COVID-19
WHO urges countries to sign globalist pandemic treaty by May: ‘A new threat will emerge’

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
From LifeSiteNews
The urge by the WHO for countries to sign onto its ‘Pandemic Accord’ comes after Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned provisions contained in the document would give the globalist group unreasonable power over Canadian citizens.
The globalist World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an “urgent” call for countries around the world to sign on to their sovereignty-undermining “Pandemic Accord” by May.
In a March 20 press release, the WHO called for “accelerated progress” from countries joining their proposed treaty, the Pandemic Accord, which critics such as Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis have warned would give the WHO increased power over Canada in the event of another “pandemic” or other so-called emergencies.
“We call on leaders of all countries to step up their efforts and secure an effective pandemic accord by May,” a joint-letter from high profile political figures read.
“A new pandemic threat will emerge – and there is no excuse not to be ready for it,” it warned, calling for negotiators “to redouble their efforts” to meet the “imminent deadline” of May 2024.
The letter also advised countries not to believe the “malicious misinformation campaigning against the WHO.”
“This global effort is being threatened by misinformation and disinformation,” it claimed. “Among the falsehoods circulating are allegations that the WHO intends to monitor people’s movements through digital passports; that it will take away the national sovereignty of countries; and that it will have the ability to deploy armed troops to enforce mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns.”
“All of these claims are wholly false and governments must work to disavow them with clear facts,” the letter continued.
While the WHO claims the accord would not undermine national sovereignty, in January, Lewis revealed that the new International Health Regulations (IHR) contained in the proposal will compromise Canada’s sovereignty by giving the international organization increased power over Canadians.
“Canada consented to the amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which limits Canada’s time to respond to further amendments, despite thousands of Canadians signing a petition expressing their concerns,” she warned.
Lewis’ January statement followed her October endorsement of a petition demanding the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its subgroup, the WHO, due to the organizations’ undermining of national “sovereignty” and the “personal autonomy” of citizens.
It warned that the “secretly negotiated” amendments could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Despite nearly 19,000 Canadians signing the petition, the Trudeau government adopted the amendments proposed by the WHO.
Additionally, earlier this month, protesters surrounded the Edmonton headquarters of mainstream media outlet CTV News to demand coverage of Canada’s plan to sign on to the treaty in May.
COVID-19
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

From LifeSiteNews
The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.
In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).
Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.
Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.
Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).
COVID-19
Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

From LifeSiteNews
A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna
A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.
The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:
Study Overview
- Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
- Intervention: Two doses of either:
- BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
- mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
- Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
- Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
- Main Outcomes:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- COVID-19 mortality
- Non-COVID-19 mortality
All-cause mortality
Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.
- Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)
Cardiovascular mortality
Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)
COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)
Non-COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)
Biological explanations
The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:
The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:
- Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
- Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions
Final conclusion
Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.
Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.
As the authors conclude:
These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
Alberta2 days ago
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
Crime18 hours ago
Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
Business1 day ago
Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Business1 day ago
Trump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
Agriculture2 days ago
Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk
-
COVID-199 hours ago
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’
-
Business10 hours ago
Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create