WHO has been using sneaky tactics to pressure governments and experts into implementing lockdowns and instilling fear in the public about the spread of the virus.
WHO has its own definition of lockdown and adjusts it according to the circumstances. They set guidelines for the government for lockdowns. Governments must make the most of the extra time granted by ‘lockdown’ measures by doing all they can to build their capacities to detect, isolate, test and care for all cases; trace and quarantine all contacts; engage, empower and enable populations to drive the societal response and more.
PUBLIC! After watching these videos and listening to the statement from the Director of the World Health Organization (WHO), would you continue to have faith in the WHO and its forthcoming treaty?
Recently WHO Director-General Tedros at the World Governments Summit: Let me be clear: WHO did not impose anything on anyone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Not lockdowns, not mask mandates, not vaccine mandates. We don’t have the power to do that, we don’t want it, and we’re not trying to get it.
WHO Director-General Tedros at the World Governments Summit: Let me be clear: WHO did not impose anything on anyone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Not lockdowns, not mask mandates, not vaccine mandates. We don’t have the power to do that, we don’t want it, and we’re not trying to… pic.twitter.com/nN4RDF2XMG
— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 19, 2024
WHO Director-General Tedros at the World Governments Summit: Our job is to support governments with evidence-based guidance, advice, and, when needed, supplies, to help them protect their people. But the decisions are theirs. And so is the pandemic agreement. It has been written by countries, for countries, and will be implemented in countries in accordance with their own national laws. In fact, WHO will not even be a party to the agreement. The parties are governments and governments alone. Far from ceding sovereignty, the agreement actually affirms national sovereignty and national responsibility in its foundational principles. Indeed, the agreement is itself an exercise of sovereignty. It’s about the commitments countries are making to keep themselves and each other safer from pandemics. And it recognizes that they can only do that by working with each other.
How does WHO define lockdown?
The WHO website provides detailed guidelines and recommendations on the implementation of lockdowns:
What is WHO’s position on ‘lockdowns’ as a way of fighting COVID-19?
Large-scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID‑19 transmission by limiting contact between people.
They did not carry it out themselves, instead, they employed so-called experts and governments to achieve that objective (lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates). They aim to pass the blame onto the government, which then shifts it onto the public.
According to the WHO, lockdowns can be effective in controlling the spread of the virus, but they need to be implemented in conjunction with other public health measures such as testing, contact tracing, and isolation. Lockdowns alone may not be enough to contain the virus, but when combined with these other measures, they can be a powerful tool in the fight against COVID-19.
WHO Director-General Dr Tedros on updated guidance on the use of masks
Furthermore, the WHO recommends that lockdowns should be accompanied by robust testing, contact tracing, and isolation measures. Clear communication, access to accurate information, and collaboration between government agencies, healthcare providers, and the public are essential in successfully implementing and navigating through a lockdown.
What’s Behind The WHO’s Lockdown Mixed-Messaging
In a major departure from months of pro-lockdown messaging, Britain’s envoy to the WHO Dr. David Nabarro called for world leaders to stop locking down their countries [1] and economies as a “primary method” of controlling COVID19. “I want to say it again: we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. Nabarro told The Spectator.[2]
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8825949/Coronavirs-UK-Britains-envoy-tells-government-stop-locking-down.html [2] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-world-health-organisation-doctor-backflips-on-virus-lockdowns-dont-use-them-as-a-primary-control/DQMBCUNNRCHCBLCITIMKOYXLRU/?fbclid=IwAR382MwASMSEnDhzo7R1q-uw90F2sRnSIAh-0HasYS0qydMK0PBQJXGSqzU“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Dr. Nabarro’s position aligns with the Great Barrington Declaratio [3], of which he spoke favorably, in which 30,000 scientists and public health experts have joined in advocating an immediate return to normal life for those at low risk. Nabarro and the thousands of signees of the Declaration opine that this approach will minimize overall mortality and lessen the disproportionate burden of lockdowns on the working class and underprivileged.
[3] https://gbdeclaration.org/The day after Nabarro made his remarks, WHO director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus flatly contradicted him, declaring that lifting lockdowns would be a recipe for “unnecessary infections, suffering and death.” Tedros claims that herd immunity can only be “safely” achieved through vaccination, a conclusion premised upon the frightening assumption that the development of a safe and effective vaccine is guaranteed, and the dubious premise that natural infections can be held back “as long as it takes” to prepare and distribute the vaccine. However, according to Tedros, there is no other way: “allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It’s not an option.”[4]
[4] https://www.leadertelegram.com/news/world/pursuing-covid-19-herd-immunity-is-unethical-who-chief-says/article_20546ffa-a44f-52bc-b3db-690755d93bba.htmlIt’s difficult to reconcile this stance with the data from states and nations which did not lock down for COVID19. For example, Swedish all-cause mortality is on average for 2020 — incredibly, the nation had higher per-capita mortality just five years ago [5], in a year in which there was no pandemic. This undeniable, easily-verifiable fact is shocking in light of the decimation of world economies on the premise of “stopping” a “highly deadly” pathogen. Far from “unethical,” allowing the virus to “run free” produced a much better result than tight lockdowns such as those imposed in Argentina [6] and Peru [7] — yet Tedros is ignoring this. The question is: why?
