The WHO has just published the 33,884 public comments that they received back in April 2022. Please download the comments and help us expose and analyze what "We the People" said.
The comment below to me applies regardless of time (last century, this century) as well as a local and international impact
Comment #27838
"The only pandemics are those caused by malnutrition - lack of sanitation, improper food intake, taking drugs both legal and illegal and other poisons such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. Covid so-called is nothing more than any other acute or chronic dis ease - a body initiated and conducted process of elimination. In other words, RIGHT ACTION and should be allowed to run its course and return itself to homeostasis. The only medical interventions that are warranted are for traumacare, birth defects and some corrective surgeries, that's it.
Agreed, and fasting , extended if necessary, should be the first treatment offered to facilitate this process. All "medical" interventions should be nature-based and only supported by pharmaceuticals if one's doctor deems it absolutely necessary. There is a place for pharma but it's in emergency medicine only.
I believe the following should be considered for pandemic preparedness and response:
An independent committee, not affiliated or aligned with the WHO past, present or future, in any form should be commissioned to review the existing pandemic preparedness and response to determine if a new policy is necessary and made transparent to the general public in a timely manner.
Investigative verification of an emergency pandemic and its origins should be discovered / disclosed with great transparency to the public in a timely manner.
Bio-labs should be scheduled for regular inspections for safety and security measures to create a leak-proof facility and deter the ability to utilize facility for gain-of-function experimentation. Also, if investigations are necessary they should not be denied and interference should not be permitted.
A review of the outcome of what has occurred in the past two plus years in terms of lock-downs, business and school closures, isolation, quarantining healthy people, unavailable early treatment, absence of informed consent for experimental injections without long-term clinical studies and its impact on humanity. How could the pandemic have been managed differently?
Elected officials in states who did well during the pandemic should be invited to provide their insight in the decision-making process.
Health-care professionals of all levels, medical scientists and researchers, virologists, epidemiologist, should also be invited.
Transparency about changes that have the potential to impact humanity should always be in place as well as regular updates in a timely manner to the general public.
To each of you who have been actively engaged in helping to examine the dataset of public comments that the WHO recently revealed (and others who may just be observing).
I have some powerful information that I would like to discuss via zoom. If you see this comment, please reply as to whether or not you would be willing/available to participate in a zoom meeting in slightly less than three hours from now.
The zoom will be noon Pacific time, 3pm eastern.
Here is the powerful info to be discussed:
Exactly 4 months ago, on June 1, 2022, the WHO published an executive summary of the public comment data set that we have been exploring for the past few days. I immediately recognized it as disingenuous bullshit and published my opinion:
I read you June 1st post and it is a good recap of what I found in going thru a large number of comments. I would say a "large number" of submissions were concerned with national autonomy and human rights. Gato was able to calculate the #times certain words were used:
oppose - 2036, autonomy - 16,028 and sovereign - 4736. I did read all the comments I found - probably read thru 2-300. We would need to read 1,000's somehow to confirm they are against. Bongoben made a good point on one of my posts. He said someone could say, "I am for the treaty; the WHO must have sovereignity over national governments".
I am just seeing this comment. So sorry to have missed the ZOOM if it happened. I will read your 20 points from your June 1st article and make a short reply.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
Here is the list of "Pro-WHO" comments.
98 comments at this point
980
981
1053
1202
6296
6313
6370
6362
6383
6384
6478
6614
7131
7132
7133
7308
7481
7807
7894
8089
8191
8216
8290
9081
9246
9497
9498
9635
10062
10778
11754
12465
15086
17053
17081 (maybe)
18058
18710
18711
19439
20649
21592
22255
22570
22571
22572
22607
23170
23568
23597
23778
23911
23924
23955
24004
24008
24009
24045
24076
27458
27493
27508
27537
27545
27558
27559
27571
27636
27768
27774
27819
27898
27905
27967
27976
28219
28220
28225
28347
28353
28502
29187
29188
29190
29238
29344
30744
31145
31198
31199
31827
31231
31232
32098
32404
32441
32953
32974
33670
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
At this point, with multiple people having gone through the list with many search terms, there just aren’t many positive or ambiguous comments left to find. Unless someone stumbles onto a rich vein using some other search terminology, perhaps one could just steel-man the argument and say that <1% are the type of comments the WHO wanted to see. 99+% were against any expansion of or intervention by the WHO and spoke to the values of sovereignty, local autonomy, and the fundamental human right to refuse a medical treatment.
