On 31 December 2019, The World Health Organization (WHO) China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology in Wuhan City, Hubei Province.
On 7 January, 2020 a novel coronavirus was officially announced as the causative agent by Chinese authorities.
On 10 January, 2020, a viral genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the community online resource virological.org (Wuhan-Hu-1, GenBank accession number MN908947) to be followed by four other genomes deposited on 12 January in the viral sequence database curated by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID).
On January 11, 2020, the WHO reports that they had received the genetic sequence of what should represent this new corona virus from the city of Wuhan.
The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans. The species also comprises a large number of viruses mostly detected in rhinolophid bats in Asia and Europe.
As of 20 January 2020, 282 laboratory-confirmed human cases had been notified to WHO . Confirmed cases in travellers from Wuhan were announced on 13 and 17 January in Thailand as well as on 15 January in Japan and 19 January in Korea. The extent of human-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV was unclear but there was evidence of some human-to-human transmission.
On 23 January, 2020 establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation was reported in Eurosurveillance. This was designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology. This paper came under critical scrutiny in a retraction-request letter sent to Eurosurveillance by the main & co-author’s, written by Dr. Peter Borger.
On 30 January 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak a so-called “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC), which is the organization’s highest level of emergency preparedness. The basis for this was then only 7,800 confirmed coronavirus infections where all – except 98 – were registered in China. 170 deaths were reported, all in China. The infectious disease was currently named 2019-nCoV.
The first stage of this crisis was the launching of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the WHO on January 30th. While officially it was not designated as a “Pandemic”, it nonetheless contributed to spearheading the fear campaign. The number of “confirmed cases” based on faulty estimates (PCR) used to justify this far reaching decision was ridiculously low.
The Worldwide population outside China is of the order of 6.4 billion. On January 30, 2020 outside China there were:
83 “cases” in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).
83 Cases outside China: There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
- Four confirmed cases reported in United Arab Emirates, in individuals traveling
from Wuhan City.
- World Health Organization (WHO), in collaboration with the World Economic
Forum, has set up a public private collaboration called “The Pandemic Supply
Chain Network (PSCN)”. It is a Market Network that seeks to provide a platform
for data sharing, market visibility, and operational coordination and connecting.
- PSCN is launches the first of several teleconference calls with over 30
private sector organizations and 10 multilateral organizations to develop a
market capacity and risk assessment for personal protective equipment (PPE).
This assessment will be used as the basis to match the global demand for PPE
with the global supply. The market and risk assessment for PPE is expected to be
completed by 5 February 2020.
- The Emergency Committee on the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) under the
International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) is re-convened by the World Health
Organization Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on 30 January.
These “shock and awe” statements contributed to heightening the fear campaign, despite the fact that the number of confirmed cases outside China was exceedingly low.
On 2 February 2020, the first dispatch of RT-PCR diagnostic kits was sent to the WHO’s regional offices.
On 11 February 2020, the virus was given the formal name SARS Covid-2 and the viral disease was named COVID-19.
February 20-21, 2020 marks the beginning of the 2020 Financial Crash which was Spearheaded by Dr. Tedros’ Statement.
On 11 March 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, pointing to over 3 million cases and 207,973 deaths in 213 countries and territories.
“This is not just a public health crisis, it is a crisis that will affect all sectors,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s Director General, told a news conference. “So every sector and every individual must be involved in the fight against the pandemic.”
March 11, 2020: The Lockdown. 44,729 “Confirmed Cases” As a Justification to Close Down 190 National Economies
“An outbreak of a disease occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population” (Webster-Merriam, emphasis added).
The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when the number of confirmed cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44279 and 1440 deaths (figures recorded by the WHO for March 11, (on March 12) . These are the figures used to justify the lockdown and the closing down of 190 national economies.
Assuming that the PCR test is valid (which it is not), the number of cumulative confirmed cases on March 11 was ridiculously low. The WHO Director General had already set the stage in his February 21st Press Conference .
