I Thought the Lancet was a Medical Journal
Jeffrey Sachs is clearly a fan of Tedros and the WHO.
The video below is a very good example of the type of thinking that drives some people to support proposals to give more power, legal authority and money to the World Health Organization. This video is an excerpt from the original video which is available here.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4sh6OKakLruw/
My hope for this article is to stimulate conversation among my readers. Please express your observations and opinions in the comment section below. EVEN BETTER, call +1 310-256-3749 to speak your mind and leave a 3 minute recorded audio message.
All of the information below is quoted from the Lancet Commission PDF.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9.pdf
HINT: Please be aware that the PDF can be searched for key words and phrases. I suggest that you focus on what is NOT covered in the document and what is NOT said in the video just as much as what is covered and said.
The Lancet Commission report DID mention these words quite often:
pandemic(323), global(220), virus(202), vaccine(177), transmission(139), development(113), economic(108), fund(103), deaths(90), travel(60), financing(60), strategy(55), mask(46), lockdown(39), sustainable development (33), pacific region(32), misinformation(25), surveillance(23), disinformation(20), International Monetary Fund(19), COVAX(18), quarantine(15), climate(13).
The following words and phrases were hardly mentioned, or not mentioned at all:
ivermectin(3), doctor(1), early treatment(0), VAERS(0), vaccine injury(0), remdesivir(0), ventilator(0), vitamin(0), zinc(0).
Excerpts from the Lancet Commission Report:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Establish a global pandemic agreement and strengthen the IHR. (page 41)
WHO should be strengthened. (page 3)
The world community should not establish new centres of global health policy and finance that would compete with, or even undermine, the central role of WHO. (page 3)
Countries should maintain a vaccination-plus strategy that combines mass vaccination, availability and affordability of testing, treatment for new infections and long COVID (test and treat), complementary public health and social measures (including the wearing of face masks in some contexts), promotion of safe workplaces, and economic and social support for self-isolation. (page 3)
The WHA should create a WHO Global Health Board composed of the six WHO regions, represented by heads of state on a rotating basis, and selected by the governments of each region. (page 3)
Preparedness plans should include improved surveillance and monitoring. (page 3).
To prevent natural spillovers, governments should coordinate on the global surveillance and regulation of domestic animal and wild animal trade. (page 3)
To prevent research-related spillovers, WHO should be given new oversight authority regarding the biosafety, biosecurity, and bio-risk management of national and international research programmes that are engaged in the collection, testing, and genetic manipulation of potentially dangerous pathogens. (page 3)
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. (pages 40-41)
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. (page 41)
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 Low and Middle Income Countries. (page 41)
Strong monitoring and coordinated surveillance systems around the world need to be established to assess the risks of new waves of COVID-19. (page 40)
We strongly urge the creation of a new WHO Global Health Board to support WHO in its decision making and actions, especially on urgent and controversial matters. (page 42)
We support similar calls by other panels for a Global Health Threats Council or Global Health Threats Board. This WHO Global Health Board should be composed of heads of government representing each of the six WHO regions, and elected by the member states of those regions. (page 42)
Efforts should be made to ensure inclusive decision making, including gender parity. (page 42)
Many reports have called for greater global surveillance and monitoring of disease risks, with WHO as the coordinating power. (page 42)
Scale-up of community-based public health systems, integrated with primary health care, for surveillance, testing, tracing, monitoring (page 43)
FINANCING:
Reforms of WHO should include a substantial increase of its core budget. (page 3)
The Global Health Fund should have its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, but have strong regional offices in each of the six WHO regions. (pages 3-4)
The United Nations member states, with particular responsibility of the G20 countries, should adopt a new financial architecture to scale up financing for Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) to meet the urgent challenges of pandemic preparedness, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals. (page 4)
We echo some of the recommendations made by other groups to bolster the role and financing of WHO in preventing and responding to future pandemics and strengthening public health systems globally. (pages 41-42)
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. (page 42)
WHO needs the capacity to draw upon large-scale emergency financing in the case of a global public health emergency. (page 42)
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. (page 42)
The G20 should plan and implement a 10-year effort, with accompanying financing, to ensure that all WHO regions—including the world’s lower-income regions— have the capacity to research, develop, produce, and distribute all of the essential tools for pandemic control, including tests, diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, and human resources for health, among others. (page 42)
Specifically, this initiative should include capacity building and innovations for vaccine producers in Low and Middle Income Countries. (page 42)
More investment is needed to ensure a standing public health capability that can operate effective surveillance systems in each country. (page 43)
We call for the creation of a new integrated and flexible Global Health Fund. (page 44)
The Global Health Fund should be closely aligned with the work of WHO. (page 44)
The Global Health Fund would require annual disbursements of the order of $60 billion per year. (page 44)
This recommended annual funding of $60 billion would be allocated roughly as follows: commodities, $20 billion per year; pandemic preparedness, $15 billion per year; and support for primary health systems, $25 billion per year. (page 44)
The Global Health Fund should be supplemented by an emergency financing mechanism to enable a surge of funding in the face of a global health emergency. Such an emergency mechanism could rely on the borrowing authority of an international financial institution, such as the World Bank, to provide the ability to mobilise at least $10 billion immediately, and possibly far more, in the event of another major global public health emergency. (page 44)
ADDITIONAL EXCERPTS FROM THE LANCET COMMISSION REPORT:
Rapid development of multiple vaccines has been a triumph of the research and development system and the result of long-standing public and private investment and cooperation. (page 2)
Economic recovery depends on sustaining high rates of vaccination coverage. (page 2)
Although we have largely failed in terms of global cooperation during the first 2 years of this pandemic, putting such cooperation into place is still urgent. We remain far from preparedness for future pandemics, and logic tells us that achieving safety will require the reinforcement of basic tools of pandemic control on a truly global basis: (Page 40)
Universal vaccine coverage
Physical distancing
The use of face masks as appropriate
Prudential controls on potential super spreader events
Safe workplaces
Surveillance for new variants
Global protocols for safe international travel
The scale-up of test-trace-and-isolate regimens to be put in place when community transmission is low to ensure that it is kept low.
