The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 2
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 2
by Dan Fournier, Review, published Wednesday, March 8, 12:05 EST on fournier.substack.com
Secretary-General António Guterres (right) meets with Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. Photo credit and copyright: United Nations Photo/Manuel Elías.
This is the second post in a six-part review of the documentary film called Never Again Is Now Global.
The series is structured as follows:
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 2 (this post)
> Part 1 Recap
> Episode 2 – Anyone Who Wants To Start A War Has To Lie
- 2.1 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on AIDS caused by the Covid-19 vaccines
- 2.2 Vera Sharav on global concentration of power
- 2.3 Joshua Stylman on the violation of the Nuremberg Code & international lawsThe Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 6 - Conclusion & eBook
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 2
Part 1 Recap
In Part 1 of this six-part series, the docuseries (documentary film) Never Again Is Now Global was introduced for the purpose of a full review by this author.
The main contention of the film which features first to fourth generation Holocaust survivors is that history is repeating itself in that very bad actors have used the Covid-19 Pandemic to impose very harsh and tyrannical measures similar to those imposed by the Nazis on the Jews during the Holocaust that preceded and persisted throughout the Second World War.
The methodology for the review and analysis of the film and some of its key claims was laid out by this author.
Three claims from the film were examined for their accuracy and validity, namely those of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Rabbi Michoel Green, and Dr. Hervé Seligmann.
Episode 2 – Anyone Who Wants To Start A War Has To Lie
The second episode (click the link to watch) aired on January 30, 2023.
The same methodology for a review of this second part of the docuseries applies and, once more, three of its major claims will be scrutinised on the merits of their accuracy and validity – mostly through a thorough examination and verification of key facts.
2.1 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on AIDS caused by the Covid-19 vaccines
At the 32:11 mark, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a third generation Holocaust survivor, mentions people are dying from opportunistic infection which they usually wouldn’t die from.
According to HIVinfo.NIH.gov, Opportunistic infections (OIs) are infections that occur more often or are more severe in people with weakened immune systems than in people with healthy immune systems.
Dr. Zelenko then says “There’s a term for that. It’s an acquired immune deficiency syndrome which has an acronym: it’s called AIDS.”
The National Institutes of Health’s National Human Genome Research Institute defines acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as follows (from March 7, 2023):
“AIDS is a collection of symptoms known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. It is caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which leads to loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. There is no cure for AIDS, though drugs can slow down and stabilize the disease's progress.”
Due to the general understanding that AIDS is caused by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, many may find this claim strange. And that is perhaps why Dr. Zelenko offers the following caveat before explaining his meaning:
“Now, before people go nuts. They go nuts. I don’t care. I actually like it. They call it VAIDS – Vaccine Immune Deficiency Syndrome. I prefer to call it AIDS because it sends the message stronger. It’s not HIV. HIV is a virus that damages the immune system causes AIDS. It’s true, but there are other things that can damage the immune system like this poison death shot.”
Calling the [Covid-19] vaccine a “poison death shot” is certainly controversial. But Zelenko makes an additional claim about Israel and Pfizer, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid-19 vaccines [with links added to references from the video]:
“So, the Israeli government permitted signed a deal with the devil Albert Bourla [CEO of Pfizer] who won the genesis prize, which is the equivalent of the Jewish Nobel prize this year [2022]. And he called on CNBC Israel the biggest laboratory in the world. And, what they’ve done is given a large percentage of their country AIDS. They’ve destroyed the immune system of half the Jewish people in Israel.”
Apart from the harsh labels that Dr. Zelenko’s assigned for Pfizer, its CEO, and its vaccine, the main claim he is making is that Pfizer’s [mRNA] Covid-19 vaccine is destroying the immune system of a significant portion of the Israeli population, perhaps implying this is the case elsewhere given the nature of his allegation.
Thus, what needs to be examined here is an objective assessment or determination of the validity of his three-part claim that:
Covid-19 vaccines can lead to an acquired immune deficiency syndrome,
It leaves individuals susceptible to other infections,
and the development of certain types of cancers.
The corresponding articles referenced in the docuseries while Dr. Zelenko was speaking were the following:
Steve Kirsch: New studies show that the COVID vaccines damage your immune system, likely permanently, Dec 24, 2021
News Medical Life Sciences - Research suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses, May 10 2021
Scientific Studies prove the Covid-19 Vaccines damage the Immune System, and suggest it may be permanent, January 5, 2022 [note: the same article, but from a different website]
NexusNewsFeed.com - How the COVID-19 Vaccine destroys your immune system, published November 11, 2020, and has been updated with new information
FlyByNews - How COVID Shots Suppress Your Immune System, January 23, 2022
It is not difficult to look at the above articles to see what medical literature they reference to. Preferably, it is better to find articles that are peer-reviewed and have been published in reputable medical journals.
Two of the articles from above – the News Medical Life Sciences and FlyByNews ones – do reference non-peer reviewed articles. Still, they may contain relevant information with regards to the Covid-19 shots and weakening of the immune system and would be best evaluated for their reliability and validity by peer experts in their respective fields.
The article from NexusNewsFeed.com does reference a peer-reviewed study – Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020 (also published in NIH Pubmed).
The study had as its aim to “determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.”
It does point out that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated."
In addition, the study paper indicates other concerns about inadequate information for proper consent to trial patients, and that the vaccines “may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”
But the study doesn’t seem to directly support Dr. Zelenko’s claims.
The ‘UK government’ article does refer to “Public Health England / UK Health Security Agency ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ reports on Covid-19 cases” but does not provide any links for proper verification. It seems mostly focused on comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated figures, rather than providing direct evidence of increased immune deficiency.
Some sites and news agencies have been critical of claims from Dr. Zelenko and some of his peers, including Dr. Robert Malone, regarding a possible link between the Covid-19 vaccines and AIDS. Here are some of them:
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Vaccine Safety (Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela) – Can COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS?, 4/7/2022 (with video)
KCENNews (NBC, National Verify Team): Can the Covid-19 vaccine cause AIDS? (video), May 11, 2022
APNews – No relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS, by Josh Kelety, April 5, 2022
While the contents of these do appear to have valid counter-claims to disprove the linkage between Covid-19 vaccines and AIDS, there are some red flags.
For the WHO piece, the text is very brief and simply outright rejects that any related data exists. We really have no way of knowing if they even searched, for they do not provide details. Moreover, they limit their scope when they say “It is not possible for COVID-19 vaccines to cause AIDS, which is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).” Dr. Zelenko was referring to other contributors than the HIV virus which may cause a decrease in the immune system. To simply dismiss its possibility by directly assigning it to a single contributor like the HIV virus is a false attestation.