On 25 March 2020, the disease received its own ICD10 diagnosis code and on 16 April, the WHO issued guidelines for the certification and coding of COVID-19 as the cause of death. A Covid-19 cause of death is defined as:
«A death as a result of a clinical course of disease with probable or confirmed COVID-19, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that can not be related to COVID disease (eg trauma). A death due to COVID-19 cannot be attributed to another disease (eg cancer) and should be counted independently of existing conditions suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19 ».
ICD-10 Codes for. Covid-19
The definition requires that COVID-19 be identified by a clinician as a disease that has SARS Cov2 as the underlying cause of the disease, or is believed to have caused or contributed to death.
Societal Restriction and Mask Mandates – What evidence was this approach based on?
Sir Patrick Vallance the U.K. government’s chief scientific adviser, told Sky News on March 13 that there may be a strategy to build “herd immunity for enough of us who are going to get mild illness to become immune,” If we see that the health srisk to the population from COVID-19 are not so high, “it would technically be possible to bring about herd immunity by allowing the disease to run rampant through a population”.
In a lengthy interview by the publication Nature in April of 2020 of Swedens’s Chief Epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnel – Tegnel remarked that the restrictions that were enacted around the world with lock down of workplaces, schools, and public gatherings were unprecedanted and had no scientific basis in history.
“We have looked at a number of European Union countries to see whether they have published any analysis of the effects of these measures before they were started and we saw almost none”Anders Tegnel, April 2020
The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility. It clearly states that the citizen has the responsibility not to spread a disease.
“This is not a disease that can be stopped or eradicated. We have to find long-term solutions that keeps the distribution of infections at a decent level. Closing borders, in my opinion, is ridiculous, because COVID-19 is in every European country now”.Anders Tegnel, April 2020
Since human corona virus was first characterized in the 1960s, they have been known as cause a significant proportion of upper respiratory tract infections, especially in children. From the SARS-1 outbreak in 2003 It has been known from studies that those who were exposed to SARS-1 developed natural immunity that was still present 17 years after the exposure to the virus. Since then at least 5 new human corona virus have been identified, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus and a group of so-called NL63 corona viruses. These have been associated with both upper and lower respiratory disease and has probably been the cause of respiratory infections for many generations.
An extensive study was conducted in UK that looked at co-circulation of viruses associated with respiratory infection through the seasons over several years. This study found that the group of corona viruses associate with respiratory infections were more common in flu seasons and in so-called co-infections than previously recognized and varies in relation to season from 5 to 14%. One would therefore also expect that a large portion of the population would have natural immunity against the SARS-CoV2.
Researchers in China reported that rhesus macaques re-infected with SARS-CoV-2 infected could protect from subsequent exposures.
On October 4, 2020 three promonent epidemiologists from Standford (Jay Bhattacharya), Harvard (Martin Kuldorff) and Oxford (Sunetra Gupta) formulated and signed the Great Barrington Declaration . The Declaration that was co-signed by prominent academics from Northe America, Europe and Israel has over 900 000 signatures. The declaration main messag was that:
“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. “
The declaration was soon villified and those behind the declaration were attacked with an attempt to marginalize their important effort to contribute and inform of the futility and damage the societal interventions would couse. See this video presentaion here.
In March of 2021 The Norwegian Corona Commission that looked into the decision making process reported that the Norwegian decision to lockd down society in March of 2020 was not based on sound empirical or scientific evidence or on guidance from official documents on epidemic preparedness (The national emergency preparedness plan for outbreaks of severe infectious diseases was adopted in 2019.) There was also a concern at the lack of transparency associated with these decisions.
“In principle, the plan does not recommend introducing measures to restrict the activities of the population or parts of the population, as the costs could be huge and the benefits limited. It also advises against closing borders and introducing quarantine for suspected cases or mass testing of people arriving in the country.”
Despite these warnings these highly destructive and futile interventions continued and increases in intensity.
In Norway former government political leaders addressed the handling of the outbreak.
Professor of political science and former Norwegian Minister of Education and subsequently of Health and Social Services Gudmund Hernes believes that the Norwegian Government’s handling of the corona outbreak in March of 2020 could be a matter for the Supreme Court.