There is only one other way to find more Pro WHO comments, .... unfortunately it involves actually reading every single comment, which would take a LOT of time. lol
Sadly, to claim that there are only say 100-200 total FOR WHO and the rest are all Against, ... someone might say "Where's The Proof?" or "How Do We Know That's All There Is?"
Then reading every single entree to be sure that's all there is becomes a thing, ... Or just dump the Excel file on them and say "Prove Me Wrong" lmao
There are so many comments that use the same basic text, that those could be knocked out of the list so one would not have to read everything. But I like your “prove me wrong” idea. I personally would be comfortable at this point saying to anyone that <1% of comments support the idea of the “instrument”.
Yes, the formula looking comments all come from the same places. Take Action notices always include some text as an example and some people leave it as is, some people add to it, then even fewer backspace it out and write their own comments. I see a lot of them that start with the same line or two, then end differently, so there is some variation even among the comments which appear the same. I agree with the 1% also, maybe 2% at the most, but then I have not read every single comment either, so I am leaving a 1% wiggle room lol.
Either way, if the vote goes FOR the WHO, it can be said that they straight up ignored all the public comments.
It really does make the most sense to highlight those few comments that are totally For the WHO getting maximum authority. Especially if it ends up being a single digit percentage of the total comments. It will be easier to show how they will likely claim to have reviewed all the public comments, .... before ignoring them all and voting against the will of the people anyway.
The following list conditions other than state autonomy. They aren't a clear yes/no: 1707 states what the WHO shd do to avoid outside influence, 6428 offers guidelines, 6550 must take into account human rights standards……..informed consent, 7203 lists conditions, 10125 gives conditions, 18940 (Amnesty Intl), 21422 with an independent council, 22593 Dr giving treatment suggestions, 29363 The WHO must xyz, 31081 must have safeguards against “xyz”,
I would rule it CON. This is a variation of the same comment that appears in 1/3 of the comments. The concept of full autonomy for national/local leadership is a value held by those who do not want a one-size-fits-all WHO approach.
A CON for the WHO legally binding pandemic treaty, but a PRO for National/Local leadership to dictate over the citizens, effectively stripping that same autonomy from individuals. So 1/3 of the commenters agree to be mandated, just not by the WHO. Ya, it's thin, I know lol.
It just seemed to me that offering an opt-out clause, only to Nations or local municipalities, really just allows the treaty to pass and gets the WHO's foot in the door. Because the individual citizens would still have no say in the matter. Either the Nation or Local Municipality goes along with the WHO, or the Nation or Local Municipality opts out, yet still dictates over the public. It seemed to me to be a Lose/Lose for the personal choice of the individual.
And also, IF there needs to be an Opt-Out clause in the first place, then the answer should be a flat NO to the treaty.
There seems to be a whole lot of comments in the file, that say the same thing. Go ahead with the Treaty, ... If, If, If, If. I may be old fashioned in my thinking that if "If's & Buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas" lol
I happened upon this particular question, while plucking whole comments from the file, pasting them into a plain text file to purge formatting and tighten up spacing, then re-pasting them into one of three Word File's named "For", "Against" and "Incomplete" and thinking I needed another file titled "Wishy Washy FOR, With A Beneficial Sounding Caveat That Gets WHO's Foot In The Door". lol
This is a informationally dense and very important topic that I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you at length. I have a meeting for the next 2 hours. If you could call me directly after say 5pm eastern, that would be great. +1 310-619-3055
Dang, I missed the boat. I am AZ time and was busy from 2pm. to after 8pm, ..... and it didn't help that I just now turned on my PC to check my email ugh.
One particular comment was number 111 and the last line made me think about the contrary nature of most comments "If these demands are not guaranteed, I reject an international, binding pandemic agreement".