The NBC KCENNews video tackles the question “Does the Covid-19 vaccine cause AIDS?” and they refer to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the WHO (World Health Organization), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and an assistant clinical professor, Payal Kohli. They immediately state that the claim is false. The problem is that, similar to the WHO piece, they cite statements that only refer to an absolute or direct link between the HIV virus and AIDS. When citing the CDC, they put up on the screen “No. There is no association between COVID-19 vaccines and risk for HIV infection.” That is totally not the same claim that Dr. Zelenko and others are making; they are not talking about a resulting HIV infection, but are rather referring to immunodeficiency syndrome or disorders. The NIH quotation is similar, as it only focuses on HIV infection. So, this so-called Verify team is either not really doing their job properly or purposely misleading viewers by deflecting to unrelated information. Lastly, the M.D. assistant professor Payal Kohli was cited as saying “No reporting in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System that there is an association between COVID vaccine and development of AIDS.” This is quite a weak statement, for the VAERS system is not designed to report such broad associations such as “the development of AIDS,” but rather more specific adverse events and deaths. Just the word “development” implies a condition that evolves over time. Overall, this news report is weak and does not appear to invalidate the claim at hand.
The AP News piece appears to be the most measured of the three, for it makes the correct distinction of the claim of AIDS that is not related to HIV. They immediately dismiss the claim as false with the blanket statement “There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines cause any kind of immune deficiency condition, let alone AIDS, experts say. Nor is there evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines damage the immune system.” However, the two experts they cite said the term “AIDS” is strictly used to describe the condition caused by HIV, though one mentioned that there are other forms of immunodeficiency. Overall, this piece is more measured and cites more credible experts but still leaves doubt due to its HIV-focus and broad blanket statement.
Though there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot on the link between the Covid-19 vaccines and AIDS or immunodeficiency syndrome or related disorders – either in general articles or in medical literature – at this stage, there are some that touch upon the subject.
What other studies examine the subject?
1 - Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs published in NIH Pubmed on April 15, 2022 by Stephanie Seneff, Greg Nigh, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos, and Peter A. McCullough.
The study does examine “immune suppression” by the Covid-19 mRNA vaccinations. Here are a few notable highlights from the study:
“In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.”
“We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis.”“We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.”
The paper also inspected the VAERS database for instances of increased cancer risks related to the vaccines. Here are some of their findings [emphasis and original links added]:
“For our analysis of evidence of increased cancer risk in VAERS, we focused on two somewhat distinct approaches. One, represented by the results in Table 6 , was to gather the counts for any terms that contained keywords clearly linked to cancer, namely, “cancer,” “lymphoma,” “leukaemia,” “metastasis,” “carcinoma,” and “neoplasm.” Overall, we found 1,474 entries linking these terms to COVID-19 vaccines, representing 96% of all the entries for any of these terms for any vaccine in that year.”
“The complementary approach was to find terms involving cancer in specific organs, namely, breasts, prostate, bladder, colon, brain, lungs, pancreas and ovaries, as shown in Table 7 . Although all the numbers are small, the highest by far was for breast cancer (246 cases), with nearly four times as many hits as for lung cancer, the second most common type. All of the cases for pancreatic, ovarian and bladder cancer were linked to COVID-19 vaccines, with zero cases for any other vaccine. Altogether, we tabulated 534 cases of cancer of specific organs linked to COVID-19 vaccines, representing 97.3% of all the cases for any vaccine in 2021.”
In its Conclusions section, the following segments provide some telling concerns about the mRNA Covid-19 vaccinations [with some emphasis added for relevancy]:
“There has been an unwavering message about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 from the public health apparatus in the US and around the globe.”
“The efficacy is increasingly in doubt, as shown in a recent letter to the Lancet Regional Health by Günter Kampf (2021b). Kampf provided data showing that the vaccinated are now as likely as the unvaccinated to spread disease. He concluded: “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.””
“Moreover, the inadequacy of phase I, II, and III trials to evaluate mid-term and long-term side effects from mRNA genetic vaccines may have been misleading on their suppressive impact on the innate immunity of the vaccinees [sic].”
“In this paper, we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.”
“Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations.”
“Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike glycoprotein mRNA to produce high levels of spike-glycoprotein-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences.”
“Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.”
“It is essential that further studies be conducted to determine the extent of the potential pathological consequences outlined in this paper.”
“In the end, billions of lives are potentially at risk, given the large number of individuals injected with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and the broad range of adverse outcomes we have described. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Furthermore, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.”
Though this paper is quite lengthy and complex, largely beyond the scope of this author’s competence to fully interpret, it does seem to show adverse impacts to the immune system and thus does appear to validate claims that Dr. Zelenko has put forth.
Moreover, one of its authors, Dr. Peter McCullough, is widely published and a leading expert in his field which adds to the credibility of the work.
2 - New-onset autoimmune phenomena post-COVID-19 vaccination, by Yue Chen, Zhiwei Xu, Peng Wang, Xiao-Mei Li, Zong-Wen Shuai, Dong-Qing Ye, Hai-Feng Pan, published 27 December 2021
Without going into the nitty gritty details of the study, here are some highlights from its Abstract and Conclusion [with emphasis added]:
“From the Abstract:
Recently, new-onset autoimmune phenomena after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported increasingly (e.g. immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, autoimmune liver diseases, Guillain–Barré syndrome, IgA nephropathy, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus). Molecular mimicry, the production of particular autoantibodies and the role of certain vaccine adjuvants seem to be substantial contributors to autoimmune phenomena. However, whether the association between COVID-19 vaccine and autoimmune manifestations is coincidental or causal remains to be elucidated. Here, we summarize the emerging evidence about autoimmune manifestations occurring in response to certain COVID-19 vaccines.”“From the Conclusion:
In the light of the information discussed above, emerging evidence has indicated that new onset of autoimmune manifestations including VITT, autoimmune liver diseases, GBS and IgA nephropathy appears to be associated with COVID-19 vaccines (Table 2). The plausible mechanisms by which COVID-19 vaccines lead to autoimmune manifestations include molecular mimicry, the production of particular autoantibodies and the role of certain vaccine adjuvants. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms and identify the exact causality.”
Here is the contents of Table 2 the conclusion refers to:
Once again, this study also outlines immunity issues associated with the mRNA vaccines.
3 - Autoimmune Inflammatory Reactions Triggered by the COVID-19 Genetic Vaccines in Terminally Differentiated Tissues, by Panagis Polykretis, Alberto Donzelli, Janci C. Lindsay, David Wiseman, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos, Michael Mörz, Paolo Bellavite, Masanori Fukushima, Stephanie Seneff, Peter A. McCullough, Version 1: Received: 7 March 2023 / Approved: 8 March 2023 / Online: 8 March 2023
The third paper above, not yet peer-reviewed, was just published this morning a few hours before this post was published on Substack. It is also one whereby Peter McCullough is an author.
