The suppression of the concept of natural immunity has all the hallmarks of a coordinated misinformation campaign. It is difficult to tell exactly who the initiators of this were, although it is to be noted that the main beneficiaries have been governments and the vaccine manufacturers.
In line with the founding principles of the WHO and orthodox principles of public health, PANDA has decided to publish its submission for the INB hearings in advance, to encourage open debate in ensuring global pandemic preparedness is underpinned by a strong evidence base, which gives full consideration to the COVID-19 response.
Global public health, previously focused on community-based participation and poverty-reduction, has moved over the past 2 decades to a centralized, corporatized paradigm promoting pharmaceutical-based solutions in an increasingly vertical system. This is being justified by a health catastrophe/pandemic preparedness campaign that uses fear and targeted funding to overcome its obvious fallacies.
Our ongoing WHO Paradox project looks at the bigger picture behind the headlines by investigating the drivers, the players and the effects of these policies and will suggest solutions to restore the tenets of public health.
The World Health Organization has proposed that the international community negotiate and eventually ratify an international “accord” or “treaty” that would effectively consolidate the position of the WHO as the pre-eminent public authority responsible for guiding and coordinating international pandemic responses.
The compliance thus achieved by the WHO has been vital to achieving a successful concentration of wealth, benefitting not just its major sponsors, but also the army of global health staff who have remained obedient throughout.
Described as "knowledge creation on steroids", this interview by blogger, writer, columnist and "general irritant" James Delingpole with PANDA’s chairman Nick Hudson provides clarity and a positive outlook on the burgeoning madness.
"The stakes could not be higher, and it has never been more essential to seriously engage with uncomfortable possibilities – even if that means interrogating explanations that move beyond reducing what we are all experiencing to blunder and incompetence."