I am admittedly likely splitting hairs, but still, I feel that collecting the comments could prove very useful, either before the vote to get people informed, .... or after the fact, when Tedros needs to have his nose rubbed in them like a Bad Dog. lol
I have begun to transcribe/copy/format/ the selected comments that you all have pulled out of the Excel spreadsheet and started adding them to the body of the article above. Thank you for your efforts in doing that. I will continue to go through the already long list of selected comments until I finish copying all that you have already extracted. We already probably have more than the average person will take the time to read although, I must admit, it is very addictive.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
I will look for some more tomorrow as I am away from my computer, and the Excel app on my iPad can’t handle the spreadsheet. It will be easy to locate more with the search terms you suggested, as well as other terms that are quite apparent from reading the supportive comments from the list of 45 already found.
Has the mission changed? Or should I resume at #31783 and continue up the list, posting every comment? Or are we now only looking for something specific ?
It might be easier at this point to compile a list of those comments that are music to WHO’s ears, and keep scouring with those awful woke search terms to hunt down all of them, and then compare that number to the total. It will be <1%. Probably.
I think that is a reasonable idea. I have begun to transcribe/copy/format the selected comments that you have all posted in the comments page. There is a lot of work ahead of me. You all have probably extracted about as much as the average person would read (although it is addictive).
As you said, the comments that are pro-treaty, pro-who are probably a more challenging prey.
Now that Mr. Roguski has broken the code on the pro comments, we should just compile a list of those comment "ID's" and see what proportion of the total body of comments they compose. To get a handle on further search terms to employ, see the pro comments featuring "equity":
I looked at the comment numbers you posted, 31827, 32404, 32441 etc. on the list, because I was posting the comments from that section, and found those comments to be hidden with ###############. So I was curious how they can be seen.
That doesn’t mean that they are hidden. It just means that the cell is too small. Try making the comment column wider. And you can select the column and click “wrap text”.
I tried to make the column wider, to reveal all the text in that line, but once I got to the right edge of the screen it wouldn't get any larger and it still looked like the text was cut off. So I scrolled sideways to try to make the column even wider and all it did was skip to column C and the B column was then not visible at all. Ugh. I am fat too old to begin fiddling with yet another over complicated UI I still have anxiety over Photoshop 5.5 lmao
I strongly oppose the WHO extending its power to determine the response of sovereign countries in the event of a future pandemic. There should obviously be cooperation and openness between countries in sharing data but the power to impose globally the type of lockdowns seen in China or vaccine mandates must never be granted to the WHO. The funding model of the WHO gives too much influence to parties that may have agendas that are not compatible with individuals rights regarding health.
I strongly oppose any WHO interference in any pandemic. Recomendations and educating people on the matter can be provided by WHO, but any active interference meaning giving governments obligatory actions to be done on citizents, that is by no means acceptable.
I sincerely believe a real and effective intrument on pandemic response must at all cost be democratic and trasparent, made out of a council of every nation's specially appointed health experts, following a thorugh national pandemic plan, and every discussion should be streamed and made availabe. The WHO can't and shouldn't be the sole body in charge of a global respose as, beside obvious conflicts of interests due to its funding, WHO alone can't ever understand the differences between nation states. The failure of lockdowns, that wreak havoc in poor countries, are an example. For this reason there must also be an independent body capable of investigating the process and another, separated, to held legislators and helath experts to account in case of bad management, bad practices and corruption. "The only means to fight the plague is honesty" said Camus, and that tha way forward to restore and preserve trust by the public in the WHO.
You and most western governments were wrong with your guidelines for COVID-19. I do not trust the you or these governments with the authority to set guidelines for future global outbreaks.
I say NO to any legally binding global pandemic treaty. NO to anyone, any entity, any proposal to use an emergency to gain control over any person or persons.
#15106 "I reject any international organization that simultaneously covers industry advocacy, in the case of the pandemic, the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. I reject any publicly decreed interference with human integrity and therefore also any restriction of freedom over health, life and death. Human dignity is inviolable!
ich lehne jede internationale Organisation ab, die gleichzeitig Interessensvertretung der Industrie abdeckt, im Falle der Pandemie die Interessen der Pharmaindustrie. Ich lehne jeden von öffentlicher Hand verordneten Eingriff in die Unversehrtheit des Menschen ab und somit auch jede Einschränkung der Freiheit, über die Gesundheit, Leben und Tod. Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar!
