pandemic Archives - HopeGirl Blog

Jolted by Ebola, countries try again to finish pandemic treaty

Hope — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:59:00 +0000

WHO member states kicked off one more attempt at finalising the missing piece of the pandemic treaty on Monday, with the Ebola outbreak injecting a fresh sense of urgency.

Wealthy countries and developing nations are at loggerheads in talks at the World Health Organization’s headquarters over how the pandemic agreement, adopted last year, will work in practice.

Though the treaty was agreed in May 2025, how its key mechanism would operate was left out to get the deal over the line.

The agreement’s Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system deals with sharing access to pathogens with pandemic potential, then sharing benefits derived from them such as vaccines, tests and treatments.

It was meant to be finalised long before May 2026, but progress has been agonisingly slow.

Negotiations have often gone late into the night, producing miniscule advances and leaving diplomats drained — especially those from small countries with only a handful of staff in Geneva covering every branch of the UN.

This two-week session until July 17 is the seventh such round of talks.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged countries to grasp the nettle.

“You could have given up,” saying “that we will never agree”, Tedros told countries as the talks opened.

However, “you said we don’t agree yet, but we believe we can.”

“Please keep the destination in sight,” urged the UN health agency’s director-general.

“A future in which pathogen samples and information move quickly, without needless delay; and in which the benefits that come from them reach the people who need them most, fairly and in time.”

‘Danger can emerge from anywhere’

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, declared in mid-May, is a reminder that the next pandemic threat could spring up from anywhere, Tedros said.

There have been 1,528 confirmed cases, including 492 confirmed deaths, in DR Congo, and the outbreak has spilled over into neighbouring Uganda.

“Ebola may not be the next pandemic. But it is a reminder, a painful one, that the threat never truly goes away,” said Tedros.

The deadly hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship, declared over on Thursday, also shows “danger can emerge from anywhere, at any time, in ways we don’t always expect”.

The outbreak on the MV Hondius, sailing the Atlantic Ocean, led to a global health alert affecting 33 countries and territories.

“Every month that this annex remains unfinished is a month the world stays less prepared than it could be. It is people — real people, real families — left less safe than they deserve to be,” said Tedros.

The pandemic agreement was struck after more than three years of negotiations sparked by the shock of Covid-19.

The accord aims to prevent a repeat of the disjointed international response that surrounded the coronavirus crisis, by improving global coordination, surveillance and access to vaccines.

Only once the PABS annex is complete will countries be able to start ratifying the treaty.

Source: https://english.ahram.org.eg/UI/Front/Inner.aspx?NewsContentID=572309

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post Jolted by Ebola, countries try again to finish pandemic treaty appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The Pandemic is “Over” and They Got Away With It | Redacted News

Hope — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has signed determinations terminating the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) declarations.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkKQRWrsCmo

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

The post The Pandemic is “Over” and They Got Away With It | Redacted News appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Africa Asserts Itself as WHO Pandemic Agreement Talks Resume

Hope — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:00:00 +0000

The Pandemic Agreement talks resumed at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) headquarters on Monday, kicking off with a public “debriefing” summarising the incremental progress made during informal talks conducted over May and June, followed by a closed session on existing models for sharing data on pathogens with pandemic potential.

Speaking at the opening of the session, WHO Director Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged member states to keep two simple end goals in sight. Those include: “A future in which pathogen samples and information move quickly, without needless delay; and in which the benefits that come from them reach the people who need them most, fairly and in time.

“The differences that remain are real. They matter to the people you represent, and I respect that,” Tedros added. “But they are not impossible to bridge. So I ask you: focus on what truly matters. Don’t let the urgency fade.”

Detailed summary presented at the resumed PABS negotiations Monday reflects slow, but incremental progress on the many outstanding technical issues.

While those close to the talks confirm that slow progress is being made, this 10-day negotiating session (which ends 17 July) is unlikely to result in an agreed pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system just yet.

Wide differences remain with regards to how a standardized system for both pathogen registration and eventual benefit-sharing of R&D products could be created and enforced, in light of the multiple approaches being used in reality today. Those differences – as well as potential bridging solutions – were vividly on display again Monday as member states and observers shared their experiences.

Pathoplexus, the database where the gene sequence for the Ebola Bundibugyo virus was first shared, pointed to the staged data-sharing approach to used by the Uganda-led team that first sequenced the pathogen as an example of a hybrid solution.

Pathoplexus representative addresses the PABS meeting Monday.

“They initially chose a time-limited restricted use option, making data fully open for public health analysis, phylogenetics, and output tools immediately, while protecting the right to publish first,” Pathoplexus noted. Then last week, following publication in a scientific journal, the same data was released “to fully open status,” he said.

“Our current model does not yet solve the question of access and benefit from commercial use, but that question matters urgently. The rapid development of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments is crucial for outbreak response, and should be facilitated by clear, standardized, and agreed terms,” the Pathoplexus representative stated.

Meanwhile, the South Centre expressed skepticism about a PABS agreement that might embrace too much diversity to pathogen registration and sharing.

“We do have some concerns with some ideas about hybrid approaches,” the delegate stated. “We think that the standardization of the of the way the design of the PABS system is done is essential. Otherwise, this will create other uncertainties and more difficulties, in particular with the reference to what obligations member states will take. We think it’s essential that … the whole system is built on the basis of standard contracts, also to ensure what are the means that member states themselves can, through their own legislatures, support that contractual structure.

