patrick.net

The United States to exit the WHO? Put an end to the WHO tyranny美国退出谁？ 结束了世界卫生组织的暴政

The United States to exit the WHO? Put an end to the WHO tyranny.
I hope he keeps his word.
IAN BRIGHTHOPE
JAN 5

https://open.substack.com/pub/ianbrighthope/p/the-united-states-to-exit-the-who?selection=f8487042-793e-4218-bb8c-c83e1d1836d1

READ IN APP

Screenshot 2025-01-05 at 3.18.17 pm.jpeg
Upgrade to paid

OPINION

Australia’s membership in the World Health Organization (WHO) should be immediately reevaluated and ended as soon as possible. This is not a decision to be made lightly, but a thorough examination of the WHO’s track record reveals a troubling pattern of high costs and low returns, a lack of accountability, and failures that have directly impacted our nation’s sovereignty and public health outcomes.

Australia contributes significant funding to the WHO, yet the tangible benefits remain elusive. Despite these investments, Australians have seen little return that justifies the expense. The WHO’s priorities often align with the interests of unelected global bureaucrats and powerful private entities rather than the specific health needs of individual nations. For Australia, this means limited input into policies that profoundly affect our population while continuing to finance an organization whose global strategies frequently fail to deliver meaningful improvements in health outcomes.

The WHO’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic was a debacle of historic proportions. From the outset, the organisation was slow to declare a pandemic, despite clear evidence of widespread transmission. It issued inconsistent guidance, from the use of masks to the nature of virus transmission, leading to confusion among governments and the public alike.

Perhaps most egregiously, the WHO co-promoted mandates, lockdowns, and the widespread coercion to vaccinate with experimental gene therapies, presenting these measures as universal solutions without adequate consideration of regional differences or long-term consequences. These policies disregarded alternative strategies, such as enhancing population-wide immunity through nutrition and early treatment protocols, and ignored dissenting voices from reputable scientists and clinicians.

Furthermore, the rollout of these vaccines has been marred by reports of widespread serious adverse reactions, including myocarditis, blood clotting disorders, neurological diseases and other debilitating side effects. Tragically, there has also been millions of deaths caused by these vaccines. An emerging epidemic of "Turbo cancers" — aggressive and fast-growing cancers linked to the immune system's altered response post-vaccination — underscore the need for transparency and accountability in vaccine safety, or the removal of vaccines from our health care system-another story.

A critical flaw of the WHO lies in its governance structure. Decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats who operate without meaningful accountability to the populations affected by their policies. This detachment fosters a lack of transparency and allows for decisions that are often shaped by external influences rather than evidence-based public health principles. Such a structure undermines democratic sovereignty, forcing nations like Australia to implement policies that may not align with our unique needs or values.

Another glaring issue is the lack of appropriate qualifications and clinical experience among the WHO leadership and its agencies. Many key figures have limited backgrounds in direct patient care or public health crisis management, yet they wield immense influence over global health policy. This disconnect raises serious questions about the validity and practicality of their recommendations. For example, the person who heads CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation has a psychology degree and no clinical experience in infectious disease.

Australia has the resources, expertise, and infrastructure to lead an independent health strategy tailored to its population. By leaving the WHO, Australia can allocate its funds more effectively, investing in local health initiatives, bolstering public health infrastructure, and fostering research into preventive and integrative medicine. Moreover, an independent stance would enable Australia to collaborate with like-minded nations on equitable and evidence-based health policies without the constraints of the WHO bureaucracy. The decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the WHO underscores the growing recognition of the organization’s inefficacy. This creates an opportunity for Australia to partner with the United States and other like-minded nations to build a more effective and accountable global health framework—one that prioritises evidence-based health AND medical practices and respects national sovereignty.

The WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with its lack of accountability, questionable expertise, and poor cost-benefit outcomes, make continued membership an untenable proposition for Australia. Leaving the WHO is not a retreat from global health cooperation but a step toward reclaiming our sovereignty and ensuring that health policies reflect the values, needs, and rights of the Australian people.

It is time to prioritise national health strategies over globalist agendas and take control of our public health future.

Ian Brighthope

Please click the following picture for the video by Dr. David Martin, a US government’s official bio-weapons expert (retired). Make up your own minds about his claims of racketeering.