The comment below to me applies regardless of time (last century, this century) as well as a local and international impact
Comment #27838
"The only pandemics are those caused by malnutrition - lack of sanitation, improper food intake, taking drugs both legal and illegal and other poisons such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. Covid so-called is nothing more than any other acute or chronic dis ease - a body initiated and conducted process of elimination. In other words, RIGHT ACTION and should be allowed to run its course and return itself to homeostasis. The only medical interventions that are warranted are for traumacare, birth defects and some corrective surgeries, that's it.
Agreed, and fasting , extended if necessary, should be the first treatment offered to facilitate this process. All "medical" interventions should be nature-based and only supported by pharmaceuticals if one's doctor deems it absolutely necessary. There is a place for pharma but it's in emergency medicine only.
I believe the following should be considered for pandemic preparedness and response:
An independent committee, not affiliated or aligned with the WHO past, present or future, in any form should be commissioned to review the existing pandemic preparedness and response to determine if a new policy is necessary and made transparent to the general public in a timely manner.
Investigative verification of an emergency pandemic and its origins should be discovered / disclosed with great transparency to the public in a timely manner.
Bio-labs should be scheduled for regular inspections for safety and security measures to create a leak-proof facility and deter the ability to utilize facility for gain-of-function experimentation. Also, if investigations are necessary they should not be denied and interference should not be permitted.
A review of the outcome of what has occurred in the past two plus years in terms of lock-downs, business and school closures, isolation, quarantining healthy people, unavailable early treatment, absence of informed consent for experimental injections without long-term clinical studies and its impact on humanity. How could the pandemic have been managed differently?
Elected officials in states who did well during the pandemic should be invited to provide their insight in the decision-making process.
Health-care professionals of all levels, medical scientists and researchers, virologists, epidemiologist, should also be invited.
Transparency about changes that have the potential to impact humanity should always be in place as well as regular updates in a timely manner to the general public.
Comment 12746
A searchable version of this spreadsheet is now available for download at:
https://app.box.com/s/pw3g2yvuc8b9hm4tjluw41aj3oylve4f
I overlaid the Jabs Administered / 100 over Daily Deaths "from covid" in Australia. Look and draw your own conclusions.
https://0x0.st/o4U5.png
Curves are scaled to conveniently match; so e.g. 200 jabs / 100 people aligns with 200 deaths per day.
Clearly "safe and effective".
Not.
NOTICE:
To each of you who have been actively engaged in helping to examine the dataset of public comments that the WHO recently revealed (and others who may just be observing).
I have some powerful information that I would like to discuss via zoom. If you see this comment, please reply as to whether or not you would be willing/available to participate in a zoom meeting in slightly less than three hours from now.
The zoom will be noon Pacific time, 3pm eastern.
Here is the powerful info to be discussed:
Exactly 4 months ago, on June 1, 2022, the WHO published an executive summary of the public comment data set that we have been exploring for the past few days. I immediately recognized it as disingenuous bullshit and published my opinion:
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/i-am-so-pissed-off-
Please review my June 1 article and be sure to read the 20 points that I listed in the article.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet in 2 hours, 45 minutes to discuss this via zoom.
Is anyone interested/available?
I read you June 1st post and it is a good recap of what I found in going thru a large number of comments. I would say a "large number" of submissions were concerned with national autonomy and human rights. Gato was able to calculate the #times certain words were used:
oppose - 2036, autonomy - 16,028 and sovereign - 4736. I did read all the comments I found - probably read thru 2-300. We would need to read 1,000's somehow to confirm they are against. Bongoben made a good point on one of my posts. He said someone could say, "I am for the treaty; the WHO must have sovereignity over national governments".
I am just seeing this comment. So sorry to have missed the ZOOM if it happened. I will read your 20 points from your June 1st article and make a short reply.
No worries. I realize it was scheduled with short notice. Call me anytime, if you wish +1 310-619-3055.
The thoughts I am thinking will take too long to type.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
Here is the list of "Pro-WHO" comments.
