The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NEW W.H.O. THREAT, AND THE BETTER WAY

Episode Date: May 29, 2022

The WHO met this week to vote on a set of concerning Pandemic Treaty amendments. Dr. Tess Lawrie and Attorney Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, two members of the World Council for Health, join Del to explain why you need to oppose this, and to promote the Better Way Conference, currently under way in Bath, England.#WHO #TessLawrie #ShabnamPalesaMohamed #BetterWayBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

All of this insanity, where did it come from, right? Where did this, is this born in Wuhan? Who was behind saying this virus was so deadly that we all needed to lock down? Who was behind saying that our only way forward is going to be a vaccine? Who was behind saying that no other drug was going to work? I mean, you can point to Fauci's and you can point to different things. But throughout all of this, there has been one voice, one global international voice, that kept chiming in and telling us all what to do, whether we're

We were in America or Bangladesh. They didn't seem to care, but it was the same people. Of course, I'm talking about the World Health Organization, and this is what they've been bloviating about for the last two years. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak an international public health emergency. I'm declaring a public health emergency of international concern. The World Health Organization has just declared that this is a pandemic.

COVID-19 can be characterized as a public. When the World Health Organization, the WHO speaks, we listen. Although older people are the hardest hit, younger people are not spared. I have a message for young people. You're not invincible. This virus could put you in hospital for weeks, or even kill you.

Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick as people. people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them. To change the course of the pandemic, we must change the conditions that are driving. We feel very strongly that what has been demonstrated in a number of countries of reducing transmission can be done elsewhere. What that means is ensuring that aggressive, there's an aggressive and a comprehensive approach by all people, by governments that really attempt to find all cases, find all contacts. The World Health Organization has told the BBC it believes the coronavirus pandemic will go on for a year longer than it needs to

because of the unequal distribution of vaccines. It's dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant or that we are in the end game. The World Health Organization has just released a report estimating that 15 million deaths occurred globally due to the pandemic around triple the current estimates. The paradigm shift in world health that's needed now must be matched by a paradigm shift in funding the world's health organization. Well, as though the World Health Organization didn't have enough power through the pandemic,

dictating policies around the world that it seems that almost every nation adhered to, now they want more power over every nation and the ability to move faster in their regulations and decisions to govern us. This is being voted on. A set of amendments are being voted on. The World Health Assembly agrees to launch process to develop historic global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

To get into the details of this, I have invited two of the leading voices for the World Council for Health, Tess Lori and Shabnam Palaisa Muhammad. Thank you for joining me today. Absolutely. Thank you for the invite. All right, you bet.

And, you know, on your website, you have really laid out a lot of details that people can read about your concerns with these votes that are taking place, these amendments to the international health regulations. So, Shabnam, I've seen you, you've written many articles, just sort of give me a rundown of what you see is the problem or what we should be concerned about with this meeting that's happening this week. and these amendments that are going to be voted upon. Absolutely. So essentially, the WHO is looking to use this coronavirus chapter to centralize health and take power for itself to make decisions on behalf of sovereign countries, such as America, such as South Africa, such as the UK. And they're doing this through the amendments through the 2005 international health regulations.

There are about 13 amendments they're looking to change or to amend, including increased surveillance, including unilateral power given to the directed General Tedros to decide if your country or your region has a public health emergency of international concern. Now, prior to these amendments, the WHO and Tedros would have to consult with our countries to decide whether we do have a public health emergency of international concern. These amendments make it such that there isn't any consultation. He may consult. He doesn't have to.

So of course this has massive socio-political and geoeconomic considerations, especially when we're hearing rumblings about sanctions being enforced in certain countries that perhaps might not tour the line. So you're quite right. 22nd to 28th May, these amendments are going to be proposed and potentially adopted by the secret delegates to the World Health Assembly. Nobody knows who they are, and it's coming up in a couple of days. So no transparency, no public participation.

And just to mention also, DAL, that these amendments have come out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They were sent to the WHO on the 18th of January by the 20th. Ted Ross announced to the member states. So those representatives, we don't know that these amendments have been put on the table. No participation process. That department did attempt a sort of manufactured consent process a couple of days ago. But as you know, that really isn't proper public participation. And so our position is the World Council for Health, but of course our many allies.

I mean, this movement is growing at an exponential place, because people know not only what the WHO has done over the last two years with the mismanagement of the so-called pandemic, but also has a history of corruption and mismanagement due to conflicts of interest. So there's an exponential movement that's growing under the hashtag stop the who. Right now it's stopped the IHR, but we'll get to stop the new pandemic a little later on. All right, you know, Tess, one of the things I've seen reported out there, and I think it's misreporting, is this idea that this is a brand new council being put together or, you know, treaty. But this is actually a treaty that goes all the way back to 2005. Just many of us were not paying attention to it.