[The Lancet Commission recommends] the following as some of the core constituents of the new pandemic arrangements. (page 41)
First, bolstered WHO authority, with high-level political support from heads of government in a new Global Health Board.
Second, the right of WHO to investigate in situ any events that could constitute a new global public health emergency.
Third, the creation of a global surveillance and monitoring system for infectious disease outbreaks and transmission, building on existing initiatives—both for disease forecasting and for making informed, data-driven decisions about workplace restrictions, resource allocations, and effective interventions to avoid untargeted, one-size-fits-all restrictions.
Fourth, 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.
Finally, the publication of an annual WHO Report on Global Pandemic Preparedness and Response, which should include findings from the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board for review and adoption by the WHA.
The WHA should then establish global health policies to address the gaps and weaknesses identified in the report by drawing on the successes of national and regional health strategies and policies, and adapting them to fit various contexts and country needs.
ONE HEALTH:
The prevention of natural spillovers would require a One Health approach—an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the (page 42)
Health of people
Animals
Ecosystems
Strengthening of veterinary services,
Regulation of trade in domestic and wild animals
Wildlife
Livestock rearing,
Prevention of deforestation,
Enhancement of pathogen-surveillance systems in domestic animals and in humans.
Countries must adopt rigorous surveillance over the trade of domestic and wild animals and over research.
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.
Anne’s artwork is spectacular:
To be fair, the report actually did let some truth sneak out:
Public policies did not properly address the profoundly unequal effects of the pandemic. Heavily burdened groups include essential workers. (page 1)
Poor enforcement of appropriate levels of biosafety regulations in the lead-up to the pandemic, raising the possibility of a laboratory-related outbreak. (page 1)
The third [pillar] is health services: to save the lives of people with the disease and ensure the continuity of other health services, including those for mental health. (page 4)
A 2022 study found no evidence that border closures reduced the spread of COVID-19. (page 12)
Although transmission can occur through touch, it is rare for respiratory viruses, and touch and spray transmission are not likely to contribute to widespread transmission or super spreading events. As nearly all transmission occurs indoors, the way in which we design and operate building ventilation and filtration systems can reduce transmission. (page 13)
When investigating the origins of any novel pathogen, potential hypotheses should not be prematurely rejected. (page 42)
Establishment of safe schools, workplaces, and public spaces, including investments in ventilation and filtration systems as tools to fight disease and promote long-term resilience, health, and wellbeing. (page 43)
Investment in supporting scientists to present evidence more effectively to decision makers, and in supporting decision makers in their understanding of how to interpret evidence and implement science-based recommendations and policies (page 43)
To learn more about Jeffrey Sachs, please read Meryl Nass's article:
My hope for this article is to stimulate conversation among my readers. Please express your observations and opinions in the comment section below. EVEN BETTER, call +1 310-256-3749 to speak your mind and leave a 3 minute recorded audio message.
This is the thirty-first article in this series.
Multilingual information regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
TEN THINGS EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHO'S PROPOSED "PANDEMIC TREATY"
Get the United States OUT of the United Nations and The World Health Organization A.S.A.P.
I thought the Lancet was a medical journal
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
James,
Excellent work!
1. Pandemics of respiratory illnesses are almost impossible. I’ve tested my logic with two professors of immunology in UK universities. Common colds can go around the world (whatever their etiology) because when affected, people aren’t forced to remain at home because of illness. With a severe infectious illness of the lungs, early symptom development causes people to withdraw & this slices R nought to below 1.0. Self limiting. They know this.
2. Even if we accept their narrative, a vaccine wouldn’t be any kind of solution. See failure of flu vaccines for evidence.
That kills the narrative.
None of the agencies have our best interests at heart.