98 comments at this point
980
981
1053
1202
6296
6313
6370
6362
6383
6384
6478
6614
7131
7132
7133
7308
7481
7807
7894
8089
8191
8216
8290
9081
9246
9497
9498
9635
10062
10778
11754
12465
15086
17053
17081 (maybe)
18058
18710
18711
19439
20649
21592
22255
22570
22571
22572
22607
23170
23568
23597
23778
23911
23924
23955
24004
24008
24009
24045
24076
27458
27493
27508
27537
27545
27558
27559
27571
27636
27768
27774
27819
27898
27905
27967
27976
28219
28220
28225
28347
28353
28502
29187
29188
29190
29238
29344
30744
31145
31198
31199
31827
31231
31232
32098
32404
32441
32953
32974
33670
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
At this point, with multiple people having gone through the list with many search terms, there just aren’t many positive or ambiguous comments left to find. Unless someone stumbles onto a rich vein using some other search terminology, perhaps one could just steel-man the argument and say that <1% are the type of comments the WHO wanted to see. 99+% were against any expansion of or intervention by the WHO and spoke to the values of sovereignty, local autonomy, and the fundamental human right to refuse a medical treatment.
There is only one other way to find more Pro WHO comments, .... unfortunately it involves actually reading every single comment, which would take a LOT of time. lol
Sadly, to claim that there are only say 100-200 total FOR WHO and the rest are all Against, ... someone might say "Where's The Proof?" or "How Do We Know That's All There Is?"
Then reading every single entree to be sure that's all there is becomes a thing, ... Or just dump the Excel file on them and say "Prove Me Wrong" lmao
There are so many comments that use the same basic text, that those could be knocked out of the list so one would not have to read everything. But I like your “prove me wrong” idea. I personally would be comfortable at this point saying to anyone that <1% of comments support the idea of the “instrument”.
Yes, the formula looking comments all come from the same places. Take Action notices always include some text as an example and some people leave it as is, some people add to it, then even fewer backspace it out and write their own comments. I see a lot of them that start with the same line or two, then end differently, so there is some variation even among the comments which appear the same. I agree with the 1% also, maybe 2% at the most, but then I have not read every single comment either, so I am leaving a 1% wiggle room lol.
Either way, if the vote goes FOR the WHO, it can be said that they straight up ignored all the public comments.
It really does make the most sense to highlight those few comments that are totally For the WHO getting maximum authority. Especially if it ends up being a single digit percentage of the total comments. It will be easier to show how they will likely claim to have reviewed all the public comments, .... before ignoring them all and voting against the will of the people anyway.
8131, 9086, 21454 (US Chamber of Commerce), 22229, 24056? 27505, 27903, 30948,
The following list conditions other than state autonomy. They aren't a clear yes/no: 1707 states what the WHO shd do to avoid outside influence, 6428 offers guidelines, 6550 must take into account human rights standards……..informed consent, 7203 lists conditions, 10125 gives conditions, 18940 (Amnesty Intl), 21422 with an independent council, 22593 Dr giving treatment suggestions, 29363 The WHO must xyz, 31081 must have safeguards against “xyz”,
Perplexed:
Would this comment be deemed For, .... Or Against ?
00012 "- - - - - - - - -
1. National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
2. The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence."
It seems to me it is FOR the pandemic treaty. Am I the only one seeing it this way?
I would rule it CON. This is a variation of the same comment that appears in 1/3 of the comments. The concept of full autonomy for national/local leadership is a value held by those who do not want a one-size-fits-all WHO approach.
A CON for the WHO legally binding pandemic treaty, but a PRO for National/Local leadership to dictate over the citizens, effectively stripping that same autonomy from individuals. So 1/3 of the commenters agree to be mandated, just not by the WHO. Ya, it's thin, I know lol.
I acknowledge your question. I guess we will have to consider a non-binary categorization system. It's sort of in the middle.
It just seemed to me that offering an opt-out clause, only to Nations or local municipalities, really just allows the treaty to pass and gets the WHO's foot in the door. Because the individual citizens would still have no say in the matter. Either the Nation or Local Municipality goes along with the WHO, or the Nation or Local Municipality opts out, yet still dictates over the public. It seemed to me to be a Lose/Lose for the personal choice of the individual.