So when you look now at what they're attempting to do, it seems that we're already on a slippery slope. When you look at, you have worked with the WHO and for the WHO. WHO, can you give us some perspective why now a group that you've worked with successfully and had good relations with? Why are you speaking out against this now? You know, the WHO is made up of a lot of people, you know, working there. And the teams that I've worked with have been really hardworking and dedicated. But obviously, you know, this is a power grab from the very top. and this new, these proposed amendments to the International Health Regulation,

you know, the most worrying for me is actually Article 12, which says that in the event of a potential or actual health emergency, so this doesn't just relate to pandemics. This is any health emergency, and that could be anything, that the Director General shall determine on the basis of information received, and that can be secretive information. It doesn't have to be declared. But it's potential or actual.

So on a whim of a potential emergency in your region or in the world, the Director General, this one individual who, you know, who there is a lot of concern about his history and experience, that he should have this power. And then of course we get 48 hours. Each country gets 48 hours to give a reason why they don't wish to accept the author of collaboration, it's called. So I think... So hold on a second.

So 48 hours. I mean, when I think about this pandemic, it seemed to me it took weeks at least for there to even be a consensus over what was really happening. Here are the United States of America. Donald Trump, our president at the time, was saying, I want to shut down all flights coming into America. America right now. Everyone says you're overreacting. That isn't this isn't that big. You had here Tony Fauci saying this virus will not get here. It's not going to be a problem for the United States of America. And then some, you know, within 10 days, a week later, all of a sudden, you know, the languaging started changing. So it's hard for me to imagine in the face of any

future pandemic, real or feared or whatever it is, that 48 hours is enough time. to determine for, you know, world-renowned scientists and the best of the best to come to some understanding of what we're going to agree and not agree to. How, who came up with a 48-hour time period? That seems absurd. Yes. I mean, it is, it is absurd and the fact that, you know, this is in black and white in this document and, and that there, and that we, you know, as, as nation states, we have to give reasons why we don't want to have the Director General of the WHO making our health decisions for us is patently absurd, but it's there in black and white. Shabnam, when we look at these amendments, do they affect different nations differently?

Do you think that they are more dangerous perhaps for, you know, smaller nations or those that are not well-financed? You know, I would have to imagine no matter what's going on, the United States of America and England will probably be able to say, you know what, we're just not down, but, you know, does Africa, you know, do African nations have that type of power or, you know, New Zealand or somewhere like that? Can they stand up against this? I mean, do you think it's going to have an equal sort of footing with all nations or will there be a difference in, in how nations are treated by the WHO? So that's, of course, a really good question. If you're asking a country that doesn't have the resources to come back to you within 48 hours and then they don't. Not only do you malign them

to the emergency committee, but you say, you know what, maybe we should look at sanctions against this country. And maybe this country has got resources like oil and diamonds. Wouldn't that just be very convenient? And so certainly there are certain considerations we need to bear in mind. I mentioned sanctions earlier on. And it is going to be quite a challenge to ensure that the delegates that are going to the World Health Assembly, whose names we don't know, are aware of that we do not consent. And so therefore, there is this massive campaign now in every country. I mean, this is massive. We've just heard about a legal action being launched at the High Court of the United Kingdom, basically to have these amendments interdicted or stayed. There's lots of talk about

it happening within the US. And I believe the US has to lead on this because that's where these amendments are coming out of. But in terms of Africa, we have the African sovereignty coalition with South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya and growing. We also have the Afro-Eman. Asian sovereignty coalition because we are trying to form a South North collaboration in taking back our health, in building the better way. Surely there's got to be a better way than depending on the WHO and the farmer cartel to make decisions about our health. And of course, that's what the World Council for Health is all about. There is a better way. We have no conflicts of interest.

We're really interested in people's health and well-being. And so we're looking forward, Dell, to also unpacking the power grab by the WHO and to building the better way. at the Better Way conference that's coming up, and we're delighted that you're going to be the program director there. There's going to be a very special spotlight on the WHO power grab on day three, which is Sunday in a panel called Law, Justice and Human Rights.

I'll be co-hosting that event. And we'll be in a nation with experts like Astrid Sickleberger, who also worked with the WHO and James Rogaski, who's just done brilliant work in this area. Yeah, I'm really looking forward to this. I mean, first of all, this is going to be one of the first times I'm going to get to be in person with many of the great scientists and experts around the world that have been appearing on the high wires.

