In his first book of a two-part series about ‘The Genesis 6 Conspiracy’, Gary Wayne wrote: “Below the thirteen families is their representative Council of Thirty-Three, The Great Druid Council, followed by the Committee of 300 consisting of Illuminated Freemasons.”

Who or what are the 13 Families?

From Gary Wayne’s book ‘The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and the Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind’, we gather that the order of the global oligarchs’ secretive hierarchy is (from higher to lower levels):

1. 13 Families
2. Council of 33
3. Council of 13 (The Great Druid Council)
4. Committee of 300
5. Illuminati (Illuminated Freemasons)
6. Freemasonry

In a previous article, we touched on the Illuminati, the Council of 33 and the Council of 13.  At the end, we noted that the final group we want to explore is the Thirteen Families, or 13 Families, but that we would do so in a separate article.

Tied in with the 13 Families is the Rex Deus ideology.  Descriptions of Rex Deus ideology have appeared online from time to time, but without it being named. So, it is worth beginning with a brief explanation of it and where it began.

Table of Contents

1. Priory of Sion
2. Rex Deus
3. 13 Families
4. An Example: King Philip of Spain
5. Notes

Priory of Sion

How will the spurious religion take hold of the Christian church and the world? “This will not be a violent mutiny; surprisingly, it will be a bloodless coup,” Gary Wayne wrote.

“The strategy to devalue Jesus will be simple and systematic.  It will be led by the Gnostics and liberals within Christianity and by such clandestine groups as the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Rex Deus, the Rosicrucians and the Priory of Sion.” (The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, pg. 391)

We have published several articles discussing or noting the Illuminati, Freemasons and Rosicrucians.  In one such article, we explored how the histories of these secret organisations are intertwined (read ‘The intertwined history of the Illuminati, Freemasons, Rosicrucians and Jesuits’).

Discussion about the Priory of Sion doesn’t come up as frequently.  So, a brief explainer is useful.  Again, readers will notice that the intertwining of secretive organisations is evident.

According to Wayne, the Priory of Sion created the Knights Templar to protect secrets which they claimed to be in its possession:

Templar historians noted the order was opportunistically created as a ruse to protect Christian pilgrims as they journeyed to Jerusalem; this was an effective cover for the secretive Rex Deus (Masons/Essenes) and the Priory of Sion and their real mission to Jerusalem.  Note, however, the Priory of Sion was the true power behind the Templars and their occultist agenda.

[Dan] Brown notes the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099 as a secret society by King Godefrois [Godefroy, Godfrey] de Bouillon after conquering Jerusalem.^[1]  The Les Dossier Secrets listed many famous people from history as past Grand Masters leading this organisation.  These included such luminaries as Leonardo Da Vinci, Victor Hugo, Robert Fludd, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, to name a few [Brown, Da Vinci Code].

The Priory is believed to hold the genealogies of Jesus’ descendants that would, if revealed to the world, threaten Christianity as we know it today. [Emphasis added]The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.406

Pierre Plantard was the last known Grand master of the Priory.  He resigned from the Priory in 1984 due to the controversy surrounding the documents known as Les Dossiers Secrets.  He admitted creating and planting the documents as a forgery.  However, Wayne believes his admission and resignation were a misdirection and, perhaps, an endeavour to save his life.

Related: The Dossiers Secrets d’Henri Lobineau, Prieuré de Sion

In the 2010 book ‘Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network’, Dean Henderson wrote:

The Priory of Sion came into public view in July 1956.  A 1981 notice in the French press listed 121 dignitaries as Priory members.  All were bankers, royalty or members of the international political jet set.  Pierre Plantard was listed as Grand Master.  Plantard is a direct descendant, through King Dagobert II, of the Merovingian Kings.  Plantard, who owns property in the Rennes-le-Chateau area of southern France where the Priory of Sion is based, has stated that the order has in its possession lost treasure recovered from beneath Solomon’s Temple and that it will be returned to Israel when the time is right.

The Templars claim to possess secret knowledge that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene, fathered children to launch the Merovingian bloodline and was the son of Joseph of Arimathea.

The Priory’s more important purpose was to guard Templar gold and to preserve the alleged bloodline of Jesus – the royal Sangreal – which they believe is carried forth by the French Bourbon Merovingian family and the related Hapsburg monarchs of Spain and Austria … The Hapsburgs are an integral part of the Priory of Sion. Many researchers believe that Spain’s Hapsburg King Philip will be crowned Sangreal World King in Jerusalem. [Emphasis added]The Eight Families: The Roundtable & The Illuminati (Part III), The Exposé, 28 August 2024

The false narrative that “Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene [and] fathered children” is the basis for the Rex Deus ideology – and crowning their “Sangreal World King in Jerusalem” is their ultimate aim. 

After the establishment of the One World Government is complete, the Rex Deus Sangreal World King (the anti-Christ) will be revealed, crowned and usurp the One World Government to rule as a global dictator with an evil brutality that the world has not seen since before Noah’s Flood.

Rex Deus

“… command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work – which is by faith.” 1 Timothy 1:3-4 (NIV)

The contemporary Rex Deus conspiracy dates back 2,000 years to the life and time of Jesus.  According to Wayne, the source of the Rex Deus ideology is the Sons of Zadok.

The Sons of Zadok “is a puzzling Hebrew/Aramaic title identifying the descendants of a priestly lineage,“ Wayne explained. “They later became rebranded as Rex Deus sometime after the fall of the temple [in Jerusalem] in 70 AD.  This, of course, was the founding organisation of the European Rex Deus,” he wrote (The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, pg. 398).

Who were the Sons of Zadok? Wayne explained that the Essenes, a group of mystic and Gnostic “Jewish” monks who wrote the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, considered themselves to be the Sons of Zadok.  They were also known as the Sons of Righteousness and, by Masonic authors, as the Sons of Dawn and the Righteous Seed.

Rex Deus ideologues believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, He was removed from the cross while still alive. He then married Mary Magdalene and they had at least two children.

Mary allegedly scuttled one child to France, and he settled in the area of Rennes Le Chateau, home of the Cathars, Merovingians, Essenes, Alains, Rex Deus and Templars, the rebellious epicentre most of the heretical, investigative books mark as their starting point.

The other son was believed to have migrated to England with Joseph of Arimathea.

It is for these reasons the ultra-secret Priory of Sion then refers to Mary Magdalene by many pseudonyms, such as “the Chalice,” the “Holy Grail” and the “Rose.”

Jesus’ two sons are thought to be the source for the Arthurian kings [as in King Arthur and the Round Table] and the Merovingian kings.The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.399

In Rex Deus ideology, the Holy Grail is the Sangreal, a bloodline that they spuriously claim descends from the holy royal line of Jesus.