As this author has not yet had adequate time to fully review it, here are some additional notes from McCullough taken from his Substack on March 8, 2023 [emphasis added]:
“The human immune system is designed to recognize foreign invaders (microbes, other substances) attack, kill, and then clear the debris away. For that reason, we must be sure that our bodies recognize our own cells as “protected” and the foreign ones as targets. For the first time, mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and adenoviral DNA (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccines install the genetic code for our bodies to make a deadly foreign protein with the aspiration that our immune system would not only respond and protect us, but also form live saving immunity from SARS-CoV-2. We have come to learn this was the drug development miscalculation of all time. Production of a foreign protein in the human body has turned out to be a disaster as illustrated by Polykretis et al in a recent paper. Here are some of the reasons why: 1) each cell that takes up the vaccine expresses the protein in the cell surface initiating autoimmune attack, 2) the tissue distribution appears to be wide involving organs where this attack could be lethal (heart, brain, bone marrow, etc.), 3) both the genetic material and the Spike protein are long lasting (months to years) which is long enough to cause an autoimmune syndrome which may be permanent.”
To conclude this section, some of Dr. Zelenko’s claims do indeed appear to have merit, given the scientific data and literature referenced and presented above, also considering some critical pieces this author has added above. Of course, more research is needed into the subject of increased or possible immuno- deficiencies and issues, as well as the effects on cancer from those who have taken the Covid-19 vaccines. Time will certainly tell whether Dr. Zelenko’s claims turn out to be mostly true or mostly not true.
2.2 Vera Sharav on global concentration of power
At around the 35:20 mark Vera Sharav, a 1st generation Holocaust survivor who produced and directed the series, noted that Klaus Schwab’s – who is the current Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) – father had a factories in Switzerland and Germany that produced heavy military machinery for the Nazi regime which used slave labor.
Klaus Schwab’s father was Eugen Wilhelm Schwab, as is acknowledged in the front pages of his 2021 book Stakeholder Capitalism.
Eugen Wilhelm Schwab was managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm Escher Wyss, a Swiss industrial company that was a supplier for the German war effort.
Apart from admitting that Escher Wyss did indeed use slave labor during the second world war, Newsweek provided a seemingly convincing article (which is mostly based on the work of a Dutch fact-checking outfit) debunking the father’s ties to the Nazi regime, it fails to reveal some evidence which seems to indicate otherwise.
Military intelligence records collected by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) – which eventually became the CIA – indicates that Escher Wyss was working on a large order for Germany under which flame-throwers, weapons used during the war, were dispatched under the name Brennstoffbehaelter.
In addition, Escher-Wyss was an integral part of researching and developing turbines to produce heavy water for the creation of nuclear weapons for the Nazis.
Lastly, while the Dutch fact-checking article asserts that Eugen Schwab was not a professed member of the Nazi Party or the SS, they do indicate that he was a member of the German Labour Front Die Deutsche Arbeitsfront, or DAF which, with 25 million members, was the largest collective that enabled the Nazi regime to control and indoctrinate the working population. The DAF was also associated with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.
Sharav also noted that while Klaus Schwab studied at Harvard University in the United States where he became acquainted with Henry Kissinger who was a political and strategic advisor to President Nixon in the 1970s.
Photograph from 1980 of Klaus Schwab with two important mentors, Henry Kissinger (left), his former professor at Harvard, and Edward Heath (right), Symposium Chair. Image source: The World Economic Forum, A Partner in Shaping History, The First 40 Years, 1971 – 2010 (ISBN: 9789295044302) and weforum.org.
Born Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Fürth, Bavaria, Weimar Republic in 1923, the nonagenarian is still active and regularly attends the World Economic Forum in Davos, even having spoken via teleconference at the 2022 edition.
Klaus Schwab launched the WEF in 1971 which would become a global center for promoting public-private partnerships between governments and big business for the decades to come.
Sharav then made the following point regarding the concentration of power that has been occurring since that time:
“What they’ve been doing is slowly putting um authority and power into global uniform agencies like the World Health Organization [WHO], the United Nations, World Economic Forum [WEF], the Bilderberg [Group]. There are a whole bunch of them, we small fry haven’t been paying much attention to those because this is really the oligarchs, you know, the billionaires, the, and but they have managed to include heads of state from all stripes.”
Henry Kissinger alongside Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum. Photo source: Unlimited Hangout.
She then mentions that that Vladimir Putin was also a WEF graduate, adding:
“This club is who we are really fighting and behind this club are others who always remain behind the curtain. We don’t know all the names, but we know some of the players. What is interesting is to know all these people are unelected by anyone. They are absolutely intent on demolishing democracy in any and every form. What is now called democracies are not democracies anymore because they don’t represent the interests of the people that they rule.”
While this claim can certainly appear as a grand conspiracy, it is not to be readily dismissed as conspiracy theory. Rather, it must be evaluated on its merits, requiring further examination and scrutiny.
Firstly, it is worthwhile to examine what Sharav stated about democracies. She makes the following claims which need to be verified for their validity:
“These people are unelected by anyone”
“They are intent on demolishing democracy in any and every form”
“They are not democracies anymore because they don’t represent the interests of the people that they rule.”
Before examining these, it is worthwhile to look at how many, and what kinds of democracies exist around the world. Thankfully, a recent report from Visual Capitalist titled Mapped: The State of Global Democracy in 2022 sheds light on the matter (also see the related article from ZeroHedge). Here are some of its highlights [with some emphasis added for relevancy]:
This year’s Democracy Index report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), is one such attempt to apply a score to countries based on how closely they measure up to democratic ideals.
According to EIU, the state of democracy is at its lowest point since the index began in 2006, blamed in part on the pandemic restrictions that saw many countries struggling to balance public health with personal freedom.
The following table classifies and summarises four types of regimes we see for countries around the world.
What is perhaps most staggering from the table above is that only 6.4% of the world’s population live in a full democracy. That leaves 93.6% of the world’s population living under other regimes ranging from ‘flawed democracies’ to ‘authoritarian regimes’.
It is also worth noting that these figures were determined by The Economist Intelligence Unit, the research and analysis division of The Economist Group. The Economist magazine is world-renowned and considered to be one of the top economic and financial publications in the world.
As for Sharav’s first claim, this is only partially factual. For, many countries do hold elections around the world to determine their leaders. However, even in some so-called advanced democracies there is evidence of the erosion of proper electoral practices, controversial vote counting, and lack of accountability to electors.
For instance, many democratic countries located in Europe the have ceded a tremendous amount of decision-making power to the European Union (EU).
Though it is comprised of many distinct institutions, the EU – a supranational political and economic union – is made up of three main governing bodies: The European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union, the latter two being its legislative bodies.
Only members of the European Parliament are elected by the populace while those in the other two groups are appointed.
As was stated by Christine Anderson, an elected German MEP (Member of the European Parliament) who is a fervent defender of democratic rights and values, the European Parliament has no power in contrast to the European Commission which does, for which she deems comprised of “unelected technocrats” led by Ursula von der Leyen, their President.
