... It is incessant. They just will not stop.

Robert W Malone MD, MS

A nurse administers a pediatric dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to a girl at a L.A. Care Health Plan vaccination clinic at Los Angeles Mission College in Los Angeles, Calif., Jan. 19, 2022. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

Reprinted from Liberty Counsel

FDA Approves Pfizer Booster COVID Shot for Children

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) and authorized a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot for children 5 through 11 years of age. The booster shot is 10 micrograms, which is the same dosage for this age group in their primary series and a third of that given to people aged 12 and older.

The decision will now go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for approval.

On April 28, 2022, Moderna submitted a request to the FDA for EUA for its two-dose COVID-19 injection for children ages six months to under six years old.

When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any “vaccine immunity.”

Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID.

In fact, the CDC recently reported higher COVID-19 case rates have been recorded among fully vaccinated children than unvaccinated in the age group 5-11 since February 2022. That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021.

In addition, the Office for National Statistics revealed that children are up to 52 times more likely to die following the COVID-19 injection than children who have not received it. In December 2021, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a dataset containing details on “deaths by vaccination status in England” per 100,000 people between January 1, 2021 and Oct 31, 2021. The data revealed that vaccinated children aged 10-14 were statistically 10 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children, and vaccinated teenagers aged 15-19 were statistically two times more likely to die than unvaccinated teenagers.

However, the ONS data also shows during that time period, teenagers aged 15-19 who had two COVID shots were statistically three times more likely to die than teenagers who were not vaccinated. Children aged 10-14 who were double vaccinated were statistically 52 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children.

Scientific studies show that children are at very low risk of spreading the COVID infection to other children, to adults as seen in household transmission studies, or becoming very ill or dying.  According to a 2020 Yale University report, scientists have observed that children fare much better than adults and have very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and have far less illness or mortality from COVID. Studies by Ankit B. Patel and Dr. Supinda Bunyavanich show the virus has limited expression and presence in the upper respiratory area in young children. This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. Research published in August 2021 by J. Loske also revealed that “the airway immune cells in children are primed for virus sensing resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.”

Why the Centralization of Health via the WHO Should Be Resisted by Civil Society

Dr. Silvia Behrendt is the founder of the Global Health Responsibility Agency for accountability and transparency for health decisions. She was previously a consultant to the WHO on the IHR and wrote her Ph.D. about the executive authority of the WHO-DC during PHEIC.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on May 9, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom.

Background

The International Health Regulations (IHR) was adopted by 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005. They enable the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) if it decides that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state, but with the consent of the member state. The World Council for Health (WCH) acknowledges this aspect of the current regulations because it recognizes the sovereignty of nations that adopted the IHR. But that is about to change.

Key Issues to Understand

On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General – even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties. 

The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO “regional directors,” who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).”

Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.

Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR

The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59

1. Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.

2. 48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states. 

3. Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.

4. Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state,  the Director-General may (not must) consult with the  WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.

5. Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full.  Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.

The World Council for Health’s Position On Proposed IHR Amendments

The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state – and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model – is the expert guide to better health and wellness. 

These proposed IHR amendments will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022. The official agenda item is 16.2. It is not clear if the event will be broadcast for transparency. Thus, the WCH believes that it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.

Why People Must Take Action Together

Due to the influence of private money at the WHO, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy stated that the corruption of the WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time.” This is particularly true in relation to WHO drug recommendations, including its “list of essential medicines,” which a growing number of people believe is biased and unreliable. 

Moreover, even though WHO’s documents highlight voice, agency, and social participation as drivers of equity and democracy, it is unknown World Health Assembly delegates who get to make decisions for us. To date, 13 days away from the World Health Assembly 75, the secretive list of each country’s delegates has been not been published. This is censorship.

Given consistent evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by various industries, its usefulness as a guide to public health must be critically re-evaluated, while alternative paradigms and models for ethical health guidance and human rights are built.

Global #StopTheWho Campaign Activated

It is going to take each and all of us to campaign against the power grab through the IHR Amendments, this May, and onwards to November – just six months away. In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:

1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos 

2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.

3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health

4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com

5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR

6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments

7. Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

You will also find #StopTheWho campaign resources uploaded to the World Council for Health website in the next few days.

Collectively, we are in the greatest awakening in history. Given our experiences the last 2 years, we know that we are the ones we have been waiting for. If not us, then who? If not now, then when? Let us join hands in taking back our health, our freedom, and our power.

In Unity for Health, Freedom, and Sovereignty,

World Council for Health (www.worldcouncilforhealth.org)

You’re invited to join us at the Better Way Conference happening May 20-22!

This groundbreaking three-day conference will be held in person in Bath, UK. Those unable to travel to Bath can purchase virtual tickets to watch from home.

Learn more about the virtual and in-person conference including our amazing lineup of speakers and buy tickets here: betterwayconference.org

Subscribe to Who is Robert Malone

By Robert W Malone MD  ·  Thousands of paid subscribers

Medicine, science, bioethics, analytics, politics and life

Subscribe now