In the quest to complete their plan to crown one of their own as World King, Rex Deus has spawned many nefarious organisations and movements along the way. Wayne noted that “Rex Deus points to its two greatest achievements as Darwinism and Marxism, likely followed by socialism, Nazism and the upstart global warming and overpopulation deceptions.” (The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, pg. 516)

13 Families

Hereditary Rex Deus Adepts [“enlightened ones”] are purposefully selected from within the dynastic inheritance (bloodlines) passed down the generations from father to son.  The chosen are brainwashed from childhood to ensure full comprehension of the secret knowledge, religion and seditious objectives.The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.522

Who are the Rex Deus families from which the chosen Sangreal World Kings in waiting are selected?

In a chapter titled ‘Guardians of the Antichrist’, Wayne lists the founding Templar families, which were all Rex Deus:

The founding Templar families, all nine, plus the two secret families, were all Rex Deus; they all stemmed from Royal French and Flemish families. [Knight and Lomas, Second Messiah, 276-277]

[However,] Rex Deus records suggest eleven founding knights, not nine.  They include Hughes De Payen, Geoffrey De St. Omer, Payen De Montifier [Montdidier], Archambaud De St-Amand, Andre De Montbard, Gondemare, Rosal, Geofrey Bisol, Godefroy (de Bouillon), Fulk of Anjou and Hugh of Champagne. [Knight and Lomas, Second Messiah, 276-277]The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.480

In addition to the above, Wayne noted that the Sinclairs, a Scottish clan, are also Rex Deus.

In around 1100 AD, when Henry St. Clair returned from the First Crusade, the Sinclairs adopted the title “Earls of Rosslyn” after the name of the town of Roslin.  In Gaelic, Roslin or Roslinn translates to “ancient knowledge passed down the generations,” according to Knight and Lomas in their book, Second Messiah.

The Sinclairs “presided over the surviving Templar organisation in Scotland, called the Order of Heredon.  The Templars survived in Scotland under the guise of a trade organisation (Masonry), while the Sinclair clan inherited the role as guardians for Freemasons, as well as the concealers of the Knights Templar within those organisations,” Wayne said. (The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, pg. 424)

The Sinclairs are among the Royalty of Masonry, and it should come as no surprise to learn the Sinclair bloodline originated in France as Rex Deus, under the appellation “Saint Clair.”  They are and were Rex Deus from Brittany, the land conquered and settled by [King] Arthur, which volunteered its allegiance to the Merovingian dynasty after the fall of the Grail [Rex Deus] dynasties in England and Wales to the Saxons.The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.480

Further, Wayne noted that the House of Stuart (Stewart), a royal dynasty that initially ruled Scotland and later England, Ireland and Great Britain, is one of the likely bloodlines to produce the anti-Christ.

The House of Stuarts began with the crowning of Robert the Bruce, “the famous Rex Deus protectorate of the refugee Knights Templar.” When Robert the Bruce failed to produce a son, his daughter’s son founded the Stuart dynasty.

“The Rex Deus House of Stuart holds a very special place in Rex Deus history, as well as the future plans of Rex Deus,” he wrote. “The Stuart bloodline is one of the most plausible bloodlines to produce the Antichrist.” (The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, pgs. 473, 477)^[2]

The Knights Templar were founded in 1118 and disbanded in France by papal bull in 1312 and later in England, after which they sought refuge in Scotland.  So, who are the Rex Deus families today?  To answer this question, Wayne turned to the 1997 book ‘The Second Messiah: Templars, The Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry’ written by Christopher Knight and Freemason Robert Lomas.  Referencing The Second Messiah, Wayne wrote:

According to Knight and Lomas, the contemporary Rex Deus families include the Counts of Champagne, the Lords of Gisor, the Lords of Payen, the Counts of Fontaine, the Counts of Anjou, de Bouillon, St. Clair de Gisors, St. Clair de Neg, Brienne, Joinville, Chaumont, the St. Clairs and the Hapsburgs (thirteen families).The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.547

Referencing the 2014 book ‘Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids’ by Jim Marrs, Wayne added:

Originating Rex Deus bloodlines were introduced to other families through marriage: Blanchefort, Sinclair, Plantard and Hapsburg-Lorraine.  For example, Marie de Saint Clair, a descendant of Henry Saint Clair of Rosslyn Chapel, married Jean de Gisor, the first independent Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, Gary Wayne, 2014, pg.547

Looking at it in the round, it seems from one or more of the families listed above, one or more are chosen and brainwashed from childhood to be the Sangreal World King, the anti-Christ, in waiting.

An Example: King Philip of Spain

To many, the Rex Deus names mentioned above will have little meaning. For those who would like to delve more into the genealogies of these families, there is a website called ‘Fab Pedigree’ compiled by James Allen.  Allen describes his site as “for hobbyists who want to trace their descent from ancient genealogies.”  We’re unable to vouch for the accuracy of the site, but it might prove interesting as a starting point.  As he is mentioned earlier in this article as a potential Sangreal World King in waiting, let’s take the current King of Spain as an example.

Fab Pedigree lists the current King of Spain (2014 – present) as Philip VI (Felipe VI) from the House of Bourbon.  Today, the House of Bourbon rules Spain and Luxembourg. While King Philip (Felipe) VI of Spain and Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg represent the living Bourbon monarchies, the current head of the French branch is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou.

According to Wikipedia, Felipe VI is the son of former King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofía.  Following Fab Pedigree’s link for Philip VI, we can confirm, using his parents, that we are viewing the genealogy for the same person.

If you click through his ancestry following the male line, at around the time of the Crusades, there is an ancestor, Louis VII (1119-1180), who was the King of France from 1137 to 1180.  Fab Pedigree notes that he was a “crusader.”  Louis VII organised and led the Second Crusade (1147–1149) and afterwards was a significant patron and benefactor of the Knights Templar.

Now follow Philip (Felipe) VI’s male ancestral line to Philip (Filipe) V (1683-1746). On Philip V’s page, Fab Pedigree notes, “Duke of ANJOU; also King of The Indies; Knight of Golden Fleece.”

Knights of the Golden Fleece are members of a prestigious chivalric order established in 1430.  The order split in the 16th century into two branches, currently co-led by King Felipe VI of Spain and Archduke Karl of Austria.

Archduke Karl of Austria is the current head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (Hapsburg-Lorraine).

Related: List of knights of the Golden Fleece, Grokipedia

We could investigate further, but for demonstration purposes it’s not necessary.  And from the little we’ve done we can’t help but notice an emerging pattern: names and titles associated with Rex Deus keep cropping up.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2026/07/27/who-or-what-are-the-13-families/

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 Who or what are the 13 Families? appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

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.”

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.

“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

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

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: 

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

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

Ebola is rare and unlikely to cause a pandemic. Despite this, the World Health Organisation has declared the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda a public health emergency of international concern (“PHEIC”).

