury as well.
00:39:47.560 But we, we're seeing mortality increase. So the response has been really poor. So, you know,
00:39:53.160 what are you paying for when you do this?
00:39:57.240 Well, I, that's a very interesting point you raised because a few months ago, I, um, I had, um,
00:40:03.720 Thomas Fauci, Fauci, uh, on my show, um, the author, co-author of a book called COVID Consensus.
00:40:11.640 And, uh, his book makes a very similar point that, uh, death, um, is, you know, such a normal part of
00:40:19.880 people's lives in the rest of the world, except in the West. And, you know, and this was the first
00:40:26.200 time, I suppose that we came so close to, I mean, it was just all around us in a, in a sense, or at
00:40:32.680 least that was the perception that one had.
00:40:35.160 There was a perception, um, but it wasn't true, was it?
00:40:39.480 Yeah.
00:40:39.800 It wasn't people dying in the street. It wasn't the black death.
00:40:42.280 Well, let me, let me push you, uh, I mean, uh, push, push back a little, um, on that.
00:40:50.520 So how do you then explain Italy? For example, I remember that when, when Italy went into a lockdown
00:40:56.920 and then you heard these minute by minute, uh, breaking news, uh, reports, uh, on social media that,
00:41:05.320 you know, 500 people have died today in Italy, 700 people. Now it's up to 600. And now,
00:41:11.000 now it's up to 700 every day, like, like seven, 800 people were dying. Uh, in Italy, you saw people,
00:41:18.120 you, you know, and there were, uh, you could, you could hear ambulances in the background. You
00:41:22.440 could hear sirens going off. What was that all about?
00:41:27.560 And the media are good at that. Um, so it's easier to show a line of ambulances at a hospital.
00:41:33.160 You can do that almost any time of year, if you've got the right place at the right time.
00:41:37.000 The, so Italy was interesting, Northern Italy. So there was a, a very steep increase in mortality
00:41:43.320 in these municipalities, and then a very steep decrease. Sometimes it's happened in one
00:41:47.560 municipality, but mortality was normal in the other one. So somehow it wasn't crossing the border,
00:41:53.480 arbitrary border between them. Yeah. And it started with lockdowns. There wasn't a huge mortality and
00:42:00.280 then they locked down. They got a couple of cases, they locked down and then the mortality went up.
00:42:05.240 So it's suspicious that at least a large part of this was due to the measures that were taken. So,
00:42:16.200 um, you know, if you get a frail elderly person with a respiratory virus infection
00:42:24.920 and you put them on a ventilator, you paralyze them, you put them on a ventilator. You don't
00:42:30.040 let anyone in the room, you do barrier nursing. So they're not being regularly turned. They're not
00:42:34.360 getting chest physio. You're not getting them to ambulate because they're paralyzed on the bed.
00:42:38.840 Then there's a very high probability that they would die. And this is just basic medicine.
00:42:42.840 It's basic care. We know that this is why we have chest physio. This is why we encourage elderly
00:42:48.520 people to ambulate and be active as possible because they need to, you know, keep their lungs
00:42:54.520 clear and they, you need to avoid bed sores and all these other problems of inactive elderly people. So
00:43:01.800 in, you know, ventilator associated infections are very common if you put a tube down
00:43:06.920 a person who's already immunocompromised. So
00:43:12.440 we know in New York, for instance, Northwell Health published in, I think it was about June,
00:43:17.480 they published the data from, you know, what happened in New York and
00:43:21.080 85, 90% of the people who were intubated died.
00:43:24.280 Yes. Ventilators played a very big role in early. In fact, there were these scientific papers that came
00:43:34.200 out. I remember just reading this, revisiting this last week because it seems like one of these issues
00:43:42.040 that's just completely disappeared from the conversation. There were these papers that were
00:43:49.080 the scientists making a very strong case for why aggressive early ventilation was necessary to
00:43:56.360 prevent the disease from progressing from mild to severe. And so, you know, pretty much everybody
00:44:05.400 who went to the hospital, I suppose, went on the ventilator. You know, I really wonder, like,
00:44:11.480 where is the accountability here? Like, I mean, where? Some of this was panic, I think. And you
00:44:19.080 can't blame people for panic when everyone's panicking. You know, you've got the governor of
00:44:22.360 New York jumping up and down screaming for more ventilators, or everyone's going to die, etc.
