The Truth Is Out There

The Updated International Health Regulations Have Been Published

20.September.2025.

A number of nations have failed to meet their Constitutional requirements to formally accept the 2024 amendments to the IHR so they have “rejected” the amendments to the IHR (for the time being).

Today (September 19, 2025), the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted on June 1, 2024 came into legally binding effect for most, but not all nations.

A total of 11 nations have “rejected” the amendments, 2 more have filed “reservations” and “declarations”, an additional 8 nations have submitted “declarations” and one nation has submitted a “statement.

The 2022 amendments that shortened the time for entry into force from 24 to 12 months has obviously made it difficult for many nations to abide by their internal rules, so many nations have requested extensions to the time allowed for them to complete the proper procedures in order to come into compliance with the 2024 amendments.

PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may change their position and withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.

APPENDIX 4 (pages 82-95)

REJECTIONS, RESERVATIONS, DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS BY STATES PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005) ADOPTED THROUGH RESOLUTION WHA77.17 (2024) (1),(2)

(1) As at 19 September 2025. The process relating to reservations expressed is ongoing. The deadlines for submitting objections to reservations expressed are 8 November 2025 for States Parties to which the amendments adopted through resolution WHA75.12 (2022) apply, and 8 February 2026 for States Parties to which those amendments do not apply.

(2) This Appendix reproduces the relevant parts of the communications submitted by States Parties in connection with the amendments adopted through resolution WHA77.17 (2024).

I. REJECTIONS

PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.

If you live in any of the 11 nations listed below, YOU STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND A RESPONSIBILITY to oppose the amendments to the International Health Regulations, but you must also realize that officials from these nations can change their position and withdraw their rejection of the amendments at any time.

1. ARGENTINA

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 whereby the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

Following a thorough review of the legal, institutional and budgetary implications, the Argentine Republic hereby rejects the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 under the terms stipulated in article 61 of the said Regulations.

The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva conveys to the World Health Organization the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (3)

(3) Translated from Spanish.

2. AUSTRIA

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and has the honor to refer to the Circular Letter dated 19 September 2024, no. C.L.40.2024, concerning the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly.

In accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization as well as Article 59, paragraph ibis, and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as “IHR”), the Republic of Austria rejects the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), as notified by the Director-General of the World Health Organization on 19 September 2024.

The rejection is of preliminary nature and will be withdrawn once the Parliament of Austria has approved the 2024 amendments to the IHR.

The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

3. BRAZIL

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 19 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and wishes to make the following considerations:

  1. Brazil has consistently supported and will continue to support the process of reviewing and updating the legal framework underpinning WHO’s response to public health emergencies, including the acceptance of the package of amendments to the IHR.
  2. Taking into account the adoption of Resolution WHA77.17 by the World Health Assembly – which confers a recommendatory status to the amendments – Brazil has already initiated internal discussions within the competent national bodies aimed at institutional and operational adjustments to implement the changes that reflect the best practices embodied in the amended IHR, in areas under the purview of the Executive Branch and Regulatory Agencies.
  3. Nevertheless, pursuant to Brazil ‘s constitutional framework, the International Health Regulations must be submitted to Congress for approval, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers and institutional harmony.
  4. In this context, with reference to Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), Brazil notifies the rejection of the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17.

The Government of Brazil intends to make every effort to secure the prompt approval of the amended text by the National Congress, so that the rejection may be reversed pursuant to Article 63 of the IHR, once the legislative procedures are concluded.

The Permanent Mission of Brazil avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

4. CANADA

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva, received on 8 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and has the honor to refer to the Director-General ‘s notification Ref.: C.L.40.2024 of 19 September 2024, by which the Director-General notified States Parties to the International Health Regulation (2005), adopted by the Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 23 May 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”), of the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva on I June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 Amendments”).

Canada supports the IHR as a cornerstone of the global health security architecture and the work done to strengthen the IHR through the 2024 Amendments. Canada also reiterates its full support for the role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on global health and in supporting Member States in strengthening health systems.

The Permanent Mission notes that, per the above-mentioned notification and pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR, the 2024 Amendments are scheduled to enter into force on 19 September 2025 for States Parties that did not reject the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 28 May 2022.