The true cause of Ebola outbreaks is unlikely to be wild animals, as claimed by the WHO, but rather gain-of-function research being conducted in laboratories across the globe, including in the regions where these outbreaks occur.

Declaring an outbreak as a PHEIC is an opportunity for pharmaceutical companies and researchers to profit from the development of vaccines and therapeutics.

Ebola: Public Health Crisis or Criminal Enterprise?

By New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (“NZDSOS”), 29 May 2025

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. What is Ebola?
3. Ebola History and Epidemiology
4. How is Ebolavirus Disease Diagnosed?
5. How is Ebolavirus Treated?
6. What Causes an Ebola Outbreak?
7. Pandemics Profit Pandemic Prophets
8. Conclusion

Introduction

Hot on the tail of hantavirus histrionics, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) declared on 17 May 2026 that an epidemic of Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda is a public health emergency of international concern (aka a PHEIC).

As the 79th session of the World Health Assembly wrapped up last week, it is easy to see the priorities of WHO in these four brief headlines from the front page of their website. Without frightening diseases, how will the pandemic agreement be reached, or the global health architecture be built?

What is Ebola?

Ebolavirus belongs to the Filovirus family, named for their thread-like appearance under electron microscopy (“filum” is Latin for “thread”). There are six known subtypes, four of which are associated with human disease. It is claimed that wild animals are the source of initial infection, followed by human-to-human transmission via direct contact with the blood and body fluids of an infected person.

Ebolavirus disease (“EVD”) presents initially as an influenza-like illness, followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, skin rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and impaired neurological status with confusion, irritability and aggression. Internal and external bleeding from any organs can occur, but is less frequent than the aforementioned symptoms.

Ebola History and Epidemiology

According to Laurie Garret in ‘The Coming Plague’ (1994), the first case of EVD was detected in August 1976 in a school teacher from Yambuku in Northern Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo or DRC), near the Ebola river. The subsequent outbreak in this region occurred simultaneously with an outbreak in Southern Sudan. A public health investigation dispatched virologists and epidemiologists from their laboratories in Europe and North America into the deep heart of the African continent.

Tissue specimens were sent to laboratories in Europe and the USA to determine a causative agent. On 10 October 1976, scientists at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s maximum-security laboratory in Atlanta officially informed the World Health Organisation that the causative agent was “a virus that resembles Marburg.“

Serial passage experimentation began almost immediately, “passing Ebola samples from one guinea pig to another to see if the virulence of the virus was diminished as it went through successive generations of animals.” A contamination incident in a UK laboratory resulted in at least one researcher becoming unwell and being successfully treated with plasma from a recovered African patient.

Since that time, there have been more than 25 EVD outbreaks involving the loss of 15,000 lives across a fifty-year timespan. Seventeen of these outbreaks have occurred in the DRC, also currently affected, which was also ground zero for Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) in 2022. Most outbreaks have been confined to rural areas in five of Africa’s 54 countries: Sudan, DRC, Gabon, the Republic of Congo and Uganda.

The Bundibugyo subtype, responsible for the current public health emergency of international concern (“PHEIC”), was first identified in the Bundibugyo region of Uganda during an outbreak in 2007. A second Bundibugyo outbreak followed in the DRC in 2012, and today’s outbreak is the third involving this subtype.

For context, in the year 2024 alone, tuberculosis killed 1.23 million people and malaria killed 610,000 people. The African continent bears the highest burden of these diseases.

How is Ebolavirus Disease Diagnosed?

Clinical symptoms of EVD are difficult to distinguish from other infectious diseases such as malaria, typhoid fever and meningitis, which are endemic to the geographic region where EVD outbreaks sporadically occur. A range of diagnostic tests has been developed to confirm the presence of Ebolavirus.

The World Health Organisation recommends nucleic acid amplification testing (“NAAT”), of which polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) is a frequently used technique, with genome sequencing to categorise the subtype. As of 22 May 2026, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention recommends PCR testing as below.

It is important to always remember the flaws and potential corruptibility in using PCR to diagnose disease, especially when symptoms may be caused by other, more common endemic diseases. Pseudoepidemics can occur in world-class facilities. A much higher risk exists in locations with limited resources and an abundance of sickness and premature death, especially if panic and fear have been galvanised, as we are witnessing today.

How is Ebolavirus Treated?

Early treatment ensures the best possible outcomes, as with any disease. Hydration management via oral or intravenous fluids is important. Monoclonal antibodies may be useful, depending on the subtype. There has been no research into the benefits of repurposed drugs in Ebola treatment but it seems likely that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, effective in other RNA virus infections, may be useful. Instead, the World Health Organisation and its sponsors are focused on finding new countermeasures (vaccines and therapeutics) to patent and sell at a profit.

What Causes an Ebola Outbreak?

According to the World Health Organisation, Ebolavirus is “transmitted to people from wild animals (such as fruit bats, porcupines and non-human primates).” Contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person can then result in human-to-human transmission.

What this assertion ignores, however, is the Ebolavirus gain-of-function research occurring in laboratories across the globe, including across the region where these sporadic outbreaks occur. Such research is always claimed to be for reasons that are in the public’s best interest, for example, to develop countermeasures such as vaccines and therapeutics. Yet the work is shrouded in secrecy.

In a 2015 report on Ebola research at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) in Geelong, Victoria, SBS held firmly to the claim that Ebola outbreaks are due to crossover from wild animals. Nevertheless, the same report stated that: “If any of these viruses were to make it out of the lab, it could have deadly consequences.“

In the USA, Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana is known to be infecting animals with a range of pandemic-potential viruses, including Ebola. The research involves torturing animals known as maximum-pain virus experiments.

The White Coat Waste Project has exposed a number of biosafety breaches in these laboratories which pose a threat to public health, setting aside the welfare of the animals for a moment.

Late last year, during experimentation with Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever, a staffer was “bitten by an infected monkey (macaque) that was being tortured (infected and sickened with no pain mitigation).” Earlier this year, Vincent Munster, a virologist at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, was caught smuggling dangerous pathogens, including Clade 1B Mpox, from the DRC into the USA.

The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”) at Fort Detrick, 50 miles from Washington DC, employs 900 researchers to experiment with “biological threats” including Ebola. USAMRIID developed Ervebo, the first Ebola vaccine, licensed in 2019.

On the African continent, where regulation has even less oversight, a number of laboratories are likely to be involved in gain-of-function research. The proximity of these laboratories to the “ground zero” of outbreaks gives pause for thought to even the least conspiracy-minded amongst us.

In our August 2024 Mpox article, we raised suspicions about the Rodolphe Mérieux Foundation’s high-security facility in Goma, DRC.  Situated in North Kivu Province, eastern DRC, Goma lies on the border with South Kivu Province, around 500km from Kamituga, where Clade IB of Mpox was first detected. That alone is a coincidence deserving of raised eyebrows. Even more suspicious is the fact that ground zero of the current Ebola outbreak lies a very similar distance from Goma, in the opposite direction.