Although the intensity of hospital admissions in Nordic Countries varied from country to country it became clear that in no certain way could hospital admissions or increased mortality associated with Covid-19 disease be seen as a threat to public health in the magnitude needed to enact a level of public health emergency as was done in any of the Nordic Countries including Sweden that had a comparable excess mortality from SARS-CoV2 in 2017 as in 2020. In all other nordic countries there was no increase in hospitalization that was greater than one had seen with seasonal flu epidemics and there was no increase in the excess mortality as observed through the European Mortality Monitoring Project. (read more here).
So why did countries choose to continue lock down their societies of varying degrees and introduce mask mandates? PCR Testing – The Elefant in the Room
With the initiation of mass testing using PCR test technology with so-called “test and trace”, a dangerous precedant had been set. Never before had healthy populations been submitted to mandated testing using a so-called “surrogate marker” – namely the PCR gene sequencing technology that itself was known to be a controversial test platform and certainly and especially – if used with high cycle tresholds and without proper gold standards as was the case when these test platfoms (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) received emergency use authorization (read more here).
From the fall of 2020 with more and more of the healthy population being tested came the reporting of increasing infection rates and a fear developed in large sections of the population. But these so-called “infection cases” (test positive) showed no correlation at all with the number Covid-19 hospitalized or reported deaths but were perfectly correalted with the number of tests carried out.
The mask mandates that were introduced without any scientific basis contributed to the fear campaign and created other psychological and physical damage in our societies.
Now – over one year after – there is overwhelming documentation that the unprecedented measures that were introduced have only been extremely detrimental to the individual and society at large (read more here).
European Council gives green light to start negotiations on international pandemic treaty
In the shadow of the Ukraine war, the WHO is preparing – unnoticed by the public – an “international agreement on the prevention and control of pandemics” binding under international law.”
The negotiations in Geneva have already begun. Originally, the “transfer of power” was planned for 1 May 2022, i. e. all 194 member states of the WHO would then be forced to implement the measures decided by the WHO, such as lockdowns or general compulsory vaccination.
However, a new memorandum from dated 3 March 2022, has delayed the process considerably. Meanwhile, a working draft of this new WHO “World Government Agreement” is planned to be ready for further internal negotiations on 1 August 2022.
On 3 March 2022, the Council adopted a decision to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The intergovernmental negotiating body, tasked with drafting and negotiating this international instrument, will hold its next meeting by 1 August 2022, to discuss progress on a working draft. It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.
“According to the “Council of the European Union”, the official justification for this undertaking, which the WHO considers necessary, is the pretext that the international community must be even better prepared for possible future pandemics and their coordinated control (2). According to “Epochtimes” of 5 March, the EU as well as private actors such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Bill Gates seem to be the source of ideas (3). In view of the pandemic experiences of the past two years, this is an indication of what the world can expect.The basis of the agreement is Article 19 of the WHO Statutes. This states that the WHO General Assembly can adopt agreements binding on all member states by a two-thirds majority. Nation states can then no longer decide sovereignly which pandemic control measures they want to introduce.The abolition of the nation state means at the same time the loss of fundamental and civil rights.
The renowned German-British sociologist, publicist and politician Ralf Dahrendorf warned of this many years ago: “Whoever abandons the nation-state thus loses the only effective guarantee of its fundamental rights up to now. Whoever today considers the nation state to be dispensable, thereby declares – however unintentionally – civil rights to be dispensable.”
On such a far-reaching question, however, the people must have the last word:
All citizens of a country entitled to vote must be given the right and the opportunity to express their opinion in a referendum.
Proposal of an expert to all state governments
Dr Stuckelberger, who has worked with WHO for over 20 years, made the following suggestion, according to “greatreject.org”:
Every country should send a public letter of protest to WHO. The ‘governments’ should write a letter stating that the people do not accept that the signature of the Minister of Health can decide the fate of millions of people without a referendum.
It is very important to send this letter from every country to the WHO in Geneva.The WHO is asking all countries to implement the measures by May 2022 [this demand has been pushed out to 2024 in the meantime, So far, only the Russians had sent such a rejection letter.
International law does not allow for a UN regulation that is above the constitution of individual countries. This is also true for the WHO – a UN organisation.