Though it is certainly likely that other MEPs would hold different views from those of Mrs. Anderson, it stands to reason that, as an integral member of the organisation, she is intimately familiar with and understands the functioning of the broader EU apparatus.
During the Covid-19 Pandemic, the European Commission established a Covid-19 vaccine passport initiative called the EU Digital COVID Certificate.
Screenshot from a Summit.News February 4, 2022 article showing the EU Digital COVID Certificate with a QR Code on a smart phone.
A year ago, the European Commission sought to extend the EU Digital COVID Certificate system for another year, stating:
“Extending the Regulation will ensure that travellers can continue using their EU Digital COVID Certificate when travelling in the EU where Member States maintain certain public health measures.”
Several member countries such as Denmark, France, Italy, had moved to scrap restrictions which included the vaccine passes.
In short, this demonstrates how unelected officials of the European Commission have took it upon themselves to exert their power in order to mandate travel restrictions of citizens from member countries of the EU.
The other two points made by Sharav as stated above – that such institutions are intent on destroying democracies and that they no longer represent the interest of the people – require more effort to substantiate. Nevertheless, and thus far this century, many of these supranational organisations have augmented their power and clout over member states.
For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) hold significant power and influence on member states, with the former having exerted a tremendous amount of influence during the Covid-19 Pandemic which spearheaded health policies and protocols amongst its member countries.
For several years already, the United Nations has been pushing for the coordinated implementation of their Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. Over the years, they have been seen as controversial, given that their equitable implementation across nations which vary greatly in terms of their social, cultural, geographic, and economic circumstances would prove unattainable.
Goal #13 on Climate Action along with its enforcers, the UN Environmental Program’s Net-Zero Banking Alliance and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) has been regarded as particularly cumbersome since it targets net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with some intermediate targets set for as early as 2030; as such, these are deemed unrealistic and unattainable which would strangle existing businesses currently trying to recover from the economic downturn brought about by the Covid-19 Pandemic and soaring inflation.
The WHO's Pandemic Treaty
Moreover, in 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) set out to establish a pandemic treaty that will legally bind countries to its adhere to its policies by 2024, essentially ceding participating countries’ sovereignty over to the global health authority in the event of future pandemics.
Details about the treaty can be found in the following documents:
Report of the Member States Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and response to Health Emergencies to the special session of the World Health Assembly, 23 November 2021
Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies (Proposal for amendments to the International Health Regulations), 12 April 2022
WHO white paper: Strengthening the Global Architecture for Health Emergency Preparedness, Response and Resilience, 4 May 2022
Zero draft of the WHO CA+ for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its fourth meeting, 1 February 2023
Proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022), 6 February 2023
In other words, the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty would supersede the constitutions and laws of 194 member countries, removing decision making away from democratically elected governments.
From the first document listed above, we can also find the following proposed measure for the treaty:
“(i) Misinformation and disinformation. Member States recognize the need for national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization that undermine public health.”
By “global coordinated actions”, it stands to reason that they mean the WHO would act as the global entity that would establish the rules to be enforced by which member states would need to adhere to.
It goes without saying, that this would undermine rights to free speech and would ultimately act as a stringent censorship mechanism.
There was already a tremendous amount of censorship during the Covid-19 Pandemic – much of which was unwarranted and abusive; so, granting such power to a supranational organisation that has board members who are unelected by the citizens of different countries would certainly leave room for abuses.
Major funders such as Bill Gates could effectively decide what would be deemed mis- or disinformation.
Reclaim the Net, an advocacy group for online rights, warned about this information surveillance mechanism [emphasis added]:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released a zero draft of its international pandemic treaty which will give the unelected global health agency new powers to “tackle” anything that it deems to be “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” if passed.”
They added,
“If adopted, the treaty will be legally binding under international law and the WHO’s 194 member states (which represent 98% of all the countries in the world) would be required to comply with the treaty’s demands to target misinformation.”
Reclaim the Net also raised several additional concerns with particular emphasis on certain amendments. For instance, one amendment paves the way for “other types of proofs and certificates” which “may be designed by the Health Assembly” (i.e., the WHO’s decision-making body) and will be used to “attest the holder’s status as having a decreased risk of being the disease carrier. These other proofs include test certificates (which provide proof someone has been tested for a disease) and recovery certificates (which provide proof someone has recovered from a disease).
In a separate article that also touched upon information surveillance by the WHO, the online rights advocacy outfit noted the following:
“The WHO intends to adopt the treaty under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution through an international lawmaking process where a group of mostly unelected diplomats vote on the treaty.”
At last year’s G20 summit meeting in Indonesia, the leaders of the top 20 economies pledged to introduce international vaccine passports [emphasis added]:
“23. … We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks…”
List of G20 members, as of March 3, 2023.
And, in lockstep with the treatment of so-called mis- and disinformation and the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration, they also seek to increase digital surveillance and censor what they would deem disinformation:
“24. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation of the digital ecosystem and digital economy. We recognize the importance of digital transformation in reaching the SDGs. We acknowledge that affordable and high-quality digital connectivity is essential for digital inclusion and digital transformation, while a resilient, safe and secure online environment is necessary to enhance confidence and trust in the digital economy…We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.”
While there are apparent benefits in some of the pledges, those outlined above committed to by G20 members could set the stage for vast impingement on several fundamental rights of citizens who reside this Group of Twenty along with curtailing respective governments’ abilities to handle health crises at the national or local level based on their individual demographics, needs, and circumstances.
The WHO with its selected a partner, T-Systems, has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems to develop a global vaccine passport system.
The World Health Organization has brought T-Systems on board to develop validation services that confirm the authenticity of digital Covid certificates. Image source: Deutsche Telekom.
As per the company’s information media packet [emphasis added]:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) will make it easier for its member states to introduce digital vaccination certificates in the future. The WHO is setting up a gateway for this purpose. It enables QR codes on electronic vaccination certificates to be checked across national borders. It is intended to serve as a standard procedure for other vaccinations such as polio or yellow fever after COVID-19.”
This suggests that to travel across international borders, proof of vaccination (through electronic vaccination certificates) will be required. And the WHO would be the global institution with the authority to mandate it.
Furthermore, they state that after the Covid-19 Pandemic, it is intended to serve as a “standard procedure”, or mechanism for other vaccinations which would again be determined by the governing body of the WHO whose members are not elected by the citizens of member states.
If passed, such a scheme will completely punish individuals who favor bodily autonomy and the right to choose to be vaccinated or not, lest they be prohibited from traveling across international borders.
Though the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty has been welcomed by several countries such as the United States (who proposed the related Amendments), Canada, France, Germany, and others, there has been pushback by various organisations, health advocates, and politicians in those and other countries.
The World Council for Health – a coalition of scientists, doctors, lawyers, and civil society advocacy organizations – is one organisation opposing the treaty, having also penned an open letter warning about it.
In Canada, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis, a lawyer with international experience, was one of the earliest to draw attention to the dangers signing up to the treaty would entail, stating that Canada should never sign away the sovereignty of its health system to the WHO.
