Jeff Sachs and giving the W.H.O. mo' money

The Lancet COVID Commission and One Health are important parts of the globalists' narrative

Here is the Lancet COVID Commission Report, chaired by Jeffrey Sachs. Next is an excerpt from its executive summary:

“Section 3 presents our policy recommendations, particularly around multilateral cooperation centred at WHO to address global health crises, and around investments in preparedness for future health crises through strong national health systems and international financing and technology cooperation with the world's lower-income regions.”

Remember, the guy is an economist. And this harkens back to the World Economic Forum goals. The WEF celebrates Building Back Better after Destroying, Debasing and Degrading our economies and culture. Which the WEF and now the COVID Commission drool about, as it will require massive amounts of FINANCING. The way leeches make their money is from the commissions they get for financing big projects.

Nuggets from the final section of the report follow:

Section 3: recommendations for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, preparing for the next, and long-term sustainable development

WHO, working with the main vaccine-producing companies and countries, needs to intensify its efforts to ensure high levels of immunisation coverage in all countries, especially in the low-income countries where vaccine coverage remains dangerously low. Countries must then implement a vaccination-plus control strategy that includes mass immunisation; the availability and affordability of testing; treatment for new infections (test and treat); rehabilitation and social support for people with long COVID; and complementary public health and social measures such as the use of face masks, the promotion of safe workplaces, and economic and social support for self-isolation.

Maintain WHO as the lead institution for response to emerging infectious diseases

WHO should remain at the centre of the multilateral response to emerging infectious diseases. Yet WHO needs strengthening. Such strengthening should include new regulatory authority, more backing by national political leaders, more contact with the global scientific community, and a larger core budget to carry out its many crucial responsibilities. The capacity of WHO should also be complemented by far greater international finance to support the health systems, research and development, and biomedical production capacity of LMICs.

Establish a global pandemic agreement and strengthen the IHR (International Health Regulations)

The weaknesses and shortfalls of the IHR (2005) in protecting the world against the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the decision by WHO member states to start the process to draft and negotiate new agreements on pandemic preparedness and response, including a possible new Pandemic Treaty. We echo many other reports on COVID-19 in calling for a global pandemic agreement and for a reassessment of and update to the IHR (2005).96,  489,  490,  492

…the approval by WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization of standing regulations regarding the processing and control of international travellers and international freight and shipping under global pandemic conditions.

Reform of WHO governance

a substantial increase to the core budget of WHO is required to increase its effectiveness at its headquarters in Geneva, at regional offices, and in countries around the world. Moreover, WHO needs the capacity to draw upon large-scale emergency financing in the case of a global public health emergency. WHO should continue to use the infrastructure it has built up so that this infrastructure is in place when another pandemic emerges. An emergency credit line at an international financial institution, designed as a key tool of the new Global Health Fund, could provide the necessary emergency financing channel.

Regulations for the prevention of pandemics from natural spillovers and research-related activities and for investigating their origins

Strategies to prevent research-related releases should include stronger international and national oversight of biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management, including the strict regulation of gain of function research of concern…

It is certain that future pandemics will arise from interactions between humans and animals, and that research on viruses will continue with the potential for accidents. It is therefore imperative that society enacts measures to reduce the possibility of both natural spillovers and spillovers from research-related activities…Calls for One Health approaches to address the risks of the emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases are common among reports on pandemic prevention and preparedness, and many reports have called for greater global surveillance and monitoring of disease risks, with WHO as the coordinating power.

Coincidentally, I warned my readers about Jeffrey Sachs and about One Health in a long post I wrote in May 2022, titled, “A winding tale of the WHO, monkeypox, Jeffrey Sachs' turnaround, and One Health.” It was subtitled, “Important backstories behind the news you're getting. More coming.” How prescient was that?

Here is what I wrote then about the WHO‘s IHR amendments, and about the pandemic treaty that was being negotiated:

The US state department drafted a dozen AMENDMENTS to an existing international health treaty that had been adopted in 2005, termed the International Health Regulations (IHR).  These US-drafted amendments would enable the WHO to assume control over the pandemic response to future pandemics on a worldwide basis. This is the US writing new rules that would give up its own sovereignty (and everyone else's) to the WHO, in the event of a pandemic or health emergency.  In February, very quietly, the proposed amendments were sent out to the WHA members for review, pending a vote this week.

I can promise you the US never gives up even a speck of sovereignty; and that the purpose of the state department is to maintain and expand US power.  The only conclusion I could draw is that the US Government and/or the global elites were confident they could control the WHO, and since using the guise of a pandemic to grab power, influence and money had worked so well for them so far, they were expanding the program to the whole world via the WHO.  People like Astrid Stuckelberger, James Rogusky and others predicted this was the mechanism to achieve a worldwide coup.