The Permanent Mission wishes to inform the Director-General that Canada must avail itself, through the present note, of the option of submitting a notification of rejection of the 2024 Amendments in accordance with paragraphs I bis and 2 of Article 59 and Article 61 of the IHR to allow sufficient time to complete the remaining steps of its internal treaty adoption process. Indeed, the said process is not expected to be finalized prior to the entry into force of the 2024 Amendments. Canada has started and is progressing through its domestic procedures and will inform the Director-General of their completion in a subsequent note.

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Director-General of World health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

5. CZECH REPUBLIC

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva, received on 14 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding the amendments of the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director General as follows.

The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director General that in the Czech Republic, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the said amendments will not have been met before 19 September 2025.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), the Czech Republic hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the amendments of the international Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024.

In accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the International Health Regulations (2005), once the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of said amendments have been met, the Czech Republic may notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection.

The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

6. GERMANY

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations, received on 14 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to communicate the following:

On 1 June 2024, the final day of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, the States Parties adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) annexed to Resolution WHA77.17.

On 19 September 2024, the Director-General notified the adoption by the Health Assembly of the amended International Health Regulations (ref. C.L.40.2024).

In view of the imminent end of the period for rejection on 19 July 2025, the Federal Republic of Germany greatly regrets that it must declare that the requirements of the national constitution for the implementation of the amendments will not be achieved before 19 September 2025. The requisite legislative process is still ongoing.

Accordingly, in compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the aforementioned amendments to the International Health Regulations.

In accordance with Article 63 (1) of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of the rejection as soon as the national requirements for the implementation of the amendments have been achieved.

The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurance of its high consideration. (4)

(4) English translation from German provided by the Government.

7. ISRAEL

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 4 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization in Geneva, and has the honor to inform his office of the following:

Due to the continuation of the current circumstances, the State of Israel finds it necessary to reject the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, we hereby notify the Director-General of Israel’s rejection of all of the amendments to the International Health Regulations adopted in decision 77.17 by the World Health Assembly in its 77th session in May 2024.

Please note that Israel maintains its right under Article 63 of the IHR to withdraw its rejection to the IHR amendments in the future with or without reservations.

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

8. ITALY

Letter of the Minister of Health of Italy, received on 18 July 2025

I am writing to you with reference to your notification dated 19 September 2024, regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), the above-mentioned amendments shall enter into force 12 months after the date of the above mentioned notification, i.e. on 19 September 2025, except for those Parties that have notified the WHO’s Director-General of their rejection or reservations in respect of the said amendments.

In accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), I hereby notify Your Excellency of Italy’s rejection of all the amendments adopted by the Seventy Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).

Please accept, Director-General, the assurance of my highest consideration. (5)

(5) English translation from Italian provided by the Government.

9. NETHERLANDS (KINGDOM OF THE)

Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 21 February 2025

The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director-General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows.

Since the Kingdom of the Netherlands rejected the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly through resolution WHA75.12 (hereinafter referred to as “2022 amendments”), the articles of the IHR as they were worded prior to the 2022 amendments apply to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the 2024 amendments shall enter into force for the Kingdom of the Netherlands 24 months after the date of the Director-General’s notification, i.e. on 19 September 2026, except if the Kingdom has notified the Director-General on or before 19 March 2026 of its rejection of, or reservations in respect of, the 2024 amendments.

The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director-General that in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments will not have been met before 19 March 2026.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the 2024 amendments pending the parliamentary approval procedure.

If the constitutional requirements for the acceptance of the 2024 amendments in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are met, the Kingdom of the Netherlands will notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments).

The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva kindly asks WHO for confirmation of receipt of this Note Verbale and avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

10. PHILIPPINES

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 15 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to the notification C.L.40.2024 dated 19 September 2024 on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows:

  • The Philippines welcomes the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) and is undertaking steps to implement the same.
  • In accordance with domestic legal requirements, international instruments and changes thereto may not enter into force for the Philippines before such requirements are met. Therefore, the Philippines formally registers its rejection of the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) as conveyed via C.L.40.2024 in accordance with Article 61.
  • The Philippines will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of this rejection upon completion of domestic requirements in accordance with Article 63 of the International Health Regulations (2005).

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration

11. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva (“The Mission”) presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) and the amendments thereto adopted in Geneva on June 1, 2024 (the 2024 amendments) in resolution WHA77.17 and set forth in the notification of the 2024 amendments by the Director-General on September 19, 2024 (C.L.40.2024).

The Mission, by means of this note and pursuant to IHR Articles 59.lbis and 61, informs the Director-General of the World Health Organization that the Government of the United States of America rejects the 2024 amendments.