[5] https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/ [6] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-argentinas-never-ending-quarantine/a-5472112 [7] https://www.wsj.com/articles/peru-and-brazil-stay-home-and-starve-11600633657The China-paved path to WHO director-general
In 2017, Nabarro and Tedros competed for the WHO Director-General role. For the first time, the position was filled by a direct vote of the member-states, and not by the WHO executive board. Tedros’s candidacy was mired in several scandals.
Ethiopians and concerned global citizens pleaded with the countries voting in the election to reject Tedros because he was a representative of a repressive political regime who had helped to build [a] and maintain a surveillance state with a total lack of government transparency. Critics pointed out that Tedros was “comfortable with the secrecy of autocratic states”– a characteristic that could wreak havoc on the world if he assumed a position of power within the WHO. …
[a] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/23/revolt-in-an-african-stasi-state/Tedros’s strongest and most important backer throughout these controversies was not an individual, but a government: China. As an opinion writer in the Indian press described it, “China propped Tedros.” American apathy in the public health arena had allowed China to “colonize” global health:
“One reason that Tedros has gotten away with so much brazen cronyism is that America pays little to no attention to global public health, save pouring in money as a sugar daddy… China started a scheme for global health colonization and won because America didn’t think it was important enough. The Chinese leveraged their investments across Africa to force the African Union to back Tedros, [and] also got Pakistan to withdraw its candidate who was opposing him, sources say… India’s diplomatic credentials helped in covering up Tedros’ shady past and the fact his main backer was a Communist dictatorship.”
‘I’ve got your back, and you’ve got mine’:
Tedros backs the Chinese Covid-19 ‘supression’ strategy
Fast-forward to the Covid-19 epidemic. In early 2020, Tedros went to great lengths to congratulate China on its response to the “novel coronavirus.” On January 30, the WHO issued a statement effusively praising China’s response, highlighting the Chinese government’s “commitment to transparency” and efforts to “investigate” and “contain” the outbreak. The statement declares that China’s novel “lockdown” strategy – wherein dictator Xi Jinping welded people inside their apartments in the name of “disease control” – are “good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world.”
Tedros followed this up with a tweet: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” During this time period, hundreds of thousands of social media posts later traced to China praised the lockdown, and criticized and ridiculed world leaders who failed to follow suit.
Fast-forward to the Covid-19 epidemic. In early 2020, Tedros went to great lengths to congratulate China on its response to the “novel coronavirus.” On January 30, the WHO issued a statement effusively praising China’s response, highlighting the Chinese government’s “commitment to transparency” and efforts to “investigate” and “contain” the outbreak. The statement declares that China’s novel “lockdown” strategy – wherein dictator Xi Jinping welded people inside their apartments in the name of “disease control” – are “good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world.”
Tedros followed this up with a tweet: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” During this time period, hundreds of thousands of social media posts later traced to China praised the lockdown, and criticized and ridiculed world leaders who failed to follow suit.
The WHO’s resounding praise of China continued into February 2020, when it convened a “Global Research and Innovation Forum” on the novel coronavirus to study “the origin of the virus, natural history, transmission, diagnosis, infection prevention and control,” among other things.
On February 24, the group’s Joint Mission held a press conferenceto report on its findings, during which it declared, “there is no question that China’s bold approach to the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of what was a rapidly-escalating and continues to be deadly epidemic.” The stated basis for this unequivocal declaration on the effectiveness of lockdowns was as follows:
“And there’s a couple of other graphics … And you can see this is a much flatter curve than the others. And that’s what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak.
“This is extremely important for China, but it’s extremely important for the rest of the world, where this virus you’ve seen in the last few days is taking advantage to explode in certain settings. And it wasn’t easy because what I didn’t mention on this slide is every one of these lines represent a huge decision by policy makers and politicians in this country and leaders to actually change the shape with big measures such as, you know, the suspension of travel, the stay-at-home advisories, and other incredibly difficult measures; to make decisions about, but also to get a population to follow. And that’s why, again, the role of the individual here in China is so important as well.”
The Joint Mission’s conclusion that China’s actions “worked” is a perfect depiction of the classic logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by.” While it is indeed possible that a “more flat” curve in Wuhan could be attributed to government mandates, there are equal or greater possibilities: one, that testing protocols differed; two, that China simply witnessed the natural course of this “novel” pathogen. The latter is particularly likely since there was no baseline with which to compare the proffered epicurves.