In Lewis’ warning, she stressed:
“The treaty defines and classifies what is considered a pandemic and this could consist of broad classifications including an increase in cancers, heart conditions, strokes, etc. If a pandemic is declared, the WHO takes over the global health management of the pandemic.”
“This treaty has very serious implications for our national health sovereignty. Under this treaty, Canada would essentially be surrendering our national health sovereignty to the WHO when it comes to responding to pandemics.”
Mismanagement of the Covid-19 Pandemic at national levels has already showcased substantial flaws. One could only imagine how much worse a globally centralised approach would prove, for it would not easily and readily take into account local needs, rights and freedoms of citizens from around the world.
Who funds the World Health Organization?
It must also be noted that the largest source of funds obtained by the WHO comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Gavi Foundation, a vaccine advocacy group.
In 2021, these two entities accounted for over $308 million in funding to the WHO, ahead of the largest single contributing nation, the United States at $122.5 million.
Many pharmaceutical companies are also funders to the WHO.
It is no secret that funding to the WHO comes with strings attached. Those such as Bill Gates who provide vast amounts of funding inherently have a tremendous amount of say and influence over the organisation’s policies and procedures.
Bill Gates, who holds no medical or public-health related degrees, has been a very outspoken figure fervently promoting Covid-19 vaccines around the globe during the pandemic.
Conflicts of interest and profiteering must also be considered when looking at who funds the WHO. In this respect, there have been some serious abuses in the past.
In 2010, the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published findings of their investigation into the financial ties between drug companies and the WHO in the context of the 2009 influenza “pandemic”.
The article revealed that some of the experts advising the WHO had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines. Here are just a few key excerpts:
“Meanwhile drug companies have banked vast profits- $7bn (£4.8bn; €5.7bn) to $10bn from vaccines alone according to investment bank JP Morgan.”
“Given the scale of public cost and private profit, it would seem important to know that WHO'S key decisions were free from commercial influence. An investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published this week, finds that this was far from the case.”
“As reported by Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, some of the experts advising WHO on the pandemic had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines.”
Another case exhibiting profiteering and conflicts of interest entails of one reported by Deutsche Welle who came out with an article entitled Who is really helping the WHO?
The article outlined the WHO's growing dependence on the pharmaceutical industry (see also a related open letter to the then Director General of the WHO).
Here are some notable extracts from the piece, starting with the intended mission, scope and size of the WHO:
“The "People's Health Movement," a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on health policy from more than 70 countries, has criticized the pharmaceutical industry's growing influence on WHO as well as the organization's increasing reliance on private donors.”
“According to NGOs engaged in the People's Health Movement, commercial interests have a growing influence on WHO's goals and strategies. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a prime example. "The lion's share of the $25 billion that Gates was able to invest in health programs around the world in the past 10 years stemmed from returns from well-known companies in the chemical, pharmaceutical and food industries whose business practices often run counter to global health efforts," Gebauer said.”
“If Gates brings WHO to back such patented vaccination programs, both vaccine producers and their shareholders, like the Gates Foundation, stand to benefit," Gebauer said. This would come at the expense of people in the world's poor countries whose governments are unable to afford typically expensive vaccination programs.”
“Pharma industry influence: The H1N1 "swine flu" influenza showed just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry and its supporting foundations actually have. In June 2009, WHO was advised by its standing vaccination committee to issue its highest alert for the H1N1 pandemic. Among the members and consultants of the commission were scientists who had contracts with the manufacturers of Tamiflu and other "anti-flu" drugs.”
“The global vaccination program that WHO set in motion with its pandemic alert turned into a billion-dollar business for these companies.”
“For a "perfectly ordinary flu" to escalate into a dangerous pandemic, WHO lowered the criteria for pandemic alerts before the first case of H1N1 had been known, according to the Council of Europe. Also, health officials around the world committed contractually to purchases with vaccine manufacturers.”
Read the point above carefully: The "WHO lowered the criteria for pandemic alerts before the first case of H1N1 had been known." This is a clear abuse of power.
One has to wonder and can only think of one of two reasons why they would do so – they either did so willingly, or were coerced by their funders (Big Pharma) in order to position themselves for massive sales of H1N1 vaccines.
With just these few instances enumerated above, one has to be extremely mindful about the potential for abuse, profiteering, and conflicts of interests between those who fund the WHO and the supranational organisation itself.
To sum up this section, supranational groups such as the WHO and the WEF do hold a tremendous amount of power and influence over governments and corporations. Investigative reporter Johnny Vedmore has written a very thorough piece on how the WEF was formed, which powers were behind it, and how they go about achieving their goals.
The WEF’s Great Reset: Conspiracy or Conspiracy Theory?
Both of these conspiracy labels have been wantonly thrown around across mainstream media, alternative media, and on social media in the past few years.
They have been weaponized by different camps for the sole purpose of discrediting each other.
In this digital fog, facts have been obfuscated and, more importantly, truth has been its greatest victim.
There is a veritable information war that is occurring and this author has covered some of its sophisticated aspect as it relates to NATO and the current Russia-Ukraine War.
Needless to say, the level of deception and dishonesty is at a fever pitch.
Actually, it is fairly evident to tell when such terms – particularly “conspiracy theorist,” “conspiracy theories,” or “spreading conspiracies” – are used to intently disparage certain ideas, narratives, or individuals. Such monikers have been used ad nauseum by the mainstream media.
Moreover, other obvious tells that a story, often a hit piece, is merely being used to discredit authors or counter so-called mis- or disinformation, as they usually put it, include:
citing experts or studies without actually linking to them;
deflecting to another, unrelated, topic;
defaming their targets using demeaning labels and adjectives;
linking to some “fact check” sites that are usually funded by actors with conflicting or self-serving interests;
associating the author or their targets with a disreputable person or outfit (i.e., the “guilt by association” logical fallacy);
and presenting opinions as facts.
So as to further evaluate Holocaust survivor Very Sharav’s claim regarding the concentration of power of the elite, this subsection will examination diametrically opposed takes on the relationship between the World Economic Forum (WEF), its agendas, and other supranational parties such as the WHO and the United Nations (UN).
With regards to concentration of power, one of the most contentious issues to surface during the Covid-19 Pandemic has been that of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”.
Before delving into the WEF’s Great Reset itself, it is worthwhile to rewind back to 2016 when another very controversial article from November 12, 2016, titled ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’ and accompanying video which came about imagining it is the year 2030 and “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”
This particular video outraged many people who shared it on social media, for it implied that the elitist group was planning the abolishment of private property, among other concerns.
On November 11 of the same year, the WEF had posted an article titled ‘Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030’, but they removed it and only archived versions can be found.