The Permanent Mission of the United States of America avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

II. RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS

1. HOLY SEE

Letter of the Secretary of State of the Holy See, received on 11 July 2025

The undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has the honor to certify hereby that the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, accepts the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seven World Health Assembly through its Resolution WHA 77.17 of 1 June 2024. Enclosed are the text of 4 declarations and 2 reservations, which are an integral part of this Instrument of Accession. In witness whereof the undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has signed this document and has affixed thereto the seal of the Secretariat of State.

Reservations and Declarations

annexed to the Instrument of Accession Declarations

  1. In light of the territorial nature of the provisions contained in the Amended International Health Regulations, the Holy See declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that in acceding to the Amended Regulations only in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, it intends to apply their provisions exclusively within the Territory of the Vatican City State as circumscribed by the Leonine Walls.
  2. The Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, declares that it will apply the Amended International Health Regulations in a manner compatible with the particular nature of the Vatican City State, the Sources of its Law (Law LXXI of 1 October 2008) and Catholic moral doctrine.
  3. The Holy See, in conformity with its particular mission, underlines, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that any reference to “gender” in the Amended International Health Regulations and in any document that has been or that will be adopted in relation to those Regulations is to be understood as grounded on the biological sexual identity that is male and female.
  4. The Holy See declares, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that the terms “health services”, “relevant health products” and “cell- and gene-based therapies and other health technologies” may not be construed as to include abortion nor access to abortion, abortifacients, contraceptives, assisted reproductive technologies, human cloning or to other technologies and therapies contrary to Catholic moral doctrine.

Reservations

  1. Since neither the Holy See or the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 44 bis of the Amended International Health Regulations, thus reserving the right to decide on a case- by-case basis whether to implement the decisions and recommendations of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism.
  2. Since neither the Holy See nor the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 56.5 of the Amended International Health Regulations so that any disputes that may arise between itself and the World Health Organization concerning the interpretation or application of the 2024 amendments should not be submitted to the Health Assembly.

2. SWITZERLAND

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, received on 10 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the decision of the Federal Council dated 20 June 2025, has the honor to notify it that Switzerland accepts the amendments made in 2024 to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), with the following reservation and declarations, in accordance with Article 62, paragraph 2, of the said Regulations:

Reservation concerning Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. vi and paragraph 3 (i)

Switzerland makes a reservation with regard to the question of managing misinformation and disinformation in core capacities for risk communication. It intends to pursue its objective and evidence based activities regarding risks, as specified under its legislation (Epidemics Act of 28 September 2012, art. 9, para. 1) and with strict regard for freedom of expression, the media and science as guaranteed under articles 16, 17 and 20 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999.

Interpretative declaration on Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. v and paragraph 3 (h)

With regard to the obligations concerning the implementation, maintenance and strengthening of core capacities in respect of access to health services and health products needed for action, as referred to in Annex 1, the Swiss Confederation or its cantons will apply the Regulations in accordance with the division of jurisdiction specified by the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 in the areas of health (art. 117 et seq.), federalism (art. 3 and 42 et seq.) and according to the principle of subsidiarity (art. 5 (a)).

Declaration under Article 4, paragraph 4

The competent National IHR Authority is the Federal Office of Public Health (OFSP), Schwartzenburgerstrasse 157, 3003 Berne, Switzerland, tel. +41 58 462 21 11, info@bag.admin.ch

The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and the other international organizations in Geneva takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization (WHO) the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (6)

(6) Translated from French.

III. DECLARATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005)

1. CROATIA

Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Croatia, received on 10 July 2025

The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Croatia presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to the Notification to State Parties concerning amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (Ref.: C.L.40.2024), specifically page 2, paragraph 3 under section ADA.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR (2005), which provides that any State Party unable to fully implement the necessary domestic legislative and administrative arrangements may submit a declaration to the Director-General within ten months from the date of notification – i.e. no later than 19 July 2025 – the Republic of Croatia hereby submits its declaration to postpone the application of the said amendments, including the obligation to designate or establish a National IHR Authority (NIA).

This declaration is based on the following considerations:

– Full implementation of the amended IHR obligations requires amendments to the current Law on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases;

– The process of establishing or appointing the NIA involves:

– Adoption of a formal decision on the establishment or designation of the NIA;

– Enactment or revision of the relevant legal framework to provide a solid basis for such designation or establishment;

– Preparation of official documentation clearly defining the responsibilities, scope of authority, and mandate of the NIA.

