Connect with us

Great Reset

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

Published

10 minute read

Building of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland

From LifeSiteNews

By  Robert Malone M.D.

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.

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

International

Switzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

In what feels like a dystopian movie, Switzerland’s new portable death “pod” to allow people to kill themselves is on track to claim its first victim this year. 

In a July 16 press conference, Florian Willet, chief executive of pro-euthanasia organization The Last Resort, announced that Switzerland will “soon” use its portable suicide pod to end a life for the first time.

“Since we have people indeed queueing up, asking to use the Sarco, it’s very likely that it will take place pretty soon,” Willet said, eerily describing it as a “beautiful way” to die.   

The pod is called Sarco, short for sarcophagus, the name of the coffins in which ancient Egyptian pharaohs were buried. The futuristic-looking 3D-printed capsule was first unveiled in 2019 for assisted suicide in Switzerland but was met with controversy.  

It’s founder, Philip Nitschke, who has been nicknamed “Dr. Death” for his attempt to “glamorize” suicides, explained how the pod works in a recent interview with the South China Morning Post.  

Once a person is inside the pod, they are asked who they are, where they are and if they know what happens when they press the button. 

The death in the pod can also be activated by a button, gesture, voice control, or blink of the eye for those who cannot vocally or physically communicate due to severe illness or mobility issues.  

After they answer, a voice says, “If you want to die press this button.” Once the button is pressed, the pod is flooded with nitrogen causing the oxygen to plummet from 21 per cent to 0.05 per cent in the air in less than 30 seconds. 

“They will then stay in that state of unconsciousness for … around about five minutes before death will take place,” Nitschke explained.  

The death inside the pod is filmed, and the footage is handed to a coroner. 

The push to debut the pod this year comes after the pod was banned earlier this month after prosecutors questioned the legality and ethics of the pod, pointing out that it is unclear who is responsible for the death and who operates the pod.   

Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942, with its only requirements being that the person freely chooses death, is of sound mind, and that their decision is not motivated by selfish reasons. 

The county’s broad euthanasia policy has made it a tourist attraction from those around the world who wish to end their lives.  

In addition to the legal question of who is responsible for the death, pro-life organizations have condemned the pods for trivializing death and undermining the dignity of life.   

“Philip Nitschke’s device has been condemned by a broad range of commentators,” James Mildred, director of engagement for pro-life organization Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), said 

“Many people feel that it trivialises, and even glamourises, suicide,” he explained.  

“We believe that suicide is a tragedy that good societies seek to prevent in every circumstance,” Mildred continued. “There are ethical ways to help human beings that don’t involve the destruction of life.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 (and it’s been 40 years since the actual year 1984). In the novel, Orwell explains the dangers of totalitarianism by exploring what happens when government exercises extreme levels of control over citizens including censoring and controlling language. While Canada is a relatively free country in 2024, there are aspects of Orwell’s world reflected in government policy today.

The Human Freedom Index, published annually by the Fraser Institute and Cato Institute, defines freedom as a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals by the absence of coercive constraint. In a free society, citizens are free to do, say or think almost anything they want, provided it does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Canada currently fares relatively well compared to other countries on the Human Freedom Index, placing 13th out of 165 countries. However, our score has dropped six spots on the index since 2008 when Canada recorded its highest ever rank.

This is not surprising given the Trudeau government’s recent efforts to control and manage the free exchange of ideas. The recent Online Streaming Act imposes various content rules on major streaming services such as Netflix, and requirements to extract funds to be redirected toward favoured groups. The Act seemingly seeks to bring the entire Internet under the regulation of a government body.

In another piece of recent legislation, the Online News Act, the government attempted to force certain social media platforms to pay other legacy news outlets for carrying content. In response, the social media platforms chose simply not to allow content from those news providers on their platforms, resulting in a dramatic reduction of Canadians’ access to news.

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem “dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is not something we should take for granted anymore.

Authors: 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X