But getting back to the more controversial agenda proposal by the WEF, namely that of the Great Reset, it worthwhile to make a comparison between competing claims. To do so, two articles – one from a prominent mainstream outlet and one from an independent media platform – from roughly the same time period (summer of 2021, at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic) will be examined for their merits:
BBC News – By BBC Monitoring and BBC Reality Check: What is the Great Reset - and how did it get hijacked by conspiracy theories? 24 June 2021
openDemocracy - Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset, 16 August 2021
Beginning with the BBC piece, it must be noted that it is filled with labels, as the terms “conspiracy theories” or “conspiracy theorist(s)” appears no less than a dozen times.
It is readily noticeable that the BBC piece employs many of the tells mentioned above.
“Among the most popular posts are baseless statements that the Great Reset is a strategic part of a grand conspiracy by the global elite, who somehow planned and managed the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The authors present opinion – “are baseless statements” as fact. Next, they cite an “expert”:
“Melanie Smith, head of analysis at Graphika, who researches online movements and disinformation, says the rumours are typical of an "anti-establishment conspiracy theory".”
It doesn’t take long to see that the outfit they are citing, Graphika, has at least one partner that can be deemed in conflict of interest to the topic of the BBC article. As it is stated on their ‘Our Story’ page, Graphika is partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which is an agency of the Department of Defense responsible for the development of technologies for use by the military. Such technology includes research funding for the development of a coronavirus vaccine, as has been detailed in a STAT news article titled Moderna failed to disclose federal funding for vaccine patent applications, advocates say. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of Melanie Smith from Graphika to provide comment that would go against the prevailing Covid-19 narratives. And the authors of the BBC piece either failed to catch or mention this.
In their ‘How did it go viral?’ section, the BBC piece referred to how the phrase started trending on Twitter when a video went viral showing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a UN meeting in September, saying the pandemic provided an opportunity for a "reset" which was immediately followed by ‘guilt by association’ tactic, specifically stating:
“Thousands of Donald Trump supporters boosted this idea. They claimed that that a victory for Mr Trump in November's election was the only chance to thwart the so-called secret plot.”
In other words, they were suggesting that “Donald Trump supporters” are not to be trusted either.
“Experts say similar ideas about the emergence of a totalitarian world government have been circulating since the 1960s under the umbrella term New World Order, which itself borrows ideas from conspiracy theories of the 18th Century, ” the article stated. Yet, no specific expert was cited on the matter; instead, they deflected to another unrelated topic altogether linking to another BBC article about the Illuminati (a secret society from the 18th century) in which cited no experts, and another article on the same group which only offered a remark by a historian.
The article mostly employs a disparaging tone and rhetoric, and is tainted by demeaning labels, as is exemplified by the following paragraph:
“The nebulousness of this conspiracy theory means it has found followers among anti-vaccine activists, anti-lockdown campaigners, new-age healers, and those on the far right and far left.”
In short, the BBC seemed more of a hit piece to counter those who questioned the WEF’s Great Reset rather than offering a balanced and objective take on the issue with merits coming from both sides.
The second article to be examined – Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset by openDemocracy, in contrast, provides much more factual and credible information that is largely linked and referenced, while mostly abstaining from using sensationalistic rhetoric, providing a more objective assessment of the WEF’s Great Reset plan and partnerships.
The article’s lede reads:
“It’s a corporate takeover of global governance that affects our food, our data and our vaccines”
Hence, the article examines not only the Covid-19 vaccine (and vaccines in general), but also how food supplies and data, i.e., surveillance, are also central to the topic at hand, namely the concentration of power into the hands of a few.
While examining the WEF’s Great Reset, the article expands on its concept as it related to what Klaus Schwab has often referred to as Stakeholder capitalism.
The WEF summarises the movement as part of their agenda in a January 22, 2021 article titled What is stakeholder capitalism? as follows:
Stakeholder capitalism is a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.
Klaus Schwab discusses its history and relevance in this excerpt from the book Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet.
While the first point above appears benevolent and leaves little to suspicion, Schwab’s book COVID-19: The Great Reset along with another, titled The Fourth Industrial Revolution, have received a fair amount of criticism, not excluding some from the author of the openDemocracy piece, Ivan Wecke, a political scientist and writer.
Wecke notes the following [emphasis added]:
“The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less.”
He expands on his observation by stating the following:
“Instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the multi-stakeholder model of global governance, corporations are promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role, and civil society is mainly window dressing.”
While examining the WEF’s multi-stakeholder ecosystem, the author made reference to Harris Gleckman, a senior fellow at the University of Massachusetts, who said that governments would be just one of many stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance.
Gleckman also emphasised that the controversial strategic partnership agreement signed between the United Nations (UN) and the WEF in 2019, describing it as a move to turn the UN into a public-private partnership, creating a special place for corporations inside the UN.
He adds that these global stakeholder groups lack any democratic accountability and mostly consist of private stakeholders (big corporations) who “recruit their friends in government, civil society and universities to join them in solving public problems.”
In other words, under the scheme, large multinational corporations would acquire even more power by leveraging the UN’s institutions and decision-making bodies, while usurping or bypassing the will of the people.
The following description on the partnership appears on the WEF’s own website as follows:
“The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
There are two points of interest in the passage above. First, this is an agreement that has been agreed upon and signed by the heads of these two organisations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations acted on his own behalf, and no vote was ever held on the matter by member states, essentially bypassing the will of citizens of those countries and their respective governments.
Second, while the agreement’s title is cleverly disguised to imply the explicit directive “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, it also contains many other areas such as health, gender equality, digital cooperation (i.e., surveillance), and climate change.
Put differently, the agreement provides the stakeholders with clout and governance on these affairs of significant interest to nation states.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab (center) with Børge Brende, President of the World Economic Forum (left), and Amina J. Mohammed, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations (right). Photo source: World Economic Forum and UN Sign Strategic Partnership Framework.
One of the key focus areas of the agreement is that of Climate change which focuses on achieving “clear, measurable and public commitments from the private sector to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.”
As mentioned earlier, the net-zero unrealistic and unattainable net-zero goals would strangle existing businesses.
In addition, the agreement aims to develop standards for ‘digital governance.’ Put another way, they would be in a position to define and regulate online behaviour with policing powers to tackle whatever they deem as mis- and disinformation, along with the ability to censor free speech.
Such digital governance, or surveillance is commensurate with what the WHO seeks to accomplish through its pandemic treaty.
The openDemocracy article further criticises how these multi-stakeholder partnerships would render real-world implications on the way our food systems are organized, how big tech is governed and how our vaccines and medicines are distributed.
Food Systems
The author highlighted how the 2021 World Summit on Food Systems in Rome disproportionately relies on ‘multi-stakeholder inclusivity’ in which the private sector holds a significant role along with the WEF’s involvement in the summit.
The article noted how FIAN International, a global human rights organization that advocates for the right to adequate food and nutrition, contended that there was no discussion at the summit on land concentration, or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.
Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International sees it as a bigger picture whereby large corporations, which dominate the food sector, are reluctant to fix the production system and would rather just focus on coming up with new investment opportunities.