00:44:29.480 So, but yeah, I mean, but what you should do in these situations, by and large, you know,
00:44:36.280 generally is positive air pressure ventilation, which, you know, so you put a mask on with a bit of
00:44:40.920 positive pressure, keeps the lungs inflated, etc. And that's pretty normal. That's what they
00:44:46.840 eventually moved to, for most cases. But what, you know, why they didn't do that first up when we
00:44:53.480 know this is based, and another reason for the ventilation was put very early on was to protect
00:44:58.120 other staff. And, you know, we, but we knew in March, it was published in the Lancet in March,
00:45:06.040 that almost no one in the age group of the people who were looking after these patients
00:45:11.160 was going to die of COVID. So we knew that from China, it was the
00:45:17.960 two of college published it. So, you know, they were minimal risk. And as soon as they had COVID,
00:45:23.320 there were almost no risk, because as we know, and as we've shown over and over again,
00:45:29.000 post infection immunity is very, very strong. And the Greeks knew this back, what, 450 BC or
00:45:35.880 whatever in the Athenian plague. Yeah. Well, you know, to that, so two questions for you. One,
00:45:43.640 we were told, look, COVID is not like any other, every other respiratory virus out there or any or
00:45:50.600 every other respiratory virus that we've dealt with over the decades. And so it's a very different virus,
00:45:57.560 it does all of these crazy things to your body, no one is immune from it, it, you know, it affects
00:46:04.040 everybody. And so you better take precautions. And I had a second question, but I have brain fog,
00:46:14.040 maybe because of COVID long COVID or whatever it is that I have. And so, you know, we Oh, yes,
00:46:21.800 yes. So I remember doing Delta, I remember, you know, here in Ottawa, a doctor told me, look,
00:46:31.400 you know, Rupa, you got to be very, very careful. I see I'm seeing lots of young people show up at
00:46:37.240 the hospitals. A lot of young people have been admitted. So So the two things so so one, one,
00:46:45.240 the fact that, you know, young people were largely immune from this, or not or would be safe from
00:46:52.680 COVID. Yeah, that was that, you know, and then I started questioning that. And then of course,
00:47:00.760 I don't have expertise to, to, you know, to, you know, that where I can say that COVID is somehow less
00:47:08.760 severe than every other respiratory virus out there. So you know, I kind of had to accept what was being said
00:47:13.880 to me. I mean, what, what, what exactly was going on there?
00:47:19.720 I know. So it's, you know, it's not less severe than every other virus. It there are characteristics
00:47:25.400 around COVID. There's, you know, the loss of smell is unusual in other viruses, but very common with,
00:47:33.640 with COVID. So it does seem to affect people differently than other viruses.
00:47:38.120 that it appears that there was a more severe lower respiratory tractal lung pathology in
00:47:47.960 particularly elderly sick people. You know, it's hard to know how much of this is ventilator related
00:47:55.480 and so on as well. But it appears that there was a slightly unusual sort of, you know, fluid on the
00:48:03.240 lungs, interstitial edema. So this grand grass appearance on x-ray before people intubated. So
00:48:11.000 normally, coronaviruses are upper respiratory tract. It seemed to be affected lower more,
00:48:15.080 and that's probably related to the ACE inhibitors, which are common in the lungs,
00:48:20.360 it binds to. So it is, you know, a different disease than we had seen before, but not that different.
00:48:26.840 Yeah. You know, we knew that, as I said, that very early on, that it was almost exclusively old
00:48:35.400 people that were going to get sick old people who were going to get severe ill.
00:48:38.920 And, you know, just because it's slightly different, you lose smell, there's a little bit more lower
00:48:48.280 lung pathology. That doesn't mean you throw away 100 years of learning on how to deal with that problem
00:48:55.640 from zero, which we seem to do. And that was, yeah, that was a very strange thing. And
00:49:02.120 I mean, you hear anecdotes, but a lot of the doctors in these hospitals knew that this didn't
00:49:07.880 make sense, knew that this wasn't how you should deal with this sort of infection.
00:49:12.520 But they were being told by the administrators, this is what they had to do. They were being told by,
00:49:17.400 you know, higher up that this is what they had to do. And in the end, most doctors chose to comply
00:49:23.560 with this rather than say, this is against common sense and our medical training. We can't do this as
00:49:30.200 doctors because we're in charge of the treatment. So, you know, the government seemed to be in charge
00:49:34.920 of the treatment, not the doctors and doctors complied with that.