The first case of Nipah virus, in a much-publicised outbreak earlier this year, was detected in Kolkata, the provincial capital of West Bengal in India. This is approximately 500km from another Rodolphe Mérieux Laboratory at the Bangladesh Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases in Chattogram (Chittagong).

Mérieux Laboratories are partnered with local reference laboratories, academic, university and hospital research institutes across low-income nations in what they named the GABRIEL Network – an acronym for “global approach to biology research, infectious diseases and epidemics in low-income countries.” The stated aim is “to build capacity and improve laboratory-based surveillance of diseases with a major impact on public health in developing countries.” Sponsors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others.

Could this potentially be a front for more nefarious activities? As we documented in March 2026, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (“CEPI”) was established in 2017 at the World Economic Forum in Davos and received a significant amount of early funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is a direct institutional descendant of the pandemic preparedness funding architecture documented in the Epstein files.

[Related: Epstein Files Mention Pandemic Simulations Linked to Bill Gates, Tempo, 4 February 2026 and The Epstein Files Illuminate a 20-Year Architecture Behind Pandemics as a Business Model – With Bill Gates at the Centre of the Network, Sayer Ji, 2 February 2026]

In January 2026, CEPI paid $26.7 million to Moderna and the University of Oxford to develop mRNA and viral vector injections that target the Bundibugyo strain. This business decision came just four months before the outbreak began. What are the chances that this timing was coincidental?

One of the many projects listed at the Uganda Virus Research Institute in Entebbe, receiving philanthropic donations from Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is “CEPI: Advancing Global Vaccine Preparedness.” The project claims to conduct “rigorous, standardised testing of vaccine candidates for priority diseases, including Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, Nipah, Rift Valley Fever, SARS-CoV-2, Mpox and unidentified emerging threats,” and to develop and optimise “critical assays for the detection of immune responses against Ebola and Marburg viruses.”

Is it possible that this laboratory is working with live Ebolaviruses? Could that explain the laboratory’s uncanny distance from Bundibugyo, a town and district in western Uganda where the current outbreak strain was first identified in 2007? Bundibugyo and Bunia are about 270km apart, and recent reports claim that the outbreak is spreading in Uganda. Do the Rodolphe Merieux Laboratory in Goma and the Uganda Virus Research Institute in Entebbe have anything to do with these outbreaks that are being blamed on spread following contact with wild animals?

Pandemics Profit Pandemic Prophets

University of North Carolina (“UNC”) Chapel Hill virologist Ralph Baric, considered a pioneer of gain-of-function research, recently had his research grants stopped and was placed on leave by UNC Chapel Hill. This seems to be due to implications of his coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In 2018, Baric gave a 40-minute presentation, available on YouTube, in which he prophesied that a pandemic was looming. Many of the people who profit from claims of a pandemic have made similar prophesies. In the clip below, Baric boasted to the audience about the profits that can come from a pandemic. These are consistent with similar boasting from Belgium’s 2009 Swine Flu commissioner at Chatham House in 2019.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UuERPvBFfco?start=1945&feature=oembedUNC Public Health: Imagining the Next Flu Pandemic – and Preventing it!, 29 May 2018 (38 mins)

[If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE. An auto transcription of the first 30 mins of the video is attached below.]

Ralph Baric UN Public Health 2018Download

In the current Ebola outbreak, public funds have been committed so far to the tune of US$645 million. With a grand total of 101 confirmed cases, this amounts to $6.3 million per confirmed case. In a nation where the average annual income is US$670, this is obscene and irrelevant to the health or any other needs of the population.

On 24 May 2026, Tedros Ghebreyesus released a video clip on social media announcing the activation of complex networks focused on developing and trialling countermeasures, therapeutics and candidate vaccines. We have written about this Ponzi scheme previously, in which taxpayers cover all risk, the industry receives all benefits and population health remains a very firm loser. The model is explained in this one easy infographic from Dr. David Bell.

Conclusion

A number of viral haemorrhagic fevers are touted as candidates for the repeatedly foretold “next pandemic.“ None evokes more fear than Ebola. This makes it highly marketable despite the fact that it does not transmit easily and outbreaks always ultimately abate naturally.

Ebola is a tiny blip on the landscape of infectious disease threats. Diagnostic practices need to be evaluated closely to ensure that outbreaks are not pseudo-epidemics. Ebola elicits sensation because of the exotic and adventurous nature of Ebola-related research for scientists paid to investigate outbreaks in intrepid locations and to develop “innovative” prevention and treatment technologies. This alone creates a potential conflict of interest in truth-seeking.

Despite the hype, Ebola is very unlikely to be the cause of a pandemic, and so it is unclear as to why someone like Robert Redfield, former CDC Director, would make a claim that “I suspect this is going to become a very significant pandemic.” His financial and other conflicts of interest should be examined closely.

It seems likely that profits, not wild animals, are driving the consecutive public health emergencies of international concern (“PHEICs”) declared back-to-back by WHO, including Ebola. It is clear that exorbitant amounts of money are being injected into Ebola research by the nefarious characters involved in building a global pandemic architecture.

Gain-of-function posing as vaccine research for rare diseases which pose little threat to most people, must be stopped. Disease diagnosis must be held to a standard that respects the diagnostic process as one requiring skilled clinicians referring to a range of appropriate laboratory tests, when necessary, not merely a narrow focus on one single test with potential for misdiagnosis. Fear as a method of control must be removed from all public health strategies and replaced once more with common sense and ethics. Finally, an investigation into the criminality of those attempting to overthrow medicine and public health is required, and appropriate consequences instituted.

Of note: The Focal Points website of the McCullough Foundation is publishing much original investigation into the fear-mongering and flourishing pipeline of these scary viruses and their profiteers. 

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/06/10/ebola-profits-not-wild-animals-are-driving-who/

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 Ebola: Profits, not wild animals, are driving WHO to declare public health emergencies appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

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

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

The US Department of Health and Human Services holds patents for hantavirus and other viral haemorrhagic fevers.  Researcher Christina F. Spiropoulou is a key figure in these patents.

These patents involve genetically engineered viruses and “virus replicon particles” that can enter human cells.  It is claimed these viruses are engineered so that they cannot spread and so cause an infection.  However, at what point does such an engineered virus become the virus?

Hantavirus Patents: Who Owns Them? And When Does a “Vaccine” Become the Pathogen?

By Dr. Tess Lawrie, 12 May 2026

Question: Would you want a modified haemorrhagic fever “virus,” capable of entering human cells but allegedly engineered not to fully spread, injected into you? This is what a hantavirus “vaccine” may be.

Question: Would you be surprised to hear that hantavirus lung infection is listed among Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine list of severe adverse drug reactions?