“We see that there has been the clear textual line on access stating an obligation for member states to facilitate rapid access. At the same time, you can have provisions domestically to facilitate benefit sharing …..ensuring that benefit sharing from any commercial use requires this payment to the system that goes to the multilateral tax fund. ”

Linkage or not ?

Pharma leaders, meanwhile, stressed that any pathogen sharing system should be “grounded in outbreak reality” and aim to “reduce rather than increase both legal uncertainty and the restrictions that could delay scientists’ ability to access and use pathogen data.

“We share the objective of ensuring equitable access to medical countermeasures and companies have demonstrated this commitment repeatedly through proactive and voluntary engagement across public health emergencies, including COVID-19, mpox, and Ebola,” said a representative for the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA). “However, introducing a cumbersome PABS system will not improve preparedness or access outcomes. In practice, the main bottlenecks have consistently been related to financing, regulation, and delivery – not supply.

“Looking ahead, it is critical that we do not jeopardize the progress achieved in the Pandemic Agreement, including the set-aside mechanism, by introducing a PABS system that is impractical for research and potentially counterproductive. Instead, we should build on existing mechanisms that already enable rapid, open, and effective data sharing, including established international databases, while ensuring that countries are supported and enabled to operationalize agreed access provisions.”

Equity provisions triggered by product registration

Geneva representative, Thiru Balasubramanian delivers KEI’s proposal for two core paragraphs for the PABS annex at Monday’s meeting.

Finally, Knowledge Ecology International suggested that two simple paragraphs should form the core of the final PABS text – clearly committing states to enforce the medicines/vaccines access and equity provisions of the Pandemic Agreement – but without creating any direct linkage to the way pathogen data is accessed for R&D purposes.

“For some time, KEI has taken the position that equity provisions should not be linked to access to PABS materials or data, that governments joining the treaty should be responsible for enforcing the access/equity provisions, and that those provisions should be triggered by the registration and sale of products, not access to information,” said James Love, head of KEI, in a statement on Sunday.

“This is how we suggest it be done, in two short paragraphs,” he added, setting out the first paragraph of the Annex as stating that:

“Each party [to the agreement] shall take all necessary legal, administrative, or regulatory measures to ensure that any manufacturer seeking to register or sell pandemic-related products within its jurisdiction provides verifiable evidence of a legally binding agreement with the World Health Organization (WHO) that addresses access to such products, consistent with Article 12, Paragraph 6, of the Pandemic Agreement.”

Article 12, paragraph 6 stipulates that manufacturers must make available a minimum oof 20% of their real time pandemic production to WHO, half of that as a donation and the other half at “affordable prices.”

A second paragraph in the proposed KEI text would stipulate that the obligations set forth under the PABS Annex apply “exclusively” to products produced to address the public health emergency and “not extend to other uses or indications of the same products,” Love said.

Africa aims to level the playing field

Malawi’s Health Minister Madalitso Baloyi at the UN High Level meeting on HIV/AIDS in June.

It remains to be seen how African nations will respond to the new ideas being tabled as it seeks to assert itself in the PABS negotiations and ensure that citizens of its 54 countries have better access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostics.

At the recent United Nations High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS, the African group negotiated as a bloc – bar a handful of countries – and insisted on the inclusion of several paragraphs to encourage wider access to medicines, including local production, technology transfer and reward for innovation. Several Latin American countries also supported this position.

Africa also insisted on a last-minute amendment to the political declaration on HIV, proposing the removal of the phrase “mutually-agreed terms” in relation to technology transfer in three paragraphs of the 15-page declaration.

“The African group believes that keeping ‘on mutually agreed terms’ in the text, in connection to technology transfer, undermines the key objective to access medicines, vaccines, and medical products, and to boost research and development,” said Malawian Health Minister Madalitso Baloyi on behalf of the Africa Group.

While the political declaration passed, the European Union (EU), Switzerland, Canada and several other countries dissociated themselves from these paragraphs.

Switzerland said that technology transfer should “always be on mutually agreed terms”.

It also objected to a paragraph (85) that committed countries to improving the transparency of markets for HIV-related health technologies, by “publicising production costs and prices of HIV-related products, through global, regional and national mechanisms, thus providing consistent and transparent information for fair price negotiations”.

“There are limits anchored in relevant international law to publicising information, such as production cost. Paragraph 85 raises concern regarding the protection of trade secrets, and more fundamentally, what role of state authorities can be in relation to private sector actors,” said Switzerland.

‘No country alone can fight’

Meanwhile, Tedros and other WHO officials have urged member states to hasten agreement of the PABS system, particularly in light of the recent string of dangerous disease outbreaks, including the Ebola Bundibugyo virus public health emergency declaration.

“The outbreaks of hantavirus, Ebola and Marburg all show why there is no alternative to international cooperation in the face of international threats. No country alone can fight,” Tedros told a media briefing last week.

The outbreaks are that the risk of another pandemic erupting is “not some distant, hypothetical scenario in a briefing document,” Tedros added in his statement on Monday.

WHO’s head of health emergencies, Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, said that navigating several public health emergencies simultaneously was a trend which is likely to continue.

“The threats are not going away,” said Ihekweazu. “But hopefully we can get stronger collectively to respond to these.”

Several positive developments had evolved out of the recent threats, he added. These included countries improving their disease response detection and response capabilities, R & D on new countermeasures, and opportunities for countries to work together under the International Health Regulations, the legally binding rules for country conduct during disease outbreaks.

But, stressed Ihekweazu, the PABS system “absolutely has to be completed” to enable the Pandemic Agreement to be ratified and brought into effect to establish a strong global framework to address disease outbreaks. See related story:

WHO Declares DRC Ebola Outbreak a Public Health Emergency: ‘May Be ‘Much Larger’ Than Reported

Source: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/africa-asserts-itself-as-pandemic-agreement-talks-resume/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

The post Africa Asserts Itself as WHO Pandemic Agreement Talks Resume appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

African nations assert themselves and manage to postpone finalisation of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

Hope — Tue, 19 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000

Finalisation of the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Agreement has been postponed again due to disagreements, particularly from a large bloc of African countries.

Although the main Agreement was adopted in May 2025, it cannot enter into force or be opened for signature until the contentious Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (“PABS”) annex is finalised. Until then, the treaty remains incomplete. Due to disagreements on PABS, instead of meeting the target deadline at the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026, the deadline for completion has been pushed to the 2027 World Health Assembly.

The African states have correctly identified that WHO is attempting to impose centralised control reminiscent of the colonial era.

WHO is prioritising the interests of its major financial sponsors, such as Bill Gates and pharmaceutical corporations, over the needs of low-income countries and populations. It has become a tool for wealthy donors and corporations, rather than a legitimate public health agency.

“The United States withdrawal from the WHO offers an opportunity, but it is the low-income countries on the receiving end of the WHO’s capture that need to drive change. The pushback on the Pandemic Agreement suggests that this may be happening,” David Bell writes.

Note: The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

The Pandemic Agreement Fails Again

By David Bell, as published by the Brownstone Institute on 6 May 2026

Finalisation of the much-heralded Pandemic Agreement, the flagship of the World Health Organisation’s pandemic agenda, has just been postponed again after another failure to resolve disagreements. Despite heavy pressure from the WHO and European Union in yet another meeting, in Geneva, Switzerland, a large bloc of African states are refusing to sign on to what they consider a clear colonialist agenda. Which of course it is, aimed at putting covid-era wealth transfers on a more permanent footing.

The WHO, for reasons explained below, is doing what it is paid to do. Major financial sponsors of the WHO have much to gain from getting this Agreement through. It has fallen on African leaders, attuned to the model of rich countries and their corporations imposing rules designed for wealth extraction, to protect the rest of us from the farce that the current public health approach to pandemics has become.

The fact that the agency tasked with building capacity and promoting sustainability of low-income health systems is instead doing the opposite now needs to become the central issue of this whole shabby episode. It is time for the international public health community to face itself and decide on which side, people or profit, it should stand.

The Modern Basis of Multilateral Health Cooperation

There are obvious reasons for countries to cooperate in matters of health, as there are for neighbours on a suburban street. Mutual interest in facing common threats where action by neighbouring States, or access to their resources, helps protect your own. Moral reasons are based on the generally accepted ‘good’ of helping neighbours when they are in difficulty or lack resources through no fault of their own. Or because a stable and more prosperous neighbourhood (world) is good for business, and a sick one may not be.

Cooperation is not submission, and few self-respecting people would opt for that. Mutual interests and morality all dissolve fairly quickly when cooperation becomes coercion, and the interests of the most powerful player then become the goal. Health is well-defined in the WHO’s constitution as physical, mental and social well-being. Accordingly, it rests on economics and social capital and is degraded by poverty and inequality. Neither aspect of well-being – mental, social or physical – is supported by forced compliance or slavery.

The basis of modern medical ethics hinges on Hippocrates’ assertions on physician conduct from around 400BC, commonly summarised as to do good rather than harm and respect a patient’s privacy (confidentiality). As a counter to fascism since the Second World War, we added voluntary informed consent (i.e. absence of coercion). This means the final decision in any aspect of medical care or intervention must rest with the individual concerned.

These basic medical ethics rest on the concept that all people are equal and their individual sovereignty (i.e. bodily autonomy) is inviolable. Accordingly, it is obviously unethical to force a person to be injected or undergo some other procedure just because someone else wants them to, or for a third person’s benefit. Unethical, that is, outside a medico-fascist or similarly authoritarian approach that post-World War Two human rights law was supposed to suppress. There were very good reasons why we stopped all that, even if it makes the streets look cleaner and we are assured it is for a “greater good.”

As the Hippocratic Oath and voluntary informed consent govern clinical medical practice, public health is consequently subject to the same requirements at a community, national and global level. Populations are the sum of individuals, each as noted being imbued with equal rights and intrinsic sovereignty.

Therefore, decisions made at a regional or global level can only be made by agencies over which those individuals, as a collective, exert control. This is the basis of the UN charter – sovereign States – the best means we have of expressing the collective decisions of sovereign individuals. It is a massively flawed model – some States are dictatorships and many oppress minorities and ignore their individual sovereignty – but this is because we are working with flawed humans. Sovereign States are the basis of the modern world.

The alternative is a technocracy – in which self-designated individuals make decisions and simply force or coerce others to obey – a form of fascism (an unpopular term for a relatively popular approach). This is the antithesis of modern understandings of human rights. It remains popular, including in the public health community, because it provides a sense of self-importance while also addressing the needs of wealthy sponsors. It also provides simple rules to live by and a group to belong to. But fundamentally, fascism, like feudalism, which served the same purpose in former times, relies on acceptance of inequality. This is why we need to name it when we see it, and insist on individual decision-making over any dictatorship of experts.

What Should Modern Public Health Cooperation Look Like?

Once we accept basic human rights – individual sovereignty – as a prerequisite for legitimate public health, we can then decide what type of interventions might be useful. Given the heterogeneity of disease risk related to differing population age structures and environments, and the wide variation in human culture that influences what each of us defines as important, such decisions would have to be taken at a decentralised level.

Advice may be given from a distance, but action can only be decided in context, or it is likely to be counterproductive. Subsidiarity rather than centralisation is therefore a prerequisite for effective decision-making, not just to protect individual rights but to achieve a meaningful and lasting impact on health. Though obvious to most people, this is really hard for many credentialed public health professionals to accept. We all have egos and think of ourselves as experts.

Fortunately, modern communications make decentralisation easy. Travel is easy, and we can meet instantaneously by digital means. Centralisation made sense for certain aspects of the Roman State – and in many ways for the WHO on its formation in 1948. The days of steamships and elephants disrupting landlines are gone now, though the human desire for a comfortable life by a Swiss lake persists.

Decisions must also (rather obviously) be based on evidence, and be amenable to change as new information emerges. Efficiency dictates a focus on building systems and expertise that address overall health outcomes such as nutrition, sanitation and access to basic clinical care. It also suggests prioritising the largest disease burdens readily compliant to prevention or treatment, such as endemic infectious diseases (malaria, tuberculosis etc.) rather than, say, diseases based on individual and deliberate lifestyle choice.

Evidence-based public health also emphasises the importance of building strong economies. Building national economies allows countries to maintain better health systems. Promoting impoverishment, such as through prolonged school closures, workplace closures or closing borders, sets everything back and so is expected to cause great long-term harm to health.

At a global level, diseases that cross borders and sudden crises such as epidemics are also good targets for cooperation. More time to prepare for an outbreak or better standards to collectively address it are a good thing. But such events are occasional and of low overall burden compared to the big killers of humankind. Addressing outbreaks in a way that undermines economies and the underlying determinants of health would obviously be foolish. As we saw during the covid response, such poor public health responses promoted by the WHO increased child marriage, child labour and deep poverty, and grew national debt. They did make some other people very wealthy, but had little impact on covid-19 itself.

Why the WHO Can No Longer Help

All the foregoing should be non-controversial. Some will push back on the covid bit from a career or political viewpoint, but it’s orthodox public health. The agency meant to fill the role of coordinating all this today is the WHO. When the WHO started its work, colonial powers still admitted to being colonial powers and we gave Nobel Prizes for frontal lobotomies.

However, the WHO was supposed to help improve things. Its governance was based on one country, one vote, and it was core-funded based on each country’s capacity. With its original intent of egalitarianism, evidence-based policy, prioritisation of low-income populations and contextual decision-making in mind, it is worth looking quickly at what the WHO has become:

• The WHO is headquartered with over a quarter of its staff in Geneva, Switzerland, one of the most expensive cities on earth.

• The bulk of the WHO’s work is dictated by individual funders who directly specify the use of their money (so the organisation is a tool for those with the most money, rather than the populations who need more assistance).

• The largest funder, Mr. Bill Gates Jr., is from a wealthy United States background with no low-income country or hands-on public health experience, but strong connections to the pharmaceutical and software industries.

• Its second largest funder over the past two years was GAVI, a public-private partnership including multinational pharmaceutical corporations. The WHO acts as a de-facto market development and access agency for them (which enables executives from such companies to justify their involvement to their shareholders).

• Staff receive good salaries, generous education subsidies for their children, good health insurance, are tax exempt and have a pension scheme structured to kick in after years of service and then rapidly accumulate, promoting longevity and institutional loyalty (i.e. to the institution rather than the mission).

The result is, as expected, a focus on commodity-heavy vertical programmes and a workforce incentivised to maintain such a model. Pharma company executives and their major investors are there to maximise return on investment, not ensure good nutrition. They may care, but their job is elsewhere. There are no large companies thriving off good diets or sanitation and, accordingly, no public-private partnerships to promote these. The WHO must comply with the priorities its funders dictate.

Time for a Return to Legitimacy

An international public health agency should prioritise building national health system capacity, independence and resilience. In contrast, the WHO has become a colonialist endeavour, serving the same partnership of powers and commercial interests, sanitising it as keeping the world “safe.”

The outcomes of the covid response will be repeated. Millions more children having prospects stolen and poverty ensured. Funding for nutrition – critical to build resilience against both endemic and epidemic disease, is falling while the WHO and partners construct veritable fairytales to promote more profitable agendas. Resource diversion in public health is never value-neutral.

Advocating reform or replacement of the WHO is therefore not radical, but intrinsically anti-colonialist, pro-human rights, pro-evidence and pro-public health. ‘The Right to Health Sovereignty’ reports follow this model. But there is much invested in maintaining the status quo, and a global health workforce strongly incentivised to support this.

The job of leaders of modern States is to ensure the welfare of their people, and this is the only legitimate mechanism from which meaningful change can come to international health.

The United States withdrawal from the WHO offers an opportunity, but it is the low-income countries on the receiving end of the WHO’s capture that need to drive change. The pushback on the Pandemic Agreement suggests that this may be happening. The global health workforce needs to cease its subservience to vested interests and stop blocking progress. We need international health cooperation based on sovereignty, ethics and integrity, not a continued slide back to the failures of a bygone colonial era.

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/05/07/african-nations-postpone-pandemic-agreement/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

The post African nations assert themselves and manage to postpone finalisation of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

WARNING: UK Could Face Repeat Lockdowns Using the Same Pandemic Playbook

Hope — Mon, 04 May 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Report warns WHO pandemic treaty may hardwire Covid-era tactics into future responses.

A report involving a former WHO scientist warns the UK could be drawn back into lockdowns, mandates, and mass vaccination campaigns under a proposed WHO pandemic treaty.

Critics argue expanded surveillance systems and rapid-response funding could incentivize the same Covid-era playbook in future crises.

They warn this may normalize emergency-style restrictions, raising concerns about how much autonomy governments will retain when the next global health threat is declared.

By Niamh Harris April 27, 2026

A former lead scientist at the World Health Organization has warned that a new WHO agreement on how countries respond to pandemics will lead to repeated lock down-style restrictions.

His warning comes as the WHO prepares for talks in Geneva on Monday to finalize a sweeping pandemic treaty that aims to cover surveillance systems, pathogen sharing and rapid vaccine rollout targets.

Dr David Bell, a former WHO scientific officer and lead author of a new report, said the system could steer the UK and other countries back toward Covid-era measures. These include school and business closures, mask mandates, quarantines and large-scale vaccination campaigns—steps that were not part of standard pandemic planning before 2020.

MSN reports: He said: “It is inevitable that we will end up in repeated lockdowns because of how the system is set up.”

Dr Bell warned that the increased WHO funding, which is specifically earmarked for expanded pandemic threat surveillance and rapid-response triggers could escalate potential threats more quickly into full-scale interventions.

The UK is one of the largest contributors to the WHO, committing hundreds of millions through direct funding and international partnerships. The authors of the report say that means British taxpayers are helping fund a pandemic response they may later be subjected to again.

They are calling for the WHO completely overhauled or “replaced by an organisation better able to serve country needs.”.

Their new report – by the International Health Reform Project – calls for reform of the WHO, arguing it is too heavily tied to pandemic threat response programmes such as vaccines and diagnostics, shaped by a relatively small group of powerful public, private and public-private funders.

The report highlights how large-scale contributions to the WHO are frequently channelled into targeted initiatives – particularly vaccines, diagnostics and surveillance systems – with a significant proportion of funding earmarked for specific objectives rather than broader health needs which could save more lives.

Critics say this concentration of funding risks aligning global health priorities with the interests and models of its major funding partners, rather than broader health outcomes – and could also mean threats are identified and acted on more quickly through expanded surveillance systems.

Dr Bell, former director of the Bill Gates funded development laboratory- the Global Good Fund, said: “The British taxpayer is funding a system that is looking for theoretical threats that will then be used to justify locking them down and making them pay for vaccines.”

He added: “It would be better that they put more money into the NHS.”

Co-author Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, a current WHO advisor and global public health expert at Leeds University, said funding flows are shaping global health priorities.

He said: “These large sums of money from private organisations and from government organisations have skewed the agenda.”

He added: “If you’re pumping in the largest donations to technical solutions, surveillance and vaccines it is inevitable you will have little choice but to do what is specified for it. It’s basic economics.”

They say this creates a system where what gets funded – and what produces measurable results – increasingly drives decision-making, rather than what delivers the greatest overall health impact.

Source: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/warning-uk-could-face-repeat-lockdowns

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

The post WARNING: UK Could Face Repeat Lockdowns Using the Same Pandemic Playbook appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

BREAKING: UK Government Releases New “PANDEMIC PLAN”

Hope — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000

The “All Pandemics Hazard Bill” aims to make lockdowns and other draconian measures easier to enforce and £1 billion has already been allocated as a new pandemic is deemed to be a “certainty.”

By Niamh Harris March 26, 2026

The British government has just released a new “PANDEMIC PLAN”

The plan, unveiled on Wednesday by the Department of Health and Social Care, is based on the government’s view that another pandemic is inevitable. However, officials expect it to differ from previous outbreaks, requiring a more flexible and adaptable response.

The strategy, according to The Telegraph proposes introducing an “All Pandemics Hazard Bill”, a piece of legislation that would allow the government to quickly adapt emergency measures in response to how a disease spreads. The Department of Health and Social Care will be responsible for drafting the bill, which is expected to be completed by March 2027.

The document states that the legislation will take a modular approach, allowing measures to be selected and applied as needed when a pandemic is declared or considered imminent, depending on the nature of the disease.

This marks the first pandemic preparedness strategy since the 2011 plan, which focused primarily on influenza and was later criticised for leaving the UK underprepared for Covid-19.

The new framework has been shaped in part by Exercise Pegasus, a large-scale simulation carried out last year that modelled the spread of a novel pathogen and tested the government’s response. A full report on the exercise is expected to be published by the Department of Health and Social Care later this year.

Overall, the government has committed £1 billion to strengthening pandemic preparedness under the plan.

As part of the initiative, a new contact tracing system will be developed and operated by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). It will use live location data and artificial intelligence to deliver faster, large-scale detection and alert capabilities during future outbreaks.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will explore potential partnerships with major technology companies to deliver the system, which is expected to be ready for deployment by 2030 if required.

In addition to expanding PPE stockpiles, the government will invest £250 million in a new biosecurity hub in Harlow, Essex. The facility will focus on researching high-risk pathogens and developing vaccines and treatments.

Although the hub was first announced in July last year, the government now expects it to become operational by 2038.

Further funding will also be directed towards strengthening domestic vaccine development, with the aim of providing vaccinations to the UK population within 100 days of a new pandemic emerging — a benchmark widely regarded as the global standard for reducing deaths and minimising economic and social disruption.

As part of this effort, the government will continue its partnership with Moderna, the US-based pharmaceutical company known for pioneering mRNA vaccines. In 2022, Moderna signed a 10-year agreement to build a research and manufacturing facility in Oxfordshire, with the capacity to produce up to 250 million doses annually.

Source: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/breaking-uk-government-releases-new

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post BREAKING: UK Government Releases New “PANDEMIC PLAN” appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Ultra-processed foods: Leading cause of ‘chronic disease pandemic,’ scientists warn

Hope — Fri, 02 Jan 2026 18:00:36 +0000

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are a leading cause of the “chronic disease pandemic” linked to diet, with food firms putting profit above all else, global experts have warned.

Writing in The Lancet medical journal, 43 scientists and researchers joined forces to argue that UPFs are “displacing” fresh foods and meals, worsening diet quality, and are linked to multiple chronic diseases.

They said, “The key driver of the global rise in UPFs is the growing economic and political power of the UPF industry, and its restructuring of food systems for profitability above all else.

“The industry comprises UPF manufacturers at its core, but also a broader network of co-dependent actors who collectively drive the production, marketing and consumption of UPFs.”

UPFs have been linked to poor health, including an increased risk of obesity, heart disease, cancer and early death.

Examples of UPFs include ice cream, processed meats, crisps, mass-produced bread, some breakfast cereals, biscuits, many ready meals and fizzy drinks.

UPFs often contain high levels of saturated fat, salt, sugar and additives, which experts say leaves less room in people’s diets for more nutritious foods.

UPFs also tend to include additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, such as preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colors and flavors.

Policy responses and industry influence

Writing in The Lancet, the global team said that, although some countries have brought in rules to reformulate foods and control UPFs, “the global public health response is still nascent, akin to where the tobacco control movement was decades ago.”

They said government policy, including in high income countries like the UK, has done little to change the “commercial and structural determinants of the problem,” instead focusing on consumer responsibility, industry partnerships, and voluntary self-regulation in industry, such as when companies replace sugar in some foods with sweeteners, or reduce fat.

“This policy inertia reflects the co-ordinated efforts of the industry to skew decision making, frame policy debates in their interest, and manufacture the appearance of scientific doubt,” they said.

They argue that the main barrier to policies to protect health is “industry’s corporate political activities, coordinated transnationally through a global network of front groups, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and research partners, to counter opposition and block regulation.”

These activities include direct lobbying, “infiltrating government agencies,” and filing lawsuits, they added.

Calls for action and further research

The experts argue that the “continuing rise of UPFs in human diets is not inevitable” and, while research into their effects continues, this should not delay policies aimed at promoting diets based on whole foods.

The dietary share of UPFs remains below 25% in countries such as Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and across Asia, but it is 50% in the US and UK, the research said.

Action is needed now to tackle UPFs directly rather than relying on current measures, it added.

Professor Chris Van Tulleken, from University College London, one of the authors, told a press briefing there had been a “three-decade history of reformulation by the food industry.”

He added, “We took the fat out first, then we took the sugar out. We replaced the sugar with the sweeteners, the fats with gums. These products have been extensively reformulated and we have seen obesity, particularly obesity in childhood, and other rates of diet-related disease persistently go up in line with reformulation.

“This is not a product level discussion. The entire diet is being ultra-processed.

“And remember that built into the definition of ultra-processed food is its purpose. Its purpose is for profit. And so, as long as you’re reformulating, if your purpose is still profit, you’re unlikely to cause positive health outcomes.”

Expert opinions on evidence and causation

Several experts commenting on The Lancet papers called for more, better quality research into the impact of UPFs, adding that current studies have shown a link with poor health but not a direct cause.

Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, said “it seems to me likely that at least some UPFs could cause increases in the risk of some chronic diseases (certainly not all—there’s little evidence of an increase in cancer risk, for instance).

“But this certainly doesn’t establish that all UPFs increase disease risk.

“There’s still room for doubt and for clarification from further research.”

He said he was not advocating that no public health action about UPFs is taken until all the research gaps have been filled, but said there was a need for “transparency” about “what we have good evidence for and what we don’t.”

Professor Jules Griffin, from the University of Aberdeen, said the authors had shown “a wide range of chronic diseases are associated with increased consumption of ultra-processed foods” but “association may not be causation, as the authors freely admit.”

Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-12-ultra-foods-chronic-disease-pandemic.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Ultra-processed foods: Leading cause of ‘chronic disease pandemic,’ scientists warn appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The Pandemic Agreement gives WHO the power to commandeer resources from sovereign states

Hope — Wed, 15 Oct 2025 22:59:26 +0000

WHO’s Pandemic Accords – the Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the IHR – are based on the flawed assumption that the risk of pandemics is rapidly growing, an assumption which are not supported by evidence.

Why are they, again, attempting to misinform and mislead the public?

Because the Accords will give WHO increased powers, allowing it to declare emergencies and commandeer resources from sovereign states. It also includes clauses on “misinformation” and “disinformation” which will allow for censorship of any dissenting voices, so the public won’t be given the chance to know that they’re lying about it.

Please note: The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

The World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) Pandemic Agreement was formally adopted on 20 May 2025 at the Seventy-eighth World Health Assembly in Geneva, with 124 member states voting in favour and 11 abstaining, including Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia and Iran. The United States did not participate in the vote due to its decision to withdraw from WHO.

The Agreement establishes a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (“PABS”) system to ensure rapid sharing of pathogen data, enabling faster development of vaccines and treatments. The Agreement will not go into effect until an annexe on this sharing of pathogenic information is agreed.

The PABS Negotiations are a Devious Psychological Operation, James Roguski, 7 September 2025
The PABS Negotiations Must Be Stopped Now, James Roguski, 14 September 2025

Nevertheless, the Agreement is in the process of being negotiated and prepared for signature and ratification at the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly in May 2026. On ratification by member states, it will be legally binding. It requires only 60 ratifications for it to enter into force.

What happens if a country does not comply after it has entered into force? As WHO threatens:

It is up to WHO Member States to decide on compliance mechanisms. It is a general principle of international law that once an international law instrument is in force, it is binding on the parties to it, and that parties to it undertake to implement it in good faith.

What could happen if countries that join or participate in the WHO Pandemic Agreement do not meet their obligations? Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response agreement, World Health Organisation, 27 June 2025

As part of the broader pandemic preparedness framework is the amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”), which WHO has been steadily moving towards imposing on the world. Member states had until July 2025 to formally reject these amendments.

US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them
The Updated International Health Regulations Have Been Published, James Roguski, 19 September 2025

In the following, Ramesh Thakur explains why WHO’s Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the IHR are badly flawed.

WHO Pandemic Accords Are Badly Flawed

By Ramesh Thakur, as published by Brownstone Institute on 2 October 2025

The decades-old International Health Regulations, as amended last year, came into effect on 19 September. A new Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May, will be opened for signature after a pathogens access and benefits sharing deal that is expected to be reached next year. The WHO Pandemic Accords, as the two documents are known, are a good example of the type of global governance initiatives on which there is a consensus among technocratic elites, but against which there is a rising populist revolt. Two other examples that were mentioned by President Donald Trump in his UN address on 23 September are immigration and climate change. The speech was a wide-ranging defence of national sovereignty against globalism.

Flawed Assumptions

Yet, pandemics are rare events that, compared to endemic infectious and chronic diseases, impose a low disease burden. The rationale for the Accords rests on the false understanding that the risk of pandemics is rapidly growing, predominantly from increasing zoonotic spillover events in which pathogens move from animals to humans. Well-founded suspicion that covid arose from gain-of-function research and a lab leak negates the second part of this justification.

The assumption of increasing pandemic risk is also undermined by work from the University of Leeds. They show that the reports of the WHO, World Bank and G20 that back the pandemic agenda don’t support the agencies’ claims. Data show reducing mortality and outbreaks in the decade prior to 2020. Much of the recorded “increase” in episodes reflects improved diagnostic technologies, not more frequent and more serious outbreaks.

Previous major epidemic diseases like yellow fever, influenza and cholera continue to decline overall. The historical timeline of pandemics shows that improvements in sanitation, hygiene, potable water, antibiotics and other forms of expanding access to good healthcare have massively reduced the morbidity and mortality of pandemics since the Spanish flu (1918–20) in which fifty million people are believed to have died.

According to Our World in Data, in the 105 years since the Spanish flu, a grand total of 10-14 million people have died in pandemics, including covid-19. To put this in perspective, in 2019 alone, nearly eight million people died from non-covid infectious diseases. Another 41 million deaths were caused by non-communicable diseases. In the five years 2020–2024 inclusive, 7.1 million covid-related deaths were recorded. Projecting the trendlines from 2000–2019, in the five years 2020–24, we could have expected a total of around 35 million deaths from non-covid infectious diseases and another 220 million from non-communicable diseases; that is, chronic diseases.

Calculations by Leeds University’s REPPARE project also show how key claims of massive costs from pandemics are inflated, whilst the costs of endemic infections are downplayed. Establishing a dedicated, treaty-based and resource-intensive international machinery to prepare for a low-burden disease of infrequent outbreaks will distort public health priorities and divert scarce resources and finite attention from more urgent health and other goals. This is bad public policy that fails the basic test of cost-benefit analysis.

Expanded Powers and Increased Resources for the WHO

Covid saw a successful bureaucratic coup that displaced elected governments with unelected experts and technocrats as de facto policy-makers. The Pandemic Accords provide the WHO legal authority to declare an actual or apprehended emergency and the power thereafter to commandeer resources for itself from sovereign states and redirect resources funded by the taxpayers of one country to other states, on the basis of what the WHO chief alone considers simply a risk of potential harm.

Many governments argue that other issues like climate change, gun violence and racism also constitute public health emergencies. These would expand the WHO’s remit even more. In addition, the pandemic treaty commits to a One Health Approach that includes animal health.

At a time of growing public disquiet about the expansion of the administrative state and its export to the world stage, the accords put in place requirements to add still more planks to the scaffolding of international health governance. These include a committee of states parties, and a technical subcommittee, to meet biennially to oversee implementation; entities to serve as a national “Authority” and a “Focal Point” for the implementation and coordination of health measures within countries; consultations with Indigenous populations; and yet another conference of parties (“COP”) that will meet every five years to review and strengthen treaty implementation.

Countries are further required to submit periodic reports on implementation measures, maintain or increase pandemic funding and mobilise additional resources for developing countries. To this end, a coordinating financial mechanism will be established. The treaty also requires states to put in place expedited regulatory review and authorisation of pandemic-related health products, the controversies attending emergency-use authorisation of the mRNA covid vaccines notwithstanding.

Furthermore, clauses on misinformation and disinformation will lead to censorship, once again despite the harmful and enduring legacy of this during covid. The reality of dissent, diverse opinions and robust scientific debate was kept hidden from the people who no longer trust governments and experts, like they largely did before covid, to level with them.

Jay Bhattacharya, speaking at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, DC, on 3 September as the director of the National Institutes of Health, recalled that in 2020–21, among his scientist friends, there:

“were a lot of diverse opinions. But the problem was that the scientific debate you deserved to hear in 2020 and 2021 – you were denied, because the free speech guarantees that this country normally has were taken away … The First Amendment was effectively a dead letter during the pandemic.”

The WHO believes in “the science of managing infodemics” (my emphasis). Its role as a lead participant in the worldwide censorship industrial complex comprising governments, academia, legacy media, social media and technology platforms has imposed a high cost on the WHO in eroded public trust. The core problem is mistrust, not misinformation. Managed information is not the solution. On the contrary, it will worsen the pathology.

Judgment of History

It is impossible to know how the covid experience will be assessed by historians in the fullness of time on the criterion of informed consent, a bedrock principle of medical ethics. In a very real sense, the selective and manipulated release of data ensured that informed consent was corrupted into misinformed and disinformed compliance. The steep age gradient of the mortality risk profile from the disease was known, or should have been known, by any diligent public health authority and expert. Deliberately ignoring that and the attendant strategy of policies targeted towards the high-risk groups, universal fear was ramped up to off the chart on the Richter scale of panic with breathless daily press briefings on new cases, hospitalisation, deaths and containment measures.

Absolute risk reduction was conflated with and collapsed into relative risk reduction in highlighting the “95 per cent efficacy” of vaccines. The same with regard to the great variability across continents. Heroic assumptions were made on the benefits of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions as against the absolute worst-case doomsday scenarios of not going soon, hard and long in responding to the grossly inflated threat.

Those responsible for the irresponsible fear-mongering have not been held to account. Instead, chief health officers in charge of the pandemic response received public veneration, promotions to governorships and high national honours, while their critics, even those whose dissenting voices have been vindicated by now, were vilified as immoral and dangerous, dismissed from service and the public square and remain mostly sidelined.

The WHO Pandemic Accords were negotiated by national and international public health officials and experts who shut down societies and imposed mask and vaccine mandates. The covid years gave them a taste of high-profile visibility and unprecedented powers to dominate public policy and media attention and issue commands that must be obeyed for entire populations, including putting everyone under house arrest under the euphemism of “lockdowns.”

They were deferred to with great respect by prime ministers and health ministers, courted and feted by the media, and lionised and venerated by the public. The personal and career interests of the public health clerisy were best served by convincing governments and people that the frequency and severity of pandemic risks are accelerating and intensifying. Building resilience into health systems against future pandemic shocks requires more resources and powers for health bureaucrats, technocrats and experts.

Or did we seriously expect them to say that pandemic risks are modest and can be adequately contained by existing budgets and institutional arrangements, and then to fade softly back into the shadows of pre-covid obscurity? To ask is to answer.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2025/10/06/pandemic-agreement-gives-who-the-power/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post The Pandemic Agreement gives WHO the power to commandeer resources from sovereign states appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

🚨 Don’t Be Fooled: HHS Just Opened the Door to the Next Pandemic 🚨

Hope — Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:00:27 +0000

🚨 Don’t Be Fooled: HHS Just Opened the Door to the Next Pandemic 🚨

🚨 Don’t Be Fooled: HHS Just Opened the Door to the Next Pandemic 🚨

Yes, it’s true—HHS terminated 22 mRNA vaccine projects worth nearly $500M, citing failure to protect against COVID and flu. But this isn’t the victory some are claiming.

Behind the headlines, the Biden/Kennedy… pic.twitter.com/cGzJq207N5

— Jon Fleetwood (@JonMFleetwood) August 6, 2025