So for everyone out there, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Starting tomorrow, the Better Way conference is being held in Bath, England. Of course, you're sold out, I know, for the in-person, but everyone, you can sign up online. And one of the beautiful things, these panels, this is, I like the format because it's going to be these scientists and doctors interacting with each other, not just giving up and, you know, standing, giving, you know, a diatribe on their perspective, but challenging each other, trying to find, you know, camaraderie, ways forward. And even better is the fact that you have this question and answer at the end of every one of these panels, which is going to allow everyone out there, you're going to have the opportunity to write in, I will be on the other side of this,

you can write in questions that I will be able to ask, people like Dr. Robert Malone, Gert Van der Leyen Bosch, you know, Ryan Cole. I mean, I could go on, test, just give me a the list of people that are going to be speaking at this conference over the next three days. Yeah. Well, we've got a whole lot of people arriving in person, which is amazing, but also those who can't make it in person are appearing via Zoom. So, for example, to address the question of how do we reclaim science, we've got Paul Alexander, Brett Weinstein, Robert Kennedy, Robert Malone, Jessica Rose, Peter McCullough, Fair Funnel. Baj and Mary Hoogne Morg and myself on that panel and my deed now was is actually the host who

will be asking the questions to those panelists but you know every every panel is just full of amazing doctors and warriors and people who have put their head above the parapet in the last two years to say something's not quite right can we please ask questions and and and offer suggestions. So we've got Dr. Flavio Kedegiani from Brazil, Jackie Stone, Dr. Kat Lindley and Richard Erso, Ryan Cole, Alexander Omelam Korda from France. These are all, we'll be discussing how do we address the health consequences of the COVID-19 chapter? And we get to move on from that. And it's not just about COVID these questions because what the last two years has shown us where we haven't been able to ask questions is that there are many that we need to ask.

So we have how do we actively create a world in which people thrive? And that really is to motivate and inspire people and give them actions they can take to help create a better world. So I can go on, Del, if you want me to. Well, I mean, look, I think people can go to the website. Let's bring this up right now. And, you know, one of the things you said, Tess, that I like when we were talking right before this, you know, obviously, you know, right now people can pay to see this online. But you said, don't just, you're not looking for everybody. Pay it.

Have a party. Have five, ten people come over to your house. Get online. Everyone sit around and get in the conversations that world-renowned experts are going to be hosting with each other. This is going to be an amazing event. That's why I'm flying all the way to England. I'm so honored to be emceeing this entire event for the whole weekend. I mean, really, these are the best of the best from around the world coming together to try and make sure that this insanity that we've been through over the last two years and is really being promised to us to start again right around the corner.

We've got Bill Gates saying, you know, don't count out Omicron next. The more deadly version could be coming. I mean, these people seem obsessed with the idea of a pandemic. When prior to this moment, a pandemic tends to happen like once every 50 years, you get this sense with where the drug. WHO is going, how Bill Gates is talking, that we're going to have pandemics like every year, every other year. I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but it sure seems like this is like this new way of getting us all to comply to how we move about this world and being put in the hands of a much smaller group of people. That's why I think it's so important. And the voices that you're bringing,

I mean, you hadn't originally been set up at a public location for this, but got kicked out essentially, right, Tass? Yes, yeah. Our location is very secure now, and we have no doubt it's going to be a great success, bringing everybody together to create this better way. We don't have to accept the dystopian option. We can make our own way, and it's going to be beautiful. All right, so everybody just starting tomorrow.

Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, Shabnam. I've got this big news that I want to share with you and your audience, and that is that the WHO is very well. aware that there is a resistance to this power grab. How do we know this? Tedros had a media briefing and I'll quote what he said. Unfortunately, there's been a small minority of groups making misleading statements and purposefully distorting facts. I want to be crystal clear. WHO's agenda is public, open and transparent. Of course, it's none of those things. WHO stands strongly for

individual rights. We passionately support everyone's right to health and we'll do everything we can to ensure that that right is realized. Talk about sovereignty and the WHA's job and essentially says the DAWJ's mandate is 100% determined by member what they agree. So he's not laid all the blame on these delegates to the World Health Assembly, not necessarily a thing. I just think this is something to be excited about. They know there's a resistance. We're in the most part of history.

The great awakening is here. And the power of the people is always greater than people in power. Well, I agree. And I want to play a video for you. This is, you know, Tadros. And one of the things that bothers me about this guy, as you pointed out, My understanding he's up for re-election, but he's running unopposed. Apparently, he's like the best guy in the world.

The guy running the WHO is not a doctor himself, which means he's totally vulnerable to all the pressures of the funding and where the WHO funding is coming from. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates himself being one of the major funders. China's involved in that. Pharma obviously hugely behind this. But I have a problem when you don't have a doctor that is saying, give me the power to unilaterally make decisions that I don't even have to ask any of the other side. scientists around the world, especially when I see videos like this. This is him talking about herd immunity,

which is a term that all of us learned in school, even in high school, and he's flipping it on its head as though he has no concept of what he's talking about. Take a look at this really quick. There has been some discussion recently about the concept of reaching so-called herd immunity by letting the virus spread. Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination. in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. For example, her dimininity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%.