Given the complexity of the legislative process, including the stages of legal drafting, public consultation, inter-institutional coordination, and parliamentary adoption, it is not feasible to finalize all necessary changes by the stipulated deadline of 19 September 2025.

Accordingly, the Republic of Croatia respectfully requests the postponement of the application of the above-mentioned amendments, with the relevant legislative activities planned within the scope of the 2026 National Legislative Programme.

The Ministry of Health avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General the assurances of its highest consideration

2. CYPRUS

Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Cyprus, received on 13 June 2025

I refer to your letter dated 19 September, 2024 regarding the National Adoption of Amendments to the International Health Regulations as per the provisions of the resolution WHA77.17 and note the following:

On behalf of the Republic of Cyprus I acknowledge receipt of your written notification regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations as adopted through resolution·WHA77.17 on 1 June 2024 at the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly.

I appreciate the commitment of the World Health Organization to strengthening global health security and recognize the importance of timely implementation of the updated International Health Regulations provisions. However, due to the complexity of our national procedures, as this includes a legislative·process, l respectfully request a 12-month extension to the deadline for national adoption of these amendments beyond the current deadline of 19 September 2025. This of additional time will allow us to align our national legislative frameworks and procedures with the revised regulations.

I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

3. FRANCE

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and the international organizations in Switzerland, received on 17 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the World Health Organization at Geneva and has the honor to refer to its circular letter C.L.40.2024 notifying States Parties of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).

In accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3, of the International Health Regulations (2005), this Mission hereby informs Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, that France requires an extension of the period to effect the legal and administrative adjustments necessary for the full implementation of the amendments to the International Health Regulations. In accordance with the Article referred to above, the necessary legal and administrative arrangements will be in place to facilitate the implementation of the amendments by 19 September 2026 at the latest.

The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization at Geneva the renewed assurances of its highest consideration.

(7) Translated from French.

4. HUNGARY

Letter of the Minister of Interior of Hungary, received on 18 July 2025

Following the adoption of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 amendments to the IHR”) by the World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59, the 2024 amendments to the IHR will enter into force on 19 September 2025.

The Government of Hungary reaffirms its strong commitment to the IHR (2005) as a cornerstone of global health security and international cooperation. We recognize the critical role that the IHR (2005) play in strengthening countries’ capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events, thereby ensuring collective preparedness and safeguarding populations worldwide. Its effective implementation is essential for promoting transparency, coordination, and rapid response to health threats across borders. Hungary remains dedicated to supporting the continuous improvement of the IHR and its implementation, both nationally and through collaborative efforts at the regional and global levels.

With this in mind, Hungary has taken a number of steps to prepare for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments to the IHR. However, the incorporation of necessary amendments in our national legislation is a complex legislative process requiring longer time beyond 19 September 2025 in order to ensure the desirable legal consistency with the purpose of ensuring smooth applicability of relevant provisions.

Due to the sharing of competences between the EU and its Member States, the Council Decision “inviting Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) contained in the Annex to Resolution WHA77.17 and adopted on 1 June 2024” was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 26 May 2025. Taking the rules of procedures into account, the remaining time until 19 September 2025 does not permit Hungary to conduct the necessary legislative procedure.

On behalf of the Government of Hungary, and in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR 2005, I hereby declare that the amendments of the relevant Hungarian laws will not be completed by 19 September 2025.

The outstanding adjustments are to complete the review of EU and Hungarian legislation to ensure legislative consistency with the 2024 amendments to the IHR.

Along with this declaration it’s my pleasure to confirm that the Government of Hungary is truly committed to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the 2024 amendments to the IHR by 19 September 2026.

Please accept, Director-General, the assurances of my highest consideration

(8) English translation from Hungarian provided by the Government

5. IRELAND

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 11 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers document C.L.40.2024 received on l 9th September 2024, through which States Parties to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) received notification from the Director-General of amendments thereto.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR, the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations wishes to formally submit a declaration notifying the Director-General of Ireland’s intent to avail of the permissible 12-month period to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements to accommodate the 2024 amendments to the IHR.