This article is based on revelations emerging from a two-year investigation into WHO Collaborating Centres by WCH Australia’s Lucinda van Buuren.

At What Point Does an Engineered Vaccine Platform Begin To Resemble the “Virus” It Was Designed To Prevent?

For most people, the word “vaccine” still evokes something simple: a weakened virus, a harmless protein or an injection that teaches the immune system to fight disease. But the covid-19 scam has shown that what are called vaccines can no longer be considered harmless.

Today’s “vaccine” science increasingly involves genetically engineered viruses “viral systems,” synthetic biology, programmable RNA platforms and modified viruses. Thus, the question “At what point does an engineered vaccine platform begin to resemble the ‘virus’ it was designed to prevent?” sits quietly beneath a growing heap of patents connected to emerging viruses such as hantaviruses, Nipah virus and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (“CCHF”).

I raised this issue in a recent interview with Del Bigtree on ‘The Highwire, Episode 475’, and the fact that one recurring name in this patent trail for hantavirus and viral haemorrhagic fevers is Christina F. Spiropoulou, a virologist associated with the US Department of Health and Human Services. She is also a Director of a key WHO Collaborating Centre, the WHO Collaborating Centre (“WHO CC”) for Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) in Atlanta (WHO contract USA-155). Spiropoulou’s co-director of the WHO CC is Captain Joel Montgomery, former director of the Department of Emerging Infections at the US Naval Medical Research Unit Six (“NAMRU-6”) in Lima, Peru.

Spiropoulou has co-inventions spanning from early hantavirus engineering in the 1990s to modern “virus replicon particle” vaccine systems. This document lists Spiropoulou and Health and Human Services (“HHS”) patents, including one published as recently as January 2026.  Download ‘Patents by Inventor Christina F. Spiropoulou’ HERE.

The patents are public but not well known, and the potential implications urgently need to be discussed in international public forums.

The Hantavirus Back-Story

The first alleged hantavirus disease emerged during the Korean War in the early 1950s, when around 3,000 United Nations troops developed a mysterious haemorrhagic fever later called Korean haemorrhagic fever. Approximately 5-10 % of the troops died. Biowarfare was a possibility, and the US military became sufficiently alarmed that it established a dedicated haemorrhagic fever centre in Korea, according to Wikipedia.

US military biolabs, such as NAMRUs (US Naval Medical Research Units), began identifying related rodent-borne viruses across the world. NAMRUs were set up during and after World War II to identify “pathogens of military importance.” The Rockefeller Foundation helped set some of these up.

NAMRUs have remained very active in hantavirus research and development. Publicly documented NAMRU activities include NAMRU-3 hantavirus surveillance projects in Bulgaria and NAMRU-6 work identifying Andes hantavirus variants in Peru.

According to Wikipedia, the actual virus itself, called the Hantaan virus, was only isolated in 1976, two decades after the Korean War, by South Korean virologist Ho-Wang Lee from striped field mice near the Hantan River in South Korea. Its alleged connection to the outbreak in Korea was made through antibody testing of surviving veterans.

The Four Corners Outbreak

In the spring of 1993, several healthy young adults in the Four Corners region of the American Southwest experienced sudden respiratory collapse. Seventeen deaths were attributed eventually to a previously unknown hantavirus allegedly carried by deer mice. The virus became known as Sin Nombre virus. The outbreak launched an intense period of hantavirus surveillance and genetic sequencing in the US, as evidenced by the patent paper trail.

Patenting Emerging Viruses

Several patents filed in the 1990s and early 2000s by Spiropoulou on behalf of the US Department of Health & Human Services focused on newly identified hantaviruses and methods for detecting them:

• Bayou hantavirus and related methods (1999).
• Strain of hantavirus nucleotide sequences thereof related probes, primers and vectors, and methods for detection (1999).
• Polypeptides of a novel hantavirus (2003).

These patents involve isolating viral sequences, creating probes and primers, identifying viral proteins, and developing possible vaccine targets may seem uncontroversial. In theory, this is defensive medicine to identify dangerous viruses before they spread. However, the NAMRU/CDC virology team does not merely identify “viruses,” it redesigns and patents them on behalf of HHS.

What Type of Virus (Oops, I mean “Vaccine”) Shall We Make Next in the Age of Engineered Viral Systems?

More recent patents linked to Spiropoulou concern highly modified viral platforms known as “virus replicon particles” (“VRPs”). Examples include Nipah Henipavirus and Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (“CCHF”). These VRPs are basically CDC-made VIRUSES designed to enter cells, express viral genes, initiate partial replication and stimulate immunity, while supposedly being unable to complete a full infectious cycle. The patents repeatedly emphasise that the viruses are missing key genes needed for spread. For example, the Nipah system deletes the fusion (F) protein, the CCHF system deletes the M segment responsible for glycoproteins.

The promise is that these engineered bits and pieces of genetic material create something virus-like enough to trigger strong immunity, but disabled enough to be “safe”. A recurring phrase in these patents is that the particles can undergo a “single round” of replication. This should by no means be reassuring. To replicate even once, the constructed virus/vaccine must still enter living cells, hijack cellular machinery, express viral proteins and behave in many ways like the pathogen itself.

Increasingly, “vaccine” science is looking like biological warfare orchestrated by the very institutions allegedly erected to protect and defend us. When did vaccines become engineered pathogens? Or is this what they have always been? Engineered infectious agents…The bits of genetic material known as viruses mutate, recombination occurs, biology is not predictable and anything can happen to the recipient. Engineered or unknown. This is gain-of-function by another name; “dual-use research,” yet another euphemism.

There is no evidence these patents describe released biological weapons or covert public deployment; however, the documents do reveal how normalised viral/vaccine engineering has become.

The Virus/Vaccine Process

The process that seems to be emerging for this hugely profitable racket is:

1. find (or create) pathogenic materials,
2. manipulate them genetically,
3. give assurance of partial replication-competence,
4. patent the resulting technologies, and
5. then develop countermeasures against the engineered systems themselves.

Question: Would you want a modified haemorrhagic fever “virus,” capable of entering human cells but allegedly engineered not to fully spread, injected into you? This is what a hantavirus “vaccine” will be.

Who Calls The Shots?

Please note: a conflict of interest may arise if:

• a public institution helps develop a vaccine and
• it holds a patent that could generate revenue and
• it also influences decisions that affect that product’s use or evaluation.

That creates a situation where the same system is involved in both developing and potentially benefiting from the outcome.

Do these virus/vaccine patents constitute a conflict of interest for the CDC, HHS and ultimately WHO? What do you think?

Safe and Effective

The US Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) is the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Biological Standardisation (USA-289), meaning that the FDA determines what genetic or biological vaccines are “safe and effective” for us all. For some reason, this is not reassuring!

Believe it or not, there is a better way! It includes saying ‘NO’ to anything called a vaccine from now on.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2026/05/13/hantavirus-is-connected-to-who-collaborating-centre/

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 Hantavirus is connected to a key USA WHO collaborating Centre appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Paper records replaced by cross-border digital IDs built on pandemic infrastructure.

The World Health Organization, alongside the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and Singapore’s Temasek Foundation, has launched a three-year initiative to replace paper medical records across Southeast Asia with digital health wallets.

Built on pandemic-era vaccine passport technology, the system gives individuals portable, verified access to their health data, while quietly knitting millions of records into a centralized global digital control network.

This rollout could reshape how personal medical information is tracked, monitored, and managed, raising questions about privacy, surveillance, and the long-term consequences of turning emergency COVID-19 systems into a permanent global health architecture.

By Niamh Harris April 1, 2026

The World Health Organization, its Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, and the Singapore-based Temasek Foundation have launched a three-year program to replace paper health records across Southeast Asia with digital health wallets.

They have stated that their aim is to give people portable, verified access to their medical information.

The regional digitization push will place millions of health records inside a system shaped by pandemic-era control mechanisms.

We need to remember that this is the same WHO that used the so called COVID pandemic as an excuse to build a global censorship apparatus with Silicon Valley, pushing vaccine passport systems that would restrict citizens’ freedom of movement, and demanding the power to police free speech.

InfoWars reports: The organization now wants to be trusted with the digital health records of hundreds of millions of people across ASEAN.

The program targets ASEAN member states, moving them from paper-based records like vaccination Yellow Cards and child health booklets to cryptographically verified digital wallets processed through WHO’s Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN).

Countries will start with digital vaccination certificates, then expand into routine immunization records, maternal and child health data, and eventually broader personal health summaries. Each phase widens the scope of what gets digitized, collected, and made verifiable across systems and borders.

Mr Kee Kirk Chuen, Head of Health & Well-being at the Temasek Foundation, said, “The COVID-19 pandemic showed how important it is for health records to be trusted, verifiable and able to travel with people across borders.”

He added, “Through our partnership with WHO, the Temasek Foundation hopes to support countries in moving from fragmented paper records to secure Digital Health Wallets that individuals can carry with them wherever they go. By testing this approach in pilot ASEAN Member States, we aim to demonstrate how trusted digital tools can strengthen health systems, improve continuity of care – including for families and children – and build the local capabilities needed for governments to scale these systems nationally. If successful, this effort can help turn global digital health standards into practical solutions that benefit communities across the region.”

The GDHCN that underpins these wallets isn’t new technology built for a new purpose. The WHO adopted the European Union’s digital COVID vaccine passport framework to create this global network of digital health certificates. The EU’s COVID certificate system was issued to over 2.3 billion people and became the backbone of a checkpoint society that conditioned basic freedoms, from entering a restaurant to boarding a flight, on vaccination status.

That system is now being repurposed and expanded well beyond its original scope into a permanent platform for digitizing all personal health information. What started as emergency pandemic infrastructure is becoming the default architecture for how governments manage their citizens’ health data.

The WHO’s record as custodian of this kind of power deserves serious scrutiny. During the pandemic, the WHO partnered with YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, and other platforms to censor or label COVID-19 content it deemed “misinformation.” YouTube alone deleted over 800,000 videos for contradicting the WHO.

Many of those deletions targeted content that turned out to be accurate, including claims about vaccinated people being able to transmit COVID and the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory.

The WHO’s post-pandemic posture has done nothing to rebuild trust. A senior WHO official, Andy Pattison, has publicly advocated for a permanent partnership between global health authorities and major tech platforms, proposing what he called “a health online collective” designed to replicate COVID-era levels of corporate cooperation on a constant, institutional basis. The stated goal isn’t merely distributing information.

Pattison acknowledged that “the actual proof of the pudding…is actually behavior change,” making clear that the WHO’s metric for success is influence over people’s decisions, not just visibility. This is the organization now asking ASEAN nations to hand over their populations’ health data to a system it controls.

Source: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/while-you-were-distracted-who-rolls

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 While You Were Distracted: WHO Rolls Out Digital Health Wallets Across ASEAN appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

President Donald Trump’s executive order of Feb. 18 invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950 to ensure US glyphosate production and availability is neither necessary nor helpful. HHS Secretary and Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) founder Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s endorsement of the order has created a firestorm in that health-interested base.

On Feb. 22, Kennedy conducted triage explanations to his base with this statement: 

“Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on these chemicals.” He went on to post that “if these inputs disappeared overnight, crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms even beyond what we are witnessing today. The consequences would be disastrous.”

Kennedy then described the many weed control alternatives that are being developed. All of us farmers in the nonchemical community already use many of these innovative alternatives: lasers, AI-driven wipes, steam nozzles, cover crop crimping, and soil balancing. The grain farmers I patronize for our chicken and pig feeds do not use glyphosate or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We pay a slight premium, but these farmers have great yields and are certainly not going out of business like many more conventional operations.

This showdown has been a long time developing. On Apr. 14, 2025, The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick Thomas reported that “Bayer said it could stop producing the world’s most popular weed killer unless it gets court protection against lawsuits blaming the herbicide for causing cancer.” Bayer and friends tried to slip in liability protection in an appropriations bill earlier this year, but the effort failed.

With thousands of lawsuits, many of them winning, still scheduled for court hearings, and its multibillion-dollar war chest to fight them and/or settle them impacting profits, Bayer, manufacturer of the popular Roundup brand, is desperate to shed this liability. Most of the time, things like this executive order happen after long-term wrangling and cogitating behind the curtain, and I suspect that is the case now.

At the risk of irritating my MAHA friends, I take umbrage with this whole sordid affair because glyphosate is a deadly poison, is not needed, and certainly does not jeopardize American security. Its use is primarily on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But consider that nearly half of America’s corn production goes to ethanol fuel; it has nothing to do with food.

What about soybeans? Half of them are exported and not even used in America. Roughly 40 percent of glyphosate is made by Bayer in the United States, Belgium, and Argentina, which are all friendlies. If we eliminated half the corn and half the soybeans because they aren’t needed for food, we’d only need half the glyphosate, which is nearly all manufactured either domestically or in friendly nations.

That’s giving the benefit of the doubt to the inherent need for glyphosate, which is a dubious argument. It’s like demanding special concessions for cocaine because some addicts have an inherent need for cocaine. While they may be addicted, arguing that funding and fueling their continued addiction is necessary for their survival is dubious at best and erroneous at worst. 

The real national security breach is that we have thousands of farmers producing unnecessary corn and soybeans and a federal government determined to keep them in business.

Herbivores don’t need grain; they were not built to eat grain any more than children were built to eat candy bars. If we drop the exports and drop the fuel, America’s need for corn and soybeans is only 30 percent of current production, which can easily be met by the glyphosate produced domestically and in friendly nations. The point is none of the scaremongering and none of the math adds up or makes sense.

Something else is going on here, and it has nothing to do with national defense. It has to do with offering a shield of protection to arguably the most egregious agricultural chemical on the planet. It’s also a financial windfall for Bayer.

The catastrophic predictions in this scenario have no basis in fact. First, China has not threatened to withhold glyphosate from the world market. Second, an immediate cutoff by any manufacturer is not imminent—except Bayer indicating it could terminate the herbicide due to lawsuits. But that has nothing to do with China. Third, neither RFK, Jr. nor President Trump offered a timeline of phaseout that would be acceptable.

In other words, if the real goal is a phaseout, which RFK, Jr.’s long X post indicates, then why not offer a timeline that would be acceptable? One year? Two years? How about three? But neither President Trump nor RFK, Jr. even mentions a time when glyphosate would not be used, which begs the question of whether the real agenda is a forever encouragement to use this horrid chemical on America’s food.

If the president wants to truly address the nation’s food security, he would issue a Food Emancipation Proclamation executive order freeing America’s homesteaders and small farmers from tyrannical, scale-prejudicial regulations. If two consenting adults want to exercise freedom of choice to engage in a voluntary food transaction, they should not need a bureaucrat’s permission to do so.

Unleashing neighbor-to-neighbor unregulated food commerce on the marketplace would show just how unnecessary half the corn and soybeans really are. Who will tell these farmers, destroying the soil and waterways, that their production is not needed and they could do better reverting to perennial prairie polycultures growing beef? 

Well-managed and not overgrazed, to be sure, but financially profitable and necessary to meet the shortage of red meat in America.

Thousands of small farmers stand ready to serve their neighbors with food outside the industrial food oligarchy. 

As a small farmer, I should not need a $500,000 facility to make one chicken pot pie to sell to a fellow church member mom to feed her kids something without artificial food additives. An army of clean-food entrepreneurial farmers stands ready to serve our nation with food; an army of government agents prohibits them from engaging the market. That, dear folks, is a national security problem.

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/who-needs-glyphosate/

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 Who Needs Glyphosate? appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

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.

Related:

• To enable the “adoption” of the Pandemic Treaty next week, WHO is making up the rules as it goes along
• WHO’s Pandemic Agreement is adopted despite concerns about unelected institutions imposing global policies

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.

Related:

• 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.

Related:

• 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.

On 18 July, the US officially rejected the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”), citing threats to national sovereignty, free speech and constitutional protections.

If not rejected, the amendments would have allowed the WHO to influence lockdowns, vaccine documentation and pandemic declarations without approval from elected officials or public input.

Austria, Italy and Israel also blocked the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline, each emphasising the need for local control over health policy and rejecting unelected global oversight.

Countries that did not formally reject the amendments by the deadline will be bound by them starting 19 September 2025, while four nations have until the 19^th September 2026 to opt out.

People can still take action by checking their country’s position, pressuring local representatives, informing others and organising efforts to defend national health autonomy.

Please note, for much of the following article, Dr. Joseph Mercola takes the viewpoint of US citizens; what the US population has avoided by the US government rejecting WHO’s IHR amendments. For countries that have not rejected them, it is the opposite.  It is what governments have agreed populations within their countries should be subjected to.

As Dr. Mercola highlights the denial of free speech aspects of WHO’s power grab, we should also consider the global impact on free speech that the UK’s Online Safety Act has ushered in, which is affecting Americans as well.  Coupled with the UK government accepting WHO’s sweeping control through the IHR amendments, we cannot rule out that this could mean information will be controlled globally by WHO through the UK government.

Related: UK’s Online Safety Act has kick-started a global frenzy of online censorship and surveillance

As always, we should recall that there are two WHO instruments: the IHR amendments, which is the subject of this article, and the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as the Pandemic Agreement, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

When a joint statement comes from both the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it’s worth paying attention. On 18 July 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).¹

The reason? The changes would give an unelected international body the power to shape national public health decisions – including pandemic declarations, digital health documentation, and so-called “equitable access” to medical products – without democratic oversight or public debate.

This isn’t just about bureaucratic language. These amendments directly impact your right to privacy, freedom of movement and control over your personal health decisions. The updated rules include vague but far-reaching terms that would allow the WHO to interfere with national emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital health surveillance tools and facilitate narrative control under the guise of risk communication.

The language is intentionally broad – enough to authorise sweeping actions while avoiding accountability. And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organisation altogether. Italy, Israel and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the US stance: health decisions need to remain within national borders and be governed by constitutional protections, not dictated by global bureaucrats.

In each case, officials warned of dangerous overreach, unchecked censorship and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretence of public health. Understanding how these amendments were crafted, what they attempt to enforce and why countries are pushing back is key. The next section breaks down what the US rejection means in practical terms – and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy – but Failed

US leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority via the 2024 amendments to the IHR. These changes, according to the joint statement from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American law and impose health directives, including lockdowns and vaccine documentation, without approval from Congress or the American people.²

• The amendments aimed to centralise emergency decisions under WHO control.  The rejected amendments gave the WHO power to define and respond to what it calls a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The updated language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a country’s domestic affairs based on subjective interpretations of global solidarity or health equity. This would’ve included the ability to influence pandemic declarations and responses in ways that directly override national public health agencies and local policies.

• Officials warned that vague terms open the door to censorship.  According to the joint statement, the terminology in the amendments was broad and undefined – phrases like “equitable access” and “risk communication” were left open to interpretation. In practice, this means global officials could have justified censorship or surveillance under the excuse of controlling misinformation or ensuring compliance with “equity” goals.

The US response emphasised that this kind of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and allows politically motivated directives to masquerade as public health guidance. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, international bodies like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. This is how policy becomes a mechanism for influence, not protection.

• Digital health tracking was a major red flag.  The rejected language also encouraged countries to adopt digital health documents, including vaccine passports and health ID systems. These tools would’ve facilitated international tracking of people’s medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.

The US government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

• The US criticised the WHO’s poor track record during outbreaks like covid. The joint statement called out the WHO’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political influence and censorship – most notably from China.”

Officials stressed that entrusting the WHO with more control after this history of failed transparency and accountability would be irresponsible. Rather than improving emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the same communication breakdowns and information suppression that marred the global covid response.

• This decision preserves US medical autonomy.  According to the statement, “public health policy continues to be dictated by the values and will of the American people, not unelected global actors.”

The rejection ensures that American citizens retain constitutional protections and are not subject to directives issued by an international agency that does not answer to them. By refusing to accept the new language, US health policy remains under the control of state and federal agencies, not bureaucrats in Geneva.

Kennedy Slams WHO’s Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push

As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR “open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda and censorship that we saw during the covid-19 pandemic.”³ That kind of control doesn’t just affect officials – it reaches into your life, dictating what information you hear, what platforms allow and how you’re allowed to speak about health.

• Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties.  “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardising our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy stated in a video posted to X (formerly Twitter).⁴

This isn’t abstract policy – it’s about whether unelected officials have the authority to restrict your freedom to travel, gather, speak or make medical decisions during a declared emergency.

• The WHO has no power to mandate, but the amendments would shift that balance.  WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the organisation “has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other similar measures.” While technically true under current rules, the new language would have pressured governments to comply with WHO-coordinated responses, including mandates and movement restrictions, without democratic consent.

• The amendments could force countries to create risk communication systems. Kennedy also took aim at a regulation that would require member countries to develop “risk communication” systems. While the term sounds neutral, Kennedy explained that this language is code for information control: systems that control narratives, limit dissent and enforce compliance with official positions.

• Kennedy’s rejection ties back to real-world harms seen during covid.  The article drew a direct line between the proposed rules and the suppression of debate seen in the last pandemic. According to Kennedy, the world has already witnessed what happens when centralised health narratives dominate media, shut down dissent and silence clinicians who question official doctrine. Locking that system into international law would repeat and worsen those mistakes.

Other Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments

Austria, Italy and Israel all took formal action to block WHO’s power grab. Their moves weren’t symbolic. Each took legal or parliamentary action to halt the WHO’s expanded emergency powers before the 19 July 2025 deadline.

Across all three nations, a common theme emerged: health policy needs to be made by local officials who are accountable to their people, not by distant bureaucrats. For citizens of those countries, that means their governments preserved the ability to make local health decisions without international interference.⁵

• Austria lodged a legal objection to buy time and preserve autonomy.  Austria’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a legal objection to the IHR amendments on 17 July 2025, just two days before the deadline.⁶ This objection ensures the amendments won’t apply in Austria until the national parliament has formally approved them.

In other words, Austrians now have a window to pressure lawmakers and block the changes permanently. The Ministry of Health confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Constitution – not as a formality, but to maintain sovereignty over national health policy.

• Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement.  Italy’s Health Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on 19 July.⁷ Their refusal wasn’t a conditional objection – it was a full rejection.

According to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to issue binding recommendations on quarantines, movement restrictions and supply chain management without consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci called it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to shield citizens from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.

• Israel’s leadership withdrew after months of internal review.  In a bold move, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel would not adopt the new WHO regulations.⁸ The decision came after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, health professionals and legal experts.

Bosso explained that the treaty would give the WHO excessive influence over Israel’s national decisions, especially in areas like defence, economics and education. His final statement made the stakes clear: “This is a complex and considered decision that is intended to protect the interests of the State of Israel and expresses our full responsibility for public health.”

How You Can Push Back and Protect Your Rights

If you’re worried about losing your say in personal health decisions to international agencies, you’re not overreacting – you’re responding to a real shift in power. The 2024 IHR amendments weren’t just technical updates. They were written to centralise control, diminish national sovereignty and give unelected global actors the ability to shape your country’s pandemic response without your input. That’s not a distant threat. It’s already on track to become binding policy in most of the world.

But this isn’t just about politics – it’s about protecting your ability to make informed, voluntary health decisions for yourself and your family. Whether you’re a parent, a business owner or someone who values constitutional protections, you have tools right now to make a difference. Here are five steps I recommend to take action:

1. Find out where your country stands on the 2024 amendments. Start by checking whether your government has submitted a formal rejection or reservation. Most countries had until 19 July 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on 19 September 2025.

However, if you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand or Slovakia, your government has until 19 September 2026 to make a decision. That means there’s still time to act locally – push your representatives to reject the amendments before that deadline passes.

2. Engage your elected officials directly.  Don’t rely on petitions or mass emails. Pick up the phone, write a physical letter, or request a meeting with your local representative. Ask them where they stand on ceding health authority to the WHO. Be clear: you expect your country to retain full control over national health emergencies, including decisions about lockdowns, quarantine and personal medical freedom. Hold them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.

3. Educate others who still don’t know this is happening.  Most people have no idea these amendments exist or what they mean. Talk to your friends, family, neighbours and coworkers. Use clear language – avoid legal or technical jargon. Explain that this isn’t about rejecting health collaboration, but about maintaining constitutional authority and informed consent. Personal conversations are still the most powerful tool for shifting public awareness.

4. Share examples from countries that have already acted. Like the US, Italy, Israel and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their decisions were grounded in protecting civil liberties, national decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when talking to others – it’s direct, reasonable, and based on the rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme – it’s responsible governance.

5. Organise locally, start small, but start now. If you’re part of a church, school board, town hall or business network, use those platforms to raise awareness and build momentum. You don’t need to host a rally – start with a discussion group, a Q&A night, or a one-page fact sheet you hand out. The goal is to build informed communities who are ready to advocate for policies that reflect their values – not the agendas of unaccountable international agencies.

You’re not powerless. The laws that govern your health should come from those you elect, not those you’ve never heard of. This is your chance to defend that principle. Take the first step, and help others do the same.

FAQs About the 2024 IHR Amendments

Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?

A: The 2024 IHR amendments were adopted by the WHO to expand its authority over global health emergencies. These changes give unelected international officials power to influence national decisions on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital health surveillance – without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.

Q: Has the US accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?

A: The US formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on 18 July 2025, in a joint statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Their decision was based on protecting U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from international mandates.

Q: Which other countries have rejected or objected to the amendments?

A: Italy, Austria and Israel also took action to block the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline. Italy issued a full rejection; Austria filed a legal objection to prevent enforcement without parliamentary approval and Israel withdrew from adoption entirely following internal government review.

Q: Are the amendments binding for countries that didn’t formally reject them?

A: Yes. For countries that did not submit a formal rejection or reservation by 19 July 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on 19 September 2025. However, four countries – Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia – have until 19 September 2026 to opt out due to their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.

Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO’s growing authority over health decisions?

A: Take action by learning your country’s official position, contacting lawmakers, educating your community, sharing examples from countries that rejected the amendments and organising locally. These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/15/four-countries-reject-whos-ihr-amendments/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.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

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The World Health Organization has warned that mRNA vaccines are causing a ‘breast cancer epidemic’ worldwide.

According to newly released statistics, over 12,000 women in the UK died from the disease in 2022.

Dailymail.co.uk reports: Yet, this is set to hit more than 17,000 by the half-century, with thousands more cases in Britain than previously estimated, the World Health Organization (WHO) said.

Women in the UK have some of the lowest chances of getting breast cancer in Europe, but still fare worse than France and Sweden.

Source:  https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/who-admits-mrna-injections-causing-cancer-epidemic-among-under-50s/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.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

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post WHO Admits mRNA Injections Causing Cancer Epidemic Among Under 50s appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.