In other words, herd immunities achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Never in the history of public health has heard immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It's scientifically and ethically problematic. All right, Tess, you're, you know, a scientist, a doctor. you are, you know, been deeply involved in helping people around the world, both in using pharmaceutical products and developing studies around it. But herd immunity is a term that has always been based on natural infection. It has been commandeered by the pharmaceutical industry to say what the new definition that Tadros is giving it, that herd immunity references being

vaccinated. That, I'm correct in saying that is not the case. Herd immunity is a term that is based ultimately beginning, you know, back in the early 1900s just following things like measles and how it would sweep through a county or an area. And then once it had that immunity that was achieved from the infection and then blocked it from coming back. So when you hear him making statements that are factually not true. And then furthermore saying that we've never used a policy of herd immunity, I mean whether or not we name the policy of herd immunity up until this pandemic, that's exactly what we did. During the last SARS outbreak, which was a far more deadly, looked like a far more deadly virus, we didn't rush out and vaccinate the world. We, you know,

we made some attempts of vaccinations, many of them a failure, but we let people make their own decisions and that virus went right away. I mean, it disappeared on its own, didn't do the damage we thought. In this case, we vaccinated the world to achieve this vaccinated herd immunity, and we're now being told we will never hit herd immunity. We're going to have to learn to live with it for the first time ever. So I have major concerns that this is the guy that's going to make decisions when every decision they made in this pandemic is the first time we've ever done it this way. We broke away from natural herd immunity and now we're in real trouble because we can't get there some saying because of the vaccine program. Tess, what are

your thoughts on that and the statements he's making as a doctor yourself? Well, that's not the first redefining of terms that the WHO has come up with over the last two years. They keep redefining terms that we have been, you know, that are in our dictionaries. So clearly they think we're idiots and they can tell us any old thing and we'll believe it. And, you know, secondly, it's very aware. the way that they are redefining things and removing evidence, removing previous web pages from their website where the old definitions have existed or where some sort of evidence exists or some sort of document exists that they should have of a process, they should have adhered to.

So it's like they're, you know, it's very deceptive and it's very deceptive. And it's, and Orwellian, as I say, you know, it is literally 1984. Yeah. No, I've been saying in many ways, this feels like the prequel. We didn't know how they got the control in the books, 1984, Brave New World, what had happened that set up that world. Well, as it turns out, we gave the World Health Organization power over every nation in the world to be able to start a fake war with a virus that was, you know, invisible.

and thereby locking us down or doing whatever they needed. Shabnam, I know you're about to catch a plane. We've got to get you moving on. You're in an airport. You're heading to the Better Way conference. Just any last thoughts? I know you're going to share a lot at that conference, and we're all looking forward to that.

But any last thoughts on this issue with the WHO? Well, I want to say that the WHO and the UN and the WEF and all of their handlers have grossly miscalculated. In my analysis, these amendments to the IHR and their new pandemic, They want to finalize in 2024, operating in lockstep is the biggest mistake they've ever made. I think the people are going to pressurize national delegates to the World Health Assembly to defund and to withdraw this dinosaur organization that does not serve the needs of the 99%. We have the wisdom and the intelligence and the compassion amongst us. We're going to build a better way for a better world.

And I look forward to seeing everyone at the Better Way conference this weekend. Tess, it's one of the things I've been saying. we could get really negative and depressed about what we've seen, but in so many ways, the world has woken up because of what we've been through so many people, as you're saying. Tadro's seeing what he wants to call a minority. Bill Gates has said the same thing, a very vocal minority. I think it's the majority now. You have the majority of Americans now resisting the booster shots that are being recommended

by the CDC. I think we've lost confidence in these governing bodies. It's amazing that at the moment where we have less confidence than we've ever had, that they're grasping for more power. But this is the opportunity to take this momentum that we have and build a new world, a better world, in some ways going back to the scientific method that I think we've abandoned,

get back to what science does. Tess, just tell me, you know, what are you hoping is achieved by the Better Way Conference that's coming up starting tomorrow? Well, we all come together and seize this opportunity for great change and, you know, design the world that we want. really from scratch. That's where we're at. It's the most amazing opportunity. Let's do it. All right. Well, if you want to be a part of that test, thank you for joining me. Shabnam.

I really appreciate you taking the time. I will see you just in a few hours in Bath, England. And for those of you that can't make it, but want to be a part of it, this is the Better Way conference.