The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

6. LATVIA

Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Latvia, received on 16 July 2025

On behalf of the Republic of Latvia, I would like to reaffirm our full support for the International Health Regulations (IHR) and express our commitment to implementing the recent amendments adopted by the World Health Assembly (resolution WHA77.17 (2024)). Latvia has initiated the necessary administrative and legislative procedures to align national laws and regulations with the updated IHR. However, due to the requirement for parliamentary approval of legislative changes, it will not be feasible to complete all necessary adjustments by the deadline of 19 September 2025. Therefore, in accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3 of the IHR, I hereby formally notify the World Health Organization that the following actions may not be finalized by the above-mentioned deadline:

1. An inter-institutional l discussion process is currently underway to identify and appoint the National IHR Authority in Latvia.

2. Following the designation of the relevant Authority, amendments will be required to several national laws and regulatory acts, including:

– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 1050 “Procedure for Implementing Public Health Protection Measures”;

– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 417 “On the International Health Regulations”;

– The Epidemiological Safety Law.

Until the official designation of the National IRR Authority is completed, the State Emergency Medical Service (NMPD) – currently serving as the National IHR Focal Point – will perform the responsibilities of the National IHR Authority.

Once a formal decision is made at the national level, the nomination will be updated accordingly, and the World Health Organization will be promptly informed.

Latvia remains fully committed to the principles and obligations of the IHR and will continue contributing to global effort to safeguard public health and uphold international cooperation. It is our intention to complete all outstanding adjustments by 19 September 2026.

7. MALTA

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to circular letter C.L.40.2024, has the honor to kindly request that Malta be granted an extension under Article 59(3) of the International Health Regulations (2005), as amended in 2024.

This request is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the International Health Regulations, as Government of the Republic of Malta is presently not in a position to fully align its domestic legislative and administrative framework with the requirements set out in the 2024 amendments, within the twelve-month period following their formal notification, which ends on 19 September 2025.

The Government of the Republic of Malta reiterates its strong commitment to the objectives of the Regulations and appreciates the continued support of WHO during the transitional phase.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

8.SOUTH AFRICA

Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of South Africa, received on 19 July 2025

I have the honor to refer to the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through resolution WHA77.17 (2024) (“the 2024 amendments”) and notified to States Parties via circular letter C.L. 40.2024 of 19 September 2024.

South Africa welcomes the 2024 amendments and, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations (2005), submits its declaration to the Director-General, noting the need for outstanding adjustments regarding its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements.

Accordingly, South Africa shall enjoy twelve additional months from the entry into force of the 2024 amendments, that is, until 19 September 2026, to adjust the above-referenced arrangements with the 2024 amendments.

South Africa looks forward to a well-considered and sustainable approach to the implementation of the amended International Health Regulations (2005) in order to advance global public health.

IV. STATEMENTS

1. TÜRKIYE

Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland, received on 14 July 2025

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the Latter’s Note dated 19 September 2024 (Ref.: C.L.40.2024) has the honor to notify the Director-General of the following:

“Türkiye will implement the provisions of the International Health Regulations in accordance with the Convention regarding the regime of the Turkish Straits, signed at Montreux on 20 July 1936, as well as by taking into account Turkish 2019 Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and any future revisions to be made thereto.”

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.

DETAILS: REPEALThePREPAct.com

SIGN THE PETITION: REPEALThePREPAct.ORG

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

New ACIP Board Continues to Advise Children Take Untested Vaccines With Possible Human Gene Contamination That Could Integrate Into DNA


Federal advisory committee fails to inform public about the risks, despite new RFK Jr.-aligned members.

The newly reconstituted CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was supposed to be different.

With several new members aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s mandate for transparency and health freedom, expectations were high that the panel would finally call out the dangers hidden in vaccine development.

Instead, the new board folded.

TurniACIP’s Hollow Move

On Thursday, ACIP voted merely to push back the MMRV shot recommendation to age 4 because of the increased risk of febrile seizures in toddlers.

But the CDC had already admitted back in 2008 that ProQuad (MMRV) increased the risk of febrile seizures in toddlers 12–23 months old, and by 2009 ACIP was discouraging its use as the first dose at 12–15 months.

CDC had already cited studies showing about 4.3 cases per 10,000 doses—roughly double the risk compared to separate MMR and Varivax shots.

Meaning this latest “new” move by ACIP isn’t reform at all, but a belated rehash of mainstream business-as-usual policy that does nothing to protect children, even with so-called health freedom members now on the panel.

The Real Elephant in the Room: Plasmids

Instead of going further—instead of confronting the core problem—the panel stopped short.

They left in place recommendations for children to continue receiving vaccines that could contain plasmