Crush the Flu d’État

As a practicing physician, I have had numerous conversations over the years with people caught in dysfunctional relationships.

While it is often best to refrain from “telling” such persons the “right” course of action, one notable exception is when the relationship is clearly abusive.

The cure to an abusive relationship is straightforward, if sometimes difficult: leave.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) relationship with member nations, including the United States, is a classic example of an abusive relationship.

According to the US Health and Human Services’ Office on Women’s Health, an abusive relationship is characterized by a partner who:

• Controls what you’re doing.
• Checks your phone, email, or social networks without your permission.
• Decides what you wear or eat or how you spend money.
• Prevents or discourages you from going to work or school or seeing your family or friends.
• Humiliates you on purpose in front of others.
• Threatens to report you to the authorities for imagined crimes.

What is the abuser’s motivation for such acts? According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, “One feature shared by most abusive relationships is that the abusive partner tries to establish or gain power and control through many different methods at different moments.”

Sound familiar?

If not, please take the time to do the following.

First, recall what the entire world was subjected to, starting around the Ides of March 2020:

• Gross civil rights offenses creating intense personal isolation and financial distress (lockdowns).
• Advanced psychological manipulation techniques creating fear, uncertainty, and dependency (“social distancing,” forced masking, “distance learning,” and endless “fear porn”).
• Egregious, population-wide violations of medical ethics amounting to industrial-scale physical assault (coercion and mandates to make millions accept repeated doses of the experimental Covid vaccines).

Second, read the WHO’s proposals (here and here). Even in their “revised” form, the WHO seeks carte blanche to repeat the whole process, entirely at their own discretion.

Next, read Dr. David Bell and Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh’s critique of these highly deceptive documents, which represent a blueprint for, you guessed it, the continued abuse of free people on a global scale. Bell and Dinh’s highly persuasive argument: the changes made to the WHO’s pandemic proposals, as a result of extensive pressure, are “merely cosmetic.” In other words, the WHO is concealing its real intent.

I will not dilute their detailed criticism here. I will state that they carefully outline, among other problems, the highly deceptive language, the immense potential for corruption, and the fundamental epidemiological fallacies contained in the WHO’s proposals.

Furthermore, please note that the WHO is absolutely not “who” they say they are. By the WHO’s own accounting, the single largest contributor to its coffers is Bill Gates. The Gates Foundation and Gates-controlled GAVI provide over 20% of the WHO’s funding.

Finally, recognize that after making its mildly watered-down revisions, the WHO is breaking its own rule that requires a 4-month minimum period before member countries vote on new proposals. Despite the revisions, the WHO is insisting on the original May 2024 deadline. The WHO is evidently in a great hurry to rush its latest lipstick-coated pig to market.

Let’s put it another way. Imagine that you and I are partners of some kind: domestic partners, business partners, whatever. I attempt to impose a complex legal agreement upon you. This agreement empowers me to control your freedom, money, and even your bodily autonomy, in the event that a hypothetical emergency occurs (which, by the way, I can declare at any time). You read the document and say, “That’s crazy!” So I water it down a little, in highly deceptive ways, throw the new version back at you, and give you no additional time to review it.

What would you do in that scenario?

If you possess a lick of sense, you would tear the agreement up like Nancy Pelosi with a State of the Union address. You would throw the shreds of paper in my face. You would walk away and have nothing more to do with me.

In the wake of the manufactured Covid-19 catastrophe, pandemic preparedness has become the preferred fear-mongering and power-grab tactic of the global elites and the military-medical-industrial complex. The WHO is a central figure in that tyrannical cabal.

The inimitable Ivor Cummins has dubbed the WHO’s pandemic power grab proposals as the “flu d’état.” This brilliant pun/neologism describes the WHO’s intent perfectly and succinctly: it means to use the threat of disease to illegitimately seize governmental power.

No way. We must mercilessly crush the WHO’s attempted flu d’état.

What then, you may ask, do we do about potential pandemics, once we leave the WHO?

First, we must recognize that any risk of future pandemics comes overwhelmingly from human manipulation of pathogens, rather than natural pathogens, as sure as SARS-CoV-2 came from the lab.

Second, we must shut down every possible bioweapons laboratory, be it located at Fort Detrick, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Wuhan, or the Ukraine.

Third, we must put the Faucis, Daszaks, Barics, and Bat Ladies of the world in the dock, to be tried for crimes against humanity.

Fourth, we must reconstruct public health as a bottom-up network of communicating local entities, rather than a top-down tyrannical enterprise.

But those steps are, to varying degrees, difficult to achieve. Leaving the WHO is simple.

Many people, even politicians, are finally waking up to the WHO’s abuse, and some are even doing something about it, largely thanks to the work of committed advocates like Drs. Bell and Dinh, Dr. Kat Lindley, the irrepressible Dr. Meryl Nass, and others.

In the United States, multiple state and local governments have declared that WHO policies will not stand in their jurisdictions. On May 1, 2024, a group of 49 Senators (all Republican) sent a letter to President Biden telling him to withdraw support for the WHO treaty and amendments. They further warned that even if the US does proceed, such an agreement would constitute a treaty and thus would be subject to Senate review and would require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to be approved.

All good. But once again, the definitive step goes beyond these measures.

It is not sufficient to renegotiate this treaty, agreement, or whatever you want to call it. It is not enough even to scuttle it completely and then recalibrate our relationship with the WHO. We must not waste time trying to reform this corrupt and illegitimate organization.

We must get out.

Part of the beauty of leaving the WHO is this: not only is it simple, it’s easy. The WHO (like its manipulative, dysfunctional parent, the UN) is a paper tiger. The WHO has zero authority above and beyond that which we grant it. Unlike an unfortunate woman trapped in a violent household, the WHO cannot beat us up, steal our money, or kidnap our children. Not yet.

There is a cure for the abusive relationship we have with the WHO. It is the standard corrective for abusive relationships. The solution is not to negotiate, to reconsider, or to give the abuser one last chance. The solution is to leave.

We must leave the WHO.

Image credit: Pablo Heimplatz