Concurrent with the presentation of these amendments to the WHA, a new WHO treaty has been in the process of being negotiated since last fall, and was expected to accomplish essentially the same thing:  a means to transfer national control over health and medical care from individual nations to the WHO under the guise of a pandemic or medical emergency…

Regarding Mr. Sachs I wrote in May:

“The Lancet Commission published a massive 23 page report in the Lancet on September 14, 2020 that seemed to me to be establishing Sachs' group as credible, and buttressing a variety of what we have come to know as globalist narratives and agendas.

Professor Sachs therefore appeared to be a globalist flunky. And when I looked at the publications from his massive Commission, I learned the majority had to do with pushing COVID vaccinations.

So I was surprised to learn a few days ago that Professor Sachs himself had supposedly gone rogue, and published a paper in the PNAS, noting how the US  government and institutions were hiding information about COVID's origins.  He and his coauthor wrote:

EHA [Daszak], UNC [Ralph Baric], NIH [Fauci], USAID [one of many funders of EHA and Wuhan], and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2...

a US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and evaluation.”

Most likely, Sachs is trying to reassert his leadership regarding the original Lancet Commission investigation that was halted due to the notoriety of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. He may also be seeking funding for such investigation, and/or trying to repair his tattered reputation.  Will he team up with Robert Zelikow to whitewash any future origins investigation? Stay tuned.”

Here is what I said about One Health in that article:

I used to think One Health was just a silly concept designed to justify more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance type of voracious grant hunter.  Certainly EcoHealth was a major proponent of the concept.  But well-fed One Health adherents suddenly appeared, tucked into many corners of the world (here is one South American example), including CDC, the World Bank and WHO.  I had been wrong.

One Health is an idea plucked out of thin air:  that in order to manage the health of the planet, we can't think about people in isolation.  We have to consider them in the context of animals too, both livestock and wild animals, and also "ecosystems".  This might have been a good idea if a significant chunk of human disease came from animals, but in fact, zoonoses (infections spread to humans from animals) are pretty rare. Think anthrax. Rabies. Monkeypox.  And while flu viruses do reassort in animals, the risk of influenza has been factitiously ginned up by public health agencies for decades.  I now suspect the reason was to acclimate the public to the idea of yearly booster shots.

It seems that One Health is an integral part of the globalist plan (proposing false health narratives with the aim of usurping authority), so I thought I had better give you a brief summary of this concept as I know it…

Then I marshalled a lot of evidence about One Health. Please read it if you are interested; it is quite the scam. But this piece is already so long, I will stop now. Except for one more nugget.

Here are the conflicts of interest of the authors of the Lancet COVID Commission report, in case you couldn’t guess:

Declaration of interests

SSAK declares grants paid to the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the South African Medical Research Council, the National Research Foundation, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. He is a vice-president of the International Science Council; a commissioner of the African Commission on COVID-19; and a member of the WHO Science Council, the Advisory Council of the Physicians for Human Rights, the Global Medical Advisory Board on COVID-19 for Sanofi Pasteur, and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CBa declares consulting fees from and is a member of the advisory board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. MEB and PJH are co-directors of a team of scientists at Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, who are co-inventors of a COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology owned by Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) that was licensed by BCM, non-exclusively and with no patent restrictions, to several companies committed to advancing vaccines for low-income and middle-income countries. The co-inventors have no involvement in license negotiations conducted by BCM. Similar to other research universities, a long-standing BCM policy provides its faculty and staff, who make discoveries that result in a commercial license, a share of any royalty income. To date, BCM has not distributed any royalty income to the co-inventors of the COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology. Any such distribution will be undertaken in accordance with BCM policy. CBu declares grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan; payment from University of Malaya; and is the president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Oceania. GCB is co-chair of the UHC2030 International Alliance. AH declares grants and consulting fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation. NJ declares support from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and consulting fees from the University of California, San Francisco Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. ET declares consulting fees from the United Nations Development Programme. VV-F and IS are co-chairs of the Nizami Ganjavi International Centre. MAP declares grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to his institution and is a member of the Board of Directors for Management Sciences for Health, and non-executive Governing Board member of Sidra Medicine. JT declares funds from the Victorian Government to BehaviourWorks Australia for surveys and research on COVID-19 related behaviours, from Monash University and from Melbourne Water. AG was a member of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program until February, 2022. MH declares funds from the Victorian Government, the New South Wales Government, the Australian Government, and the Macquarie Foundation to the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia for research and modelling work related to COVID-19, and grants from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences that are unrelated to this work. JVL declares grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, MSD, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from NovVax, all unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This report does not represent the institutions nor the organisations for which the authors work.