00:49:38.600 Yeah. I mean, I wish I had heard this message during the pandemic. Look, yes, this person who's
00:49:43.480 a marathon runner, you know, and does triathlons and all of that got COVID and had to be put on a
00:49:51.000 ventilator. But that is just an anecdote. And it doesn't necessarily necessarily apply to every
00:49:57.400 healthy young person out there who runs marathons and is physically fit. We just never got that
00:50:03.880 kind of messaging. In fact, we were told, no, look, if this can happen to this person,
00:50:08.120 it can happen to everybody.
00:50:10.200 Yeah. I mean, it's pretty silly, isn't it? Like, you know,
00:50:14.600 never go through near a cliff because occasionally people fall off a cliff. I mean,
00:50:18.840 yeah, that's true. And yeah, the, you know, the, I mean, we just saw figures from Israel that I think
00:50:26.680 no young, healthy adults, not a single one died of COVID. And, you know, there are pictures, I
00:50:33.000 remember a picture on the BBC, I think, of someone in Wales who, and it was, you know, young fit man in
00:50:39.800 his thirties in ICU with COVID. And here's, here's someone who's, you know, looks like 120, 150 kilograms
00:50:49.720 lying on a bed, grossly obese, obvious risk factors for a severe viral respiratory infection. So
00:50:59.720 there was this, the media was massively exaggerating. They were calling people who were, you know,
00:51:08.040 they're calling people young fit when clearly they weren't young and fit. That doesn't mean
00:51:12.280 occasionally this can happen. I've seen a young fit woman in her thirties, um,
00:51:18.440 tragically die of influenza, um, within 48 hours of getting sick in, you know, as a doctor. So this
00:51:27.720 can happen occasionally. People do die. Um, but people, we knew that people would die far more if we
00:51:35.720 impoverish them, if we stopped them from going for checkups for chest pain or, you know, cardiac
00:51:42.600 monitoring, if we stopped them going for cancer screening, we knew that that would kill people
00:51:47.880 too. But we decided that this incredibly low risk of the odd person, very rare fit person dying from
00:51:56.280 COVID massively outweighed all these known risks that we have, you know, a normal medical system to deal with.
00:52:06.200 Yeah. The only way I can see that, I mean, the only explanation I can have for that
00:52:12.360 in the end is it was a business deal and there was someone who could see that they would make
00:52:17.880 a massive gain, a massive profit from this, and they were stoking the flames. And that's not a
00:52:23.000 conspiracy theory because, I mean, we have, you know, Klaus Schwab at the
00:52:28.040 world economic forum writing is booked with Terry Mallard in mid 2020 saying, you know, COVID actually
00:52:37.240 wasn't too bad, but they had to use this to push their agenda. Um, we, we had, you know, the
00:52:46.200 software people then followed by pharma making hundreds of billions of dollars out of this.
00:52:51.480 Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the CEO, I saw a video clip of the CEO of BlackRock saying, we're trying to
00:52:57.800 change behavior. Uh, we're, uh, we're just quite disturbing, you know, all told. Uh, yeah.
00:53:03.960 It's disturbing that most Western or all Western, um, governments now seem to have behavioral
00:53:11.800 psychology units attached to their governments and their cabinets. Um, we should be extremely
00:53:17.160 disturbed by this. It's the same thing as you were saying with BlackRock. Yeah.
00:53:20.440 They are there to manipulate the way people think to get them to follow a certain, um, agenda,
00:53:28.440 which the government thinks is important for them. Yeah. Yeah. Most, most political parties
00:53:32.440 will think the most important thing is they get back into office. So it should be a non-starter
00:53:38.360 within a democracy. Yeah. Um, so, uh, any, any, uh, any final thoughts on, uh, where, where we, uh,
00:53:47.480 where we're going with this, the world health organization, um, in terms of future, uh, threats,
00:53:56.600 um, uh, to our health, um, you know, I, I, I suspect, I, I feel like, you know, based on my
00:54:05.160 conversation with you that we haven't really learned any important lessons here. And, uh, we're, you know,
00:54:11.080 I feel like we're, we've actually drawn the law, the wrong lessons from the pandemic, the way, uh,
00:54:16.680 it was managed, uh, at least based on these amendments that you described to us. Um, you
00:54:22.520 know, where, where does one go from here to you? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
00:54:27.400 Yeah, I, I don't think most, I don't think that people running this are trying to learn lessons.
