Dr. Malone: ‘Disease X’ is manufactured by the WHO to drive fear and public compliance

Don’t be fooled by Disease ‘X’ or ‘Y’ or ‘Z.’ These aren’t real diseases. They are being weaponized to acceptance of the transfer of both funding and authority to an unelected globalist non-governmental organization – the WHO.

I have been working in the public health sector for over 30 years. This includes a fellowship at Harvard and numerous other courses on bioethics. In all that time, there has been one clear message: for the emotional and physical wellbeing of the public, the government and public health must not incite fear without cause, and that to do so is unethical and immoral, akin to yelling “fire” or “active shooter” in a crowded movie theater. That public trust requires transparency and truth telling on the part of public health officials and government.

The CDC codifies this basic premise in their public health risk communication statement:

Be first, be right, be credible. That’s the mantra for crisis communication. Health communicators, whenever a crisis occurs, always be prepared to provide information to help people make the best possible decisions for their health and well-being. [Emphasis added]

READ: WHO’s Dr. Tedros says new global pandemic is matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ at 2024 Davos summit

In 2018, the World Health Organization came up with the idea of “Disease X,” which is a placeholder for a disease that could be a potential cause of a future major epidemic or a pandemic. The original idea being that planning for an (imaginary) “Disease X” would allow for scientists, public health officials, and physicians to design the best possible practices for a future epidemic or pandemic. They then formally added “Disease X” (an imaginary disease) to the top priority list of pathogens.

The idea behind Disease X was later weaponized to create a fog of fear in the public as well as governments. The weaponization started with COVID-19 communications. In a 2021 study, it was found that the “the only predictor of behavior change during COVID-19 was fear.” Despite their finding that such fear was related to a decrease in both emotional and physical wellbeing, the authors concluded that using fear to drive the public into compliance was the only path forward for public health. The authors write:

However, fear of COVID-19 was related to decreased physical and environmental wellbeing. Overall, these results suggest that ‘fear’ and anxiety at the current time have a functional role, and are related to increased compliance for improving public wellbeing.

‘Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead’

Without further questioning of the basic ethics behind using fear to drive compliance, this logic then became the consensus of public health officials and governments throughout the world. That being that the use of fear to get compliance for vaccines and vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, masking, lockdowns, social distancing, school closures, etc., was acceptable in the name of public health. That the decreased emotional and physical wellbeing of the general public by the promotion of fear tactics was an acceptable side effect.

Exit COVID-19… stage left. Enter ‘Disease X’… stage right

And just like that, “Disease X” has been substituted for COVID-19.

Without any qualms whatsoever, The World Health Organization (WHO) has gone from launching a global scientific process using Disease X as a model, to using “Disease X” as a propaganda driver to drive fear of an imaginary infectious disease. Then to use that fear to get public and governmental compliance for a new pandemic treaty, and more money for the WHO. Such weaponized fear (fearporn) also has been found to elicit more public compliance for public health measures, such as masking, social distancing, vaccines, and lockdowns.

Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease. The R&D Blueprint explicitly seeks to enable early cross-cutting R&D preparedness that is also relevant for an unknown ‘Disease X.’

In 2024, the WHO gave the general warning (without any data what-so-ever) that the imaginary Disease X could result in 20 times more fatalities than COVID-19.

Of course, there are some people who say this may create panic. It’s better to anticipate something that may happen because it has happened in our history many times, and prepare for it.

Bottom line is that Director-General Tedros now openly admits that the WHO is using fear to drive governments to open their pocket books and to drive compliance for the new pandemic treaty.

And the WHO’s fear mongering is working, the House recently introduced a new bill H.R.3832 – Disease X Act of 2023.

The bill reads:

This bill expands the priorities of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to specifically include viral threats that have the potential to cause a pandemic.

In particular, the bill expands the scope of innovation grants and contracts that may be awarded by BARDA to specifically include those that support research and development of certain manufacturing technology for medical countermeasures against viruses, including respiratory viruses, with pandemic potential. It also expands BARDA’s authorized strategic initiatives to include advanced research, development, and procurement of countermeasures and products to address viruses with pandemic potential.