In other words, these corporations are more interested in increasing their profits, than genuinely caring for the environment and local producers.
FIAN International together with 300 other organizations expressed their concerns about the multi-stakeholder setup in an open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres.
Here are some key highlights from the open letter [emphasis added]:
“The UN-WEF strategic partnership agreement signed in June 2019 casts a cloud on the integrity of the United Nations (UN) as a multilateral system.”
“In September 2019, more than 400 civil society organizations sent you a letter calling for the
termination of the UN-WEF strategic partnership agreement. We believe that this agreement is fundamentally at odds with the UN Charter and with intergovernmental decisions on sustainable development, the climate emergency, and the eradication of poverty and hunger. It will provide transnational corporations (TNCs) preferential access to the UN system and permanently associate the UN with TNCs, some of whose core activities have caused and/or worsened the social, economic and environmental crises the world faces.”
“Family Farmers produce more than 80% of the world’s food in value terms. They should be at the center of the UN Food Systems Summit, particularly during this UN Decade on Family Farming.”
Then, they sharply criticised the WEF’s multi-stakeholder platforms, stating:
“Instead of drawing from the innovative governance experiences that the UN system has to offer, the UN-WEF partnership is helping to establishing “stakeholder capitalism” as a governance model for the entire planet. The WEF’s multi-stakeholder platforms lack democratic legitimacy and focus instead on harnessing the opportunities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for the benefit of TNCs [Transnational Corporations] and global financial capital.”
In a separate press release from 2019, FIAN International made reference to another open letter signed by 240 civil society organizations and 40 international networks have called on the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General to end the recently signed UN’s Strategic Partnership Agreement with the World Economic Forum (WEF).
And in another press release from early 2020, FIAN also strongly condemned the WEF’s “takeover” of the UN.
Big Tech
The same openDemocracy article outlines concerns about how Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and the WEF itself will be key participants to a UN Digital Cooperation program, thus able to exert a tremendous amount of power over online content and behavior by netizens.
Once more, an open letter was sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations by Just Net Coalition (JNC), a global network of civil society actors committed to an open, free, just and equitable Internet.
The letter was on behalf of more than 170 civil society groups from around the world that oppose plans for a Big Tech dominated body for global digital governance and offered the following stern warning [emphasis added]:
“It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have corporation and government nominees sitting as equals. Worse, the proposed Body will rely largely on private (i.e., corporate) funding, and the main proposal currently on the table for this Body suggests linking gaining a seat on it with providing funding support. This is a new low for the UN, and an unthinkably dangerous direction for the future of global governance.”
Assuredly, corporate funding would compromise the independence and impartiality of the governing body.
The letter also outlines how the WEF would expand its power with regards to global digital governance:
“A Readers Guide (University of Massachusetts-Boston) describes how the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Redesign Initiative believed that “‘multistakeholder consultations’ on global matters should evolve into ‘multi-stakeholder governance’ arrangements. This transformation means that non-state actors would no longer just provide input to decision-makers ... but would actually be responsible for making global policy decisions.”
Apart from outlining specific requests, the signatories pleaded, in a stern tone, that the UN abolish the proposal in its current form:
“We urge the office of the UN Secretary General to immediately withdraw the proposal for a High level Multistakeholder Body for ‘Digital Cooperation’, since it would become the de facto body for ‘global digital governance’. If this proposal is adopted, it will sound the death knell of democratic and multilateral global governance, replacing it with corporate-led governance systems, that (as envisaged by the WEF) will extend more widely with increasing digitalisation of all sectors.”
How our vaccines and medicines are distributed
The final aspect covered by Ivan Wecke in his Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset article was that of the manufacture and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines.
Wecke makes reference to COVAX, the WHO initiative that aims to “accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world.”
In this section, the author questions why the WHO, which is part of the UN, is not calling the shots with regards to the vaccine for this global health issue.
He then emphasises that COVAX was set up as a multi-stakeholder group by two other multi-stakeholder groups, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), in partnership with the WHO, both having strong ties with the World Economic Forum (which was one of the founders of CEPI) as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And how both are also connected to companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson through manufacturer partnerships (GAVI) or as 'supporters' (CEPI).
But here’s where the author really hits the nail on the head. He clearly demonstrates and exhibits the true colors and intentions of GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Big Pharma, stating [emphasis added]:
“The contrast between the multi-stakeholder approach and a 'classic' multilateral one came to the surface when South Africa and India proposed the so-called [World Trade Organization] TRIPS waiver at the end of last year. They requested a temporary lifting of intellectual property rules on all COVID-19 technologies in order to boost the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines and other essential medical products in mainly developing countries. WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a speech that he backed the proposal. “But GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – even Bill Gates himself – and Big Pharma opposed this proposal very strongly,” said Nandi. “It's more important for them to protect their interests and market mechanisms than to protect universal health or protect people from COVID.””
This pretty much showcases the inherent conflicts of interest and overall dangers in letting these corporate interests seize decision-making control of such supranational institutions and governing bodies that are supposed to serve the interests of global citizens.
To summarise the comparison of the BBC and openDemocracy articles, it is clear that the latter is to be taken more seriously; for, rather than concentrating on sensationalistic rhetoric, it focuses more deeply and sincerely on the issues at hand, and does so in a more systematic and referenced manner, citing credible sources.
The ESG, (Environment Social Governance) ideology and model must also not be forgotten when assessing how the concentration of corporate power is currently unfolding amidst this Great Reset.
A popular researcher and crypto commentator called Guy from the YouTube channel Coin Bureau – who has over 2 million followers – offers a rather revealing take on how ESG is being weaponised by the WEF, EU, UN, and corporate giants such as Blackrock – the world's largest asset manager, with US$10 trillion in assets under management to destroy the current capitalist-based economic model.
His recent video from February 5 sheds much needed light on the complex matter and can be viewed hereunder.
A financial educator, Mark Moss, also nicely summarised what ESG really is, along with its real-world consequences in a December 2, 2022 tweet:
In outro for this section, it must also be noted that the WEF’s twitter and YouTube accounts have disabled the comments section to the public. On Twitter, only people who the @wef and @Davos follows can reply. Many contend that if the WEF were indeed a truly benevolent organisation who wishes to offer benefits a be good stewards to a global society, it would permit those from around the globe to have a voice in the matter.
2.3 Joshua Stylman on the violation of the Nuremberg Code & international laws
Joshua Stylman, a 3rd generation Holocaust survivor based in New York City testified to the overbearing measures implemented in his city during the pandemic along with what he called a “hit piece” that was directed against him by the New York Times. At around the 55:44 mark he stated the following:
“Human beings are entitled to determine what they put in their body. And I believe the Nuremberg Code guarantees that.”
For those unfamiliar, the Nuremberg Code began before the war but came to prominence following the Nuremberg Trials which took place after the Second World War which consisted of military tribunals for war crimes against members of the Nazi leadership who committed medical experiments on Jews in concentration camps.