“The racketeering that started centuries ago and was 'crystallised' with the formation of the WHO following WWII has to cease for the benefit of all.”美国退出谁？ 结束了世界卫生组织的暴政。 我希望他保持他的话。 Ian Brighthope 1月5日在App截图2025-01-05中阅读，在3.18.17pm.jpeg升级到支付意见澳大利亚在世界卫生组织（世卫组织）的会员资格应立即重新评估并尽快结束。 这不是一个决定才能轻描淡写，但彻底检查谁的轨道记录揭示了高成本和低回报的令人不安的模式，缺乏对我们国家主权和公共卫生结果的责任和失败。 澳大利亚为世卫组织贡献了大量资金，但有形福利仍然难以捉摸。 尽管有这些投资，但澳大利亚人看到了很少的回报证明了费用。 世卫组织的优先事项往往与未经选择的全球官僚和强大的私人实体的利益对齐，而不是个人国家的具体健康需求。 对于澳大利亚来说，这意味着有限的投入投入有限的政策，这些政策将对我们的人口产生深刻影响，同时继续融资全球战略经常不提供有意义的健康成果的有意义改进的组织。 世卫组织Covid-19 Pandemic的管理是历史比例的崩溃。 从一开始，尽管有明确的传播证据证明，但组织宣布大流行缓慢。 它发布了不一致的指导，从使用面具到病毒传播的性质，导致政府和公众的混淆。 也许最令人震惊的是，通过实验基因疗法接种疫苗的世卫组织，锁定和普遍胁迫，将这些措施作为普遍解决的措施，而不充分考虑区域差异或长期后果。 这些政策忽视了替代策略，例如通过营养和早期治疗议定书提高人口宽免疫力，并忽略了来自信誉良好的科学家和临床医生的异议声音。 此外，这些疫苗的卷展栏已被广泛的严重不良反应的报道造成的，包括心肌炎，血液凝结障碍，神经疾病和其他衰弱的副作用。 悲惨地，这些疫苗也有数百万的死亡。 “荨麻植物癌”的新兴疫情 - 与免疫系统改变的疫苗接种后的侵略性和快速增长的癌症相关 - 强调了疫苗安全性的透明度和问责制的需要，或者从我们的健康中去除疫苗 对其治理结构的临界缺陷。 决定是由未经开发的官僚制定，他们在没有有意义的责任对受其政策影响的人口的情况下运作。 这种分离促进了缺乏透明度，并允许通常由外部影响而不是基于证据的公共卫生原则的决定。 这种结构破坏了民主主义的主权，强迫澳大利亚等国家实施可能与我们独特的需求或价值观不一致的政策。 另一个辉煌的问题是缺乏适当的资格和临床经验在世卫组织领导和代理商之间。 许多关键人物在直接患者护理或公共卫生危机管理中有限的背景，但他们对全球卫生政策的影响巨大。 这种脱节引发了关于他们建议的有效性和实用性的严重问题。 例如，领导CEPI的人，流行性准备和创新联盟具有心理学学位，没有传染病的临床经验。 澳大利亚拥有资源，专业知识和基础设施，以引领其人口量身定制的独立健康策略。 通过离开世卫组织，澳大利亚可以更有效地分配资金，投资当地的健康倡议，润装公共卫生基础设施，促进预防性和综合医学的研究。 此外，独立的立场将使澳大利亚能够在没有世卫组织官僚机构的限制的情况下，在公平和证据的卫生政策上与志同道合的国家合作。 总统唐纳德朗普宣布从世界卫生组织撤资美国的决定，强调了对本组织的低效率的越来越认识。 这为澳大利亚与美国和其他志同体的国家合作建立了一个更有效和责任的全球卫生框架的机会 - 一个优先考虑基于证据的卫生和医疗行为和尊重国家主权的全球卫生框架。 谁在Covid-19大流行期间的失败，结合其缺乏问责制，可疑的专业知识和不良的成本效益结果，使得澳大利亚持续的成员致命的主张。 离开世卫组织不是全球健康合作的撤退，而是回收我们主权并确保卫生政策反映澳大利亚人民的价值观，需求和权利的一步。 现在是时候确定全球人议程的国家卫生战略，并控制我们的公共卫生未来。 Ian Brighthope请点击美国政府官方生物武器专家（退休）的David Martin博士的下图 弥补自己的思想，他的敲诈责任。 “在几个世纪以前开始的扒手是”结晶“，形成了第二次世界大战的谁，这是谁必须停止所有人的利益。”