In order to understand the significance of this bill, it is important to understand what BARDA is:

(BARDA)’ is a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) office responsible for the procurement and development of medical countermeasures, principally against bioterrorism, including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as pandemic influenza and emerging diseases.

This bill is a sneaky backdoor to significantly expand the mission space of BARDA to include research into viruses. In the past, BARDA has been limited in their scope, so as to not compete with NIH. The expansion of yet another agency with very few limits on their scope is not in the public interest.

So, here is an easy ask. Contact your House representative and let them know how you feel about H.R.3832 – Disease X.

In the meantime, don’t be fooled by Disease “X” or “Y” or “Z.” These aren’t real diseases. They are made-up. They are being weaponized to gain compliance, drive fear, and to gain acceptance of the transfer of both funding and authority to an unelected globalist non-governmental organization – the WHO.

Yes, we have a problem with ongoing gain-of-function research and China is continuing on with its dangerous gain-of-function experiments. By all accounts, these are being conducted in poorly controlled laboratory environments. But such experiments aren’t limited to China; they are also happening in the USA. In 2023, Boston University School of Medicine scientists created a highly lethal SARS-CoV variant, which they then tested on mice.

Furthermore, the Biological Weapons Convention does not prohibit biological weapons, as an overlooked loophole allows for development, manufacture, and stockpiling of such for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes. The convention must be re-negotiated. The Biological Weapons Convention also does not adequately address gain-of-function research, which must to be banned worldwide.

These are concrete ongoing issues that the World Health Organization is not addressing. If the WHO’s motive is to stop future threat of infectious disease, why are they not working on these issues?

How far the WHO and public health has fallen…

Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.

Related Topics:#DiseaseX #DrRobertMalone #GainOfFunctionResearch #LifeSiteNews #WHO #WorldHealthOrganization

Up Next

Automobiles, human nature, and the challenge of building cars that people actually want

Don't Miss

Statistics Canada admits to not identifying euthanasia as cause of death in official reports

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 9 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

International

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Cassy Cooke

After her parents both became seriously ill and her mother wanted to undergo assisted suicide, a Washington woman convinced her father to die also.

Key takeaways

Corinne Gregory Sharpe spoke to PEOPLE about her experience convincing her parents to undergo assisted suicide together.
After her mother was diagnosed with aortic stenosis in her 90s, she lived for a few more years before her health began to decline. At that point, she said she wanted to die by assisted suicide.
Her father did not have a health condition outside of having previously had a stroke; however, he was nervous to live without his wife. Sharpe convinced him of a “solution” – to kill himself alongside her mother.
Couple assisted suicide has become romanticized by the media.

The details

Corinne Gregory Sharpe spoke with PEOPLE about her efforts to convince her father to undergo assisted suicide alongside her mother. She said her family had always been close, so when her mother became ill, her father was nervous to live without her.

Sharpe’s mother was first diagnosed with aortic stenosis in 2018 at the age of 92 and given less than two years to live if she did not undergo surgery.

“And even if she had the procedure, there was no guarantee that she was gonna live any longer,” Sharpe said. “So her attitude was sort of like, well, let’s just kind of let things go as they go.”

READ: Colorado gave over 500 people assisted suicide drugs solely for eating disorders in 2024

But Sharpe’s mother didn’t die within those two years. In fact, it was three years later that her health began to decline, only after she fell and hit her head. Shortly after that, Sharpe’s father appeared to suffer small strokes. “So now I have two parents in medical care,” Sharpe said.

Her parents were able to be at a rehabilitation facility together, but Sharpe said they were “losing the will to live,” so she brought them back home. Doctors recommended hospice, but her mother decided she wanted to undergo assisted suicide, which left her father distraught. Sharpe came up with an “interesting” solution.