It should be obvious that the mere issuance of government mandates does not automatically mean they were effective – this is particularly true here, since the global scientific community had previously considered and rejected [b] large-scale quarantines as a method for controlling epidemics. Respiratory viruses never spread evenly throughout countries, provinces, or states, so it was nothing short of reckless to conclude that the noted variance in spread – which again, could be nothing but a recording error due to testing aberrations – was due to anything but natural factors. It was criminal to summarily conclude on this evidence that the Chinese government’s draconian actions led to a “favorable outcome,” and then use that patently illogical conclusion to sell lockdowns to the rest of the world. But that’s just what the WHO did.
[b] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf“China didn’t approach this new virus with an old strategy for one disease or another disease. It developed its own approach to a new disease and extraordinarily has turned around this disease with strategies most of the world didn’t think would work … What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”
The Joint Mission repeated this assertion – Lockdowns work, they can and do save lives” – in various ways throughout its press conference, recalling to mind the words of a famous propagandist named Joseph Goebbels: “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” Research shows [c] that this illusion of truth effect “works just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgments of plausibility.”
[c] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truthOur parents never heard of lockdown, and understood and accepted that humans sadly cannot “stop” a highly contagious infectious disease like the flu – even with a vaccine – yet suddenly most of the planet was behaving as if this were not only a reasonable mission, but something for which it was rational and desirable to sacrifice social lives, relationships, smiles, businesses, and educations in service of.
At the helm of the WHO, Tedros undoubtedly played a key role in the creation of this perception. Thanks to the many individual worldwide lockdown experiments, we now know that he was dead wrong: no lockdown was ever needed to “flatten the curve” – in fact, lockdowns spiked the curve. No-lockdown Sweden’s epicurve was much flatter than many areas with tight lockdowns, including New York City, Italy and Spain. While this may be adequately explained by Hanlon’s Razor, it is very interesting that the Joint Mission took great pains to protect China’s trade and travel interests despite advocating simultaneous lockdowns for other nations:
“And this brings us to what I think is one of the most important recommendations we would make in respect to getting China fully back on its feet after this crisis. The world needs the experience and materials of China to be successful in battling this coronavirus disease. China has the most experience in the world with this disease, and it’s the only country to have turned around serious large-scale outbreaks. But if countries create barriers between themselves and China in terms of travel or trade, it is only going to compromise everyone’s ability to get this done. And those kinds of measures need to be anything that goes beyond what’s been recommended by the IHR committee, has got to be reassessed, because the risk from China is dropping, and what China has to add to the global response is rapidly rising.”
The human rights community did not share this enthusiasm for China, its draconian lockdown, or its offer to “help” other nations contend with the virus. On February 2, The Guardian [d] published an opinion piece by a human rights advocate outlining the lockdown’s serious human rights violations and opining that the WHO broke its own commitment to “human rights and health” by praising China. The WHO’s commitment reads in part:
“Human rights are universal and inalienable. They apply equally, to all people, everywhere, without distinction. Human Rights standards – to food, health, education, to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment – are also interrelated. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.”
[d] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/02/chinas-reaction-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-violates-human-rightsTo protect these “universal and inalienable” human rights during a public health emergency, international law requires [e] that restrictions on human rights be based on legality, necessity, proportionality and grounded in evidence. Similarly, the Siracusa Principles – in which the United Nations outlines an overarching international covenant on civil and political rights – state that restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of public health must be strictly necessary and the least intrusive available to reach their objective:
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”
[e] https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/health-law/chapter11.pdf
“Lockdown” goes far beyond these basic human rights boundaries. They are proven now to only damage societies – they even worsen COVID-19 outcomes. When The Economist analyzed all recorded epidemics since 1960, it concluded that “democracies experience lower mortality rates for epidemic diseases than their non-democratic counterparts.” This finding holds true at all levels of income.
Tedros aligned himself not with democracies and their fundamental principles but with an autocratic dictatorship, the same dictatorship that helped him assume power within the WHO. Together, using logical fallacies and pseudo-science, they betrayed international law governing human rights, the WHO’s own stated principles, and committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale.
Should we continue to listen to Tedros, or should we turn to Dr. Nabarro, another qualified expert who – like the thousands who signed the Great Barrington Declaration – urges a return to democratic norms as necessary to minimize human suffering?
“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer. Just look at what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year.” – Dr. David Nabarro
It is no longer possible to ignore Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s long history with suppressive autocratic regimes, including China. Whatever the motivation behind his advocacy for continued lockdowns, the data invalidates his position unequivocally. Lockdowns do not save lives – lockdowns kill. The reign of tyranny must end, immediately and forever, with a full restoration of the rights and privileges of each individual citizen to choose what level of risk he or she will accept as a law-abiding member of a functioning, democratic society.
WHO, what, where, and why? We don’t yet have all of the answers, but we do know that the WHO director-general is on the wrong side of the lockdown debate.
Source: AEIR, Twitter, Traditioninaction, Reuters-Image,