00:54:31.320 I mean, they're, they following an idea and an agenda that they've had for a long time. They're
00:54:36.520 just following it. So, you know, they're pushing this pandemic agenda on the idea that, um,
00:54:42.440 we didn't respond fast enough and, but they can't show any evidence at all that made any difference.
00:54:52.120 So in the end, so, um, you know, it's just, it's silly and they, they know it's silly, but they're
00:54:58.440 saying it because it plays war in the media and they need that. But then, so the people running this,
00:55:04.280 I mean, they're not, they're not stupid in that way. They know that they know that they can tell lies
00:55:09.320 and the media will present them as the truth and they can get away with it and they have
00:55:14.440 censorship on their side so that they can keep the story strong. Um, I think with WHO, you know,
00:55:22.760 I think it's useful to have international health organizations that can advise when they're asked
00:55:28.040 for it and do a bit of coordination when they're asked for it, they need to be small. I think
00:55:32.760 any institution gets to a point where it's outlived its usefulness, the people within the
00:55:37.080 institution see preserving the institution is more important than its original mission.
00:55:43.240 And it's clear with the WHO that that's happened. It doesn't mean there aren't some aspects of the
00:55:48.280 WHO's work that are still really helpful. Of course there are, but overall, I think it's
00:55:53.640 for the last few years, it's probably been a negative and not a positive.
00:55:57.400 And it's going much more in that direction. It's just clear from, if you look where the money is
00:56:01.560 flowing, it's not to the disease burdens anymore, it's to this eventually into the pockets of
00:56:07.480 pharmaceutical companies. Um, so I think extracting countries from the WHO or any organization that acts
00:56:18.120 in this way is important now, um, because you can't put the rights of people in a democracy in the hands
00:56:25.720 of private interests or organizations strongly influenced by private interests and by other national
00:56:31.720 interests that are contrary to your own values. That's just a non-starter, that they don't have
00:56:37.160 the expertise that most of our countries have. So that's a non-starter, just be stupid. Yeah.
00:56:42.200 And they're pushing an agenda, which is false. I mean, pandemics, unless someone is making them,
00:56:49.240 are not becoming worse and more people are not dying. So, you know, it is a bad idea based on
00:57:00.360 falsehoods as far as democracy goes. If you're into fascism, you're into corporate authoritarianism,
00:57:05.400 you think you just want people to tell you what to do and you don't want to think for yourself,
00:57:09.480 then maybe it's okay. But we hope that most people aren't thinking that way. Um, but I think it's
00:57:17.320 important to see that this is way beyond the WHO. So we've got to, you know, we've got to somehow
00:57:24.440 rethink Western democracies, don't we? I mean, you know, what happened in Australia where I grew up
00:57:29.080 is, it's a bit beyond me that you can have black clad armoured, you know, body armoured policemen
00:57:35.800 hang off the sides of armoured cars driving through the streets of Melbourne and then shooting
00:57:42.360 rubber bullets of people who are protesting about not wanting to wear a face mask.
00:57:47.320 for a virus that kills people in their eighties. Yeah. It's a bit hard to grasp, but that did
00:57:53.560 actually happen over and over again, that sort of stuff. And, you know, beating up people in the
00:57:59.800 street and all that stuff happened that we saw and in many countries. And, you know, do we want our
00:58:08.520 society to go that way? If we don't, we've really got to have a fundamental rethink of, you know, the way we
00:58:16.680 distribute wealth, the size of governments, the, you know, our local level, how involved we get in
00:58:25.320 politics and so on ourselves. Are we just going to sit back and let all these other people run it for
00:58:29.560 us and just comply? Or are we going to get actively involved and try to change it? Yeah. Well, on that very
00:58:37.560 point of note and, you know, I really appreciate you coming on the show, David, it was a real pleasure. And
00:58:49.800 thank you for sharing your insights with us. And, and I hope you'll be back soon. Hopefully we'll have
00:58:56.920 made some progress with these instruments, with these amendments, with the World Health Organization,
00:59:03.080 maybe, hopefully they're just, you know, essentially killed or that, you know, more countries will push
00:59:10.920 back against it, but that that's the hope. But, but thank you. Thank you for, for, for, for coming
00:59:17.640 on to the show. I really appreciate it. And I hope to see you again soon. Thanks. Okay. Take care.