“I had a very interesting, serious heart-to-heart conversation with him one evening after my mom had gone to bed,” she continued. “And he was just panicked like, ‘What happens to me if she goes first?’ That’s always been a concern of his. He couldn’t see a scenario where he would want to continue if mom was gone.”

She added, “He’s always been afraid of dying. But I think he was more afraid of being left alone. He was like, ‘Well, if she’s gonna go and I have the option to go at the same time, then I’m getting on that horse.’ So I was like, look, we’ll figure something out.”

Sharpe spent what would be the last few weeks of her parents’ lives hosting family dinners, making them their favorite meals, and sharing memories as a way to “repay my parents for everything they’d done for me.” It sounds nice, but there’s no need for an adult child to wait until she knows her parents are dying to do such things for them.

When the drug powder arrived, Sharpe took a selfie with the delivery man and then stuck the drug on a shelf, where it feasibly could have been accessed by anyone. She then joked about choosing Friday the 13th to die, which is when her parents ultimately took the drugs – Friday, August 13, 2021.

“The counselors prepared the cocktail, we sat around and shared some private moments together. They got to sit in their own bed and hold hands with each other and talk before they were able to take the meds,” she said. “We put music on and they took the cocktail. Then we poured a glass of wine and we had a final toast. About 10 minutes after they drank it, they went to sleep.”

Zoom out

It has become increasingly common and romanticized for elderly couples to be euthanized together. This includes murder-suicides and those who opt to die together simply because they are elderly.

But the reality of assisted suicide is that it may not be as peaceful and romantic as many have been led to believe.

As Dr. Joel Zivot, an associate professor of anesthesiology and surgery at the Emory School of Medicine and an expert on “physician participation in lethal injection,” previously explained, assisted suicide can be excruciating, even if it doesn’t appear to be.

“[F]or both euthanasia and executions, paralytic drugs are used,” he wrote in an op-ed for the Spectator. “These drugs, given in high enough doses, mean that a patient cannot move a muscle, cannot express any outward or visible sign of pain. But that doesn’t mean that he or she is free from suffering.”

He added, “People who want to die deserve to know that they may end up drowning, not just falling asleep.”

Furthermore, a study in the medical journal Anaesthesia found that prolonged, painful deaths from assisted suicide and euthanasia were far from rare, with a considerable number of patients taking 30 hours to die, though some took seven days. Experiments with assisted suicide likewise have been painful, with one drug cocktail “burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain.” The same drugs labeled as too inhumane to be used for lethal injection are used in assisted suicide.

The bottom line

Suicide is not dignified, peaceful, or romantic. Efforts are made to prevent suicide unless the person in question is elderly, ill, or disabled. And then, it’s made to appear noble and romantic to take your own life.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet

Published on October 14, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne that there was no consultation on Bill C-8, which is touted by Liberals as a way to stop ‘unprecedented cyber-threats.’

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner admitted that he was never consulted on a recent bill introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney that became law and would grant officials the power to ban anyone deemed a dissident from accessing the internet.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said last week that in regard to Bill C-8, titled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts,” that there was no consultation.

“We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled,” he told the House of Commons ethics committee, adding, “I don’t want privacy to be an obstacle to transparency.”

Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and has a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.

All that would be needed is the OK from Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly for an individual to be denied internet service.

The federal government under Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”

The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

While questioning Dufresne, Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised concerns that no warrant would be needed for agents to go after those officials who want to be banned from the internet or phone service.

“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret, warrantless powers over Canadians’ communications,” he told the committee, adding the bill, as written is a “serious setback for privacy,” as well as a “setback for democracy.”

Dufresne said, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”

Experts have warned that Bill C-8 is flawed and must be “fixed.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) blasted the bill as troublesome, saying it needs to “fix” the “dangerous flaws” in the bill before it becomes law.

“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the CCLA wrote in a recent press release.

Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, would potentially not be constitutionally justified, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.

Recently, Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn Lewis blasted another new Liberal “hate crime” bill, calling it a “dangerous” piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”

She also criticized it for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”