Nazi defendants listen to testimony at the Nuremberg trials, which set a precedent for prosecuting crimes against humanity. Photo source.
In short, the Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. It came about as a mechanism to ensure that the destructive medical and health-related experiments and atrocities committed against the Jewry during the Second World War would never happen again.
The 10 points of the Nuremberg Code of 1949 were given in the section of the verdict (of the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt trial) entitled "Permissable Medical Experiments".
The following first three points of the code were referenced in the documentary and by Joshua Stylman (main headers):
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
The first point entails more than just the header above. It also includes the following:
“1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
It is clear from above that not only should consent be given to patients or those receiving treatments (such as with Covid-19 vaccinations), but that they should also have free choice to do so, or not do so, without coercion, deceit, or fraud, among other limitations.
Many have argued that promoting the Covid-19 as “safe and effective” represented a form of deceit and/or fraud, for these were experimental treatments authorised under special health measures and circumstances.
In addition, it is a fact that many nurses, medical doctors, health practitioners, and others have been coerced into taking the vaccinations; and, many who refused were fired from their positions. As such, many people acquiesced to receiving the procedure for fear that they would be terminated if they refused. This clearly amounts to a form of coercion and duress.
The third point, “The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation,” was also largely ignored. For, the usual animal testing phase was absent for some of the Covid-19 vaccinations.
The mention of safety, effectiveness, and animal testing by health authorities around the world who have advertised or promoted the Covid-19 vaccines varied from country to country and state to state or province to province.
In Canada, on the Quebec government’s health website, we can notice the following in the section ‘Safety of the vaccines’ (last updated on February 2, 2023):
Previous versions (such as that of October 29, 2021) somewhat varied and used to include a hyperlink (“all the requirements”) pointing to the page that describes all the steps in the vaccine development process, including conducting preclinical studies in animals:
While it remains unclear why Quebec Health removed the link to the Vaccine development process page from the ‘Safety of the vaccines’ section, the current page does state that they “have gone through all the necessary steps prior to approval” which remains disputable, given insufficient testing on animals, at least according to Réinfo Covid Québec, a collective of medical doctors and scientific professionals.
As for the legality in promoting the vaccines, in Réinfo Covid Québec’s open letter (addressed to the Quebec college of physicians, the public health director, and the Quebec association of pediatricians) they refer to Section 9 (1) of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act which states:
““9 (1) No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.””
Advertising the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a manner that suggests it has met “the same quality and safety standards as any other vaccine used in Canada” is highly questionable since it was not fully tested on animals, it was hurriedly released and administered under an emergency directive, and was an experimental product of gene manipulation very different from conventional vaccines.
Réinfo Covid Québec also raised many other concerns, including the matter of consent (particularly with regards to children), and with regards to the government following the Quebec health authority’s (the INSPQ) recommendation to vaccinate children in order to protect more vulnerable groups of society.
But to return to the main subject at hand, the following question must be addressed.
Are countries bound to the Nuremberg Code?
While many people around the world often make reference to the Nuremberg Code, the following must be emphasized regarding this code [emphasis added]:
“The Nuremberg Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. (see the Significance section of the Everipedia article)”
This is an important point, i.e., that it is not law adopted by any nation, and may thus not be considered legally binding.
However, the reference article does state:
“However, the Code is considered to be the most important document in the history of clinical research ethics, which had a massive influence on global human rights.”
and,
“In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization.”
Are there any existing international laws?
While the Nuremberg Code is not considered law, the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted by a General Assembly resolution on December 16th, 1966) obligates member states, through several treaties, to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses and refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights.
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly states the following:
“Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
As no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation, this clearly outlines people’s rights not to be forced to take a vaccination – certainly not an experimental one like those from Pfizer, Moderna, and other pharmaceutical companies providing Covid-19 vaccines.
Moreover, any person or entity enforcing such experimental pharmaceuticals upon others are in direct violation of this legal right, and could thus be subject to legal action and possibly prosecuted.
For the reader who wants to make sure that his or her country adheres to this covenant by the United Nations, the official list of 173 countries that have legalized this covenant in their own legislatures. (See Wikipedia - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Parties to the Covenant, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Parties_to_the_Covenant)
What about domestic and local laws?
Laws regarding activities surrounding health measures vary from state to state, or province to province.
On December 13, 2022 in the United States of America, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis held an accountability roundtable regarding the Covid-19 mRNA injections.
On the same day, a PETITION FOR ORDER TO IMPANEL A STATEWIDE GRAND JURY was submitted to The Supreme Court of Florida.
The petition included concerns that are material to the issues discussed thus far in this section. Here are some notable highlights of the petition:
The following week, on December 22, 2022, the highest court in the state approved the ORDER DIRECTING IMPANELMENT OF A STATEWIDE GRAND JURY (CASE NO.: SC22-1710) to investigate events surrounding the experimental Covid-19 injections.
The principal matters to be investigated are listed on top of page 2:
The passage from the image above calls for individuals and entities which include health authorities – including medical associations, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and their executive officers, as well as other parties involved in the various activities surrounding the experimental Covid-19 vaccines in question.
The duration of the Grand Jury is set to last for a term of 12 months from the date of impanelment.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it, as its outcome may set a legal precedent for other states to follow suit.
So far, there doesn’t seem to be other grand juries established in other jurisdictions around the world to conduct similar investigations. But, it may only be a matter of time before the citizenry demand for them.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of this series.
In Peace and Liberty,
Articles are all free, but please support the work of this independent journalist by subscribing to his Substack and Twitter. You can also buy him a coffee.
Disclaimer:
None of the contents of this article is to be taken as medical or health-related advice. Seek independent professional consultation before making health-related decisions. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.
Strong stuff, Dan.
This phrase is clearly meant in a factually correct way, but most people will misinterpret it: "the usual animal testing phase was absent for some of the Covid-19 vaccinations". That phase was rushed and not terminated before human trials, which is definitely scandalous enough, but not absent.
As an aside, the intrepid Mathew Crawford has repeatedly stated that the Nuremberg trials were a sham arranged to get the real criminals off the hook by cutting the strings of a couple of patsies. Might be worthwile to look into.
Excellent work! Thank you for substantiating the warning by Vera Sharav (which is her right as a Survivor of the Holocaust, as per "Report to The President", dated Sept. 27, 1979, issued by the "President's Commission on the Holocaust", chaired by Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel).
One small caveat: You write "Another case exhibiting profiteering and conflicts of interest entails of one reported by Deutsche Welle (a German media outfit focused on human right to freedom of expression, education and independent journalism)". Please note that Deutsche Welle is a fully state-sponsored outlet, controlled by the German Government. Whilst this report from 2011 was ok'ed and broadcast, Deutsche Welle today is far from protecting "human rights" or "freedom of expression" and does not publish "independent journalism". Quite to the contrary.