And also, IF there needs to be an Opt-Out clause in the first place, then the answer should be a flat NO to the treaty.
There seems to be a whole lot of comments in the file, that say the same thing. Go ahead with the Treaty, ... If, If, If, If. I may be old fashioned in my thinking that if "If's & Buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas" lol
I happened upon this particular question, while plucking whole comments from the file, pasting them into a plain text file to purge formatting and tighten up spacing, then re-pasting them into one of three Word File's named "For", "Against" and "Incomplete" and thinking I needed another file titled "Wishy Washy FOR, With A Beneficial Sounding Caveat That Gets WHO's Foot In The Door". lol
This is a informationally dense and very important topic that I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you at length. I have a meeting for the next 2 hours. If you could call me directly after say 5pm eastern, that would be great. +1 310-619-3055
Dang, I missed the boat. I am AZ time and was busy from 2pm. to after 8pm, ..... and it didn't help that I just now turned on my PC to check my email ugh.
One particular comment was number 111 and the last line made me think about the contrary nature of most comments "If these demands are not guaranteed, I reject an international, binding pandemic agreement".
I am admittedly likely splitting hairs, but still, I feel that collecting the comments could prove very useful, either before the vote to get people informed, .... or after the fact, when Tedros needs to have his nose rubbed in them like a Bad Dog. lol
I have begun to transcribe/copy/format/ the selected comments that you all have pulled out of the Excel spreadsheet and started adding them to the body of the article above. Thank you for your efforts in doing that. I will continue to go through the already long list of selected comments until I finish copying all that you have already extracted. We already probably have more than the average person will take the time to read although, I must admit, it is very addictive.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
980, 981, 1053, 6313, 6370, 7807, 7894, 8216, 9246, 11754, 18058, 18710, 18711, 22572, 23170, 23778, 23911, 24004, 24009, 24076, 27537, 27545, 27558, 27559, 27571, 27636, 27768, 27774, 27898, 27905, 27967, 28225, 28347, 28353, 29190, 29238, 31145, 31198, 31199, 31827, 32404, 32441, 32953, 32974
PLUS...
15086,
27976,
32098,
6362, 7133, 8191, 9081, 10062, 10778, 17053, 21592, 22255, 22571, 23924, 28502, 29187, 29188, 30744, 33670
1202, 6383, 7308, 12465, 17081 (maybe), 20649, 23955
22607, 29344
6478, 7481, 9635, 19439, 22570, 24008, 24045, 27508, 27458, 28219, 28220, 31231, 31232
6296, 6614, 7131, 7132, 8089.
6384
8290, 9497, 9498, 23568, 23597, 27493, 27819
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
Also 8290, 9497, 9498, 23568, 23597, 27493, 27819
With the ones that Karenvusa found, we are up to 98. New ones are getting noticeably harder to find.
See my latest post
Please add 6296, 6614, 7131, 7132, 8089.
6384 is FOR with added safeguards re privacy & data collection. So I'd say that's a "yes"
That's a total of 85 comments so far that are amenable to the IHR and pandemic treaty. Not even 1/3 of 1% of the total.
6478, 7481, 9635, 19439, 22570, 24008, 24045, 27508, 27458, 28219, 28220, 31231, 31232
And 22607, 29344
Also 1202, 6383, 7308, 12465, 17081 (maybe), 20649, 23955
6362, 7133, 8191, 9081, 10062, 10778, 17053, 21592, 22255, 22571, 23924, 28502, 29187, 29188, 30744, 33670
These are more pro comments. My list is up to 63 now.
32098 supports. I will start again tomorrow and post in groups of numbers to make it easier for you.
Added
please add 27976
Added
I will look for some more tomorrow as I am away from my computer, and the Excel app on my iPad can’t handle the spreadsheet. It will be easy to locate more with the search terms you suggested, as well as other terms that are quite apparent from reading the supportive comments from the list of 45 already found.
Lost Librarian found 15086.
I added to the list. Thanks
Has the mission changed? Or should I resume at #31783 and continue up the list, posting every comment? Or are we now only looking for something specific ?
Please see my recent comments.
I am taking stock of what you all have done so far and evaluating what should be done now. Give me an hour to work on something.
It might be easier at this point to compile a list of those comments that are music to WHO’s ears, and keep scouring with those awful woke search terms to hunt down all of them, and then compare that number to the total. It will be <1%. Probably.
I think that is a reasonable idea. I have begun to transcribe/copy/format the selected comments that you have all posted in the comments page. There is a lot of work ahead of me. You all have probably extracted about as much as the average person would read (although it is addictive).
As you said, the comments that are pro-treaty, pro-who are probably a more challenging prey.
Now that Mr. Roguski has broken the code on the pro comments, we should just compile a list of those comment "ID's" and see what proportion of the total body of comments they compose. To get a handle on further search terms to employ, see the pro comments featuring "equity":
980, 981, 1053, 6313, 6370, 7807, 7894, 8216, 9246, 11754, 18058, 18710, 18711, 22572, 23170, 23778, 23911, 24004, 24009, 24076, 27537, 27545, 27558, 27559, 27571, 27636, 27768, 27774, 27898, 27905, 27967, 28225, 28347, 28353, 29190, 29238, 31145, 31198, 31199, 31827, 32404, 32441, 32953, 32974
This is a repeat of the list posted below.
Able to view the private comments?
Sorry, I’m not sure which ones you mean. Do you have a row number to reference?
I looked at the comment numbers you posted, 31827, 32404, 32441 etc. on the list, because I was posting the comments from that section, and found those comments to be hidden with ###############. So I was curious how they can be seen.
That doesn’t mean that they are hidden. It just means that the cell is too small. Try making the comment column wider. And you can select the column and click “wrap text”.
I tried to make the column wider, to reveal all the text in that line, but once I got to the right edge of the screen it wouldn't get any larger and it still looked like the text was cut off. So I scrolled sideways to try to make the column even wider and all it did was skip to column C and the B column was then not visible at all. Ugh. I am fat too old to begin fiddling with yet another over complicated UI I still have anxiety over Photoshop 5.5 lmao
Wrap text.
#15599
I strongly oppose the WHO extending its power to determine the response of sovereign countries in the event of a future pandemic. There should obviously be cooperation and openness between countries in sharing data but the power to impose globally the type of lockdowns seen in China or vaccine mandates must never be granted to the WHO. The funding model of the WHO gives too much influence to parties that may have agendas that are not compatible with individuals rights regarding health.
#15570
I strongly oppose any WHO interference in any pandemic. Recomendations and educating people on the matter can be provided by WHO, but any active interference meaning giving governments obligatory actions to be done on citizents, that is by no means acceptable.
#15324
I sincerely believe a real and effective intrument on pandemic response must at all cost be democratic and trasparent, made out of a council of every nation's specially appointed health experts, following a thorugh national pandemic plan, and every discussion should be streamed and made availabe. The WHO can't and shouldn't be the sole body in charge of a global respose as, beside obvious conflicts of interests due to its funding, WHO alone can't ever understand the differences between nation states. The failure of lockdowns, that wreak havoc in poor countries, are an example. For this reason there must also be an independent body capable of investigating the process and another, separated, to held legislators and helath experts to account in case of bad management, bad practices and corruption. "The only means to fight the plague is honesty" said Camus, and that tha way forward to restore and preserve trust by the public in the WHO.
#15305
"I say no to the treaty.
You and most western governments were wrong with your guidelines for COVID-19. I do not trust the you or these governments with the authority to set guidelines for future global outbreaks.
Thank you for your time."
#15297
I say NO to any legally binding global pandemic treaty. NO to anyone, any entity, any proposal to use an emergency to gain control over any person or persons.
#15106 "I reject any international organization that simultaneously covers industry advocacy, in the case of the pandemic, the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. I reject any publicly decreed interference with human integrity and therefore also any restriction of freedom over health, life and death. Human dignity is inviolable!
ich lehne jede internationale Organisation ab, die gleichzeitig Interessensvertretung der Industrie abdeckt, im Falle der Pandemie die Interessen der Pharmaindustrie. Ich lehne jeden von öffentlicher Hand verordneten Eingriff in die Unversehrtheit des Menschen ab und somit auch jede Einschränkung der Freiheit, über die Gesundheit, Leben und Tod. Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar!
"