the problem? The obedience to the covid epidemic guidelines has now been recognized as an overblown response: (lasted too long, aimed at low risk people while letting nursing homes admit infectious patients, and discouraged people to see docs for routine matters, so cancer wasn't diagnosed, diabetes and blood pressure was not monitored, etc)... in other words, causing more harm and deaths. And this doesn't include problems from the economic catastrophe caused by the shut down.
Here is a discussion of the problem of the new guidelines being proposed by the UN etc...from 3 months ago on an Australia news station:
here is Dr. C from last year discussing the problem of trust in the UN,
....
the politicized medical journals say any opposition is fake news:
Although the process of drafting a pandemic accord has been transparently informed to global communities in 2022 and 2023, there has been a substantial amount of misinformation related to the contents of the WHO Convention, Agreement, or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (WHO CA+) circulated on platforms such as YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).
the Lancet, of course, is the journal who let the head of Ecohealth (who funded US govt money for gain of function research to the Wuhan lab) publish an editorial saying that it wasn't a lab leak.
similarly, the BMJ claimed in Jan 2024:
Negotiations of an international treaty intended to prepare for and prevent future pandemics are in danger of falling apart as misinformation fuels opposition to the initiative, senior World Health Organization officials said last week. WHO’s 194 member states agreed in December 2021 to draw up a new international convention to ensure that the world would be prepared for future global health threats and to prevent the “catastrophic failure” seen during the covid pandemic.
WHO said that negotiations have advanced significantly in the past two years but some of the most crucial and contentious stipulations of the accord are yet to be agreed. Global health experts had hoped that the treaty would be signed off at the 2024 World Health Assembly in late May but this timeline could be unrealistic.
there is a fine line here.
is misinformation the usual exaggeration of things that are real but rare (antivax theories come to mind)?
Or is using that term just a way to silence anyone with concerns, so that you don't have to discuss the problem?
Such treaties are indeed needed, but the lack of trust in letting these self appointed experts dictating policy is justified.
the WHO has done valuable work: The fact they helped locals control the Ebola epidemics of central Africa has gotten little publicity.
However, the fact that the WHO opposed shutting down flights from China in early January claiming there was no person to person spread, and criticized Trumpieboy when he did stopped flights from China, and the fact that the WHO pretended that the source of the epidemic was not the lab in Wuhan (we checked and they said it didn't leak. And they wouldn't lie, would they?) has now blown up in their face, and then they wonder why they aren't trusted.
However, the failure does continue:
For example, pushing MPox vaccine while failing to confront the fact that MPox is an STD in most cases (so prostitution in Africa needs to be monitored, and raves should be shut down in the west) should have made a lot of people wonder:
So use vaccines on babies? Yes, it can spread to infants if caregivers have lesions on their hand. But supplying enough water for hygiene, and education might be a more important way to stop the spread.
Sigh.
and waiting in the wings: Bird flu. So far it is only causing pink eye, but give it time and the fear mongering will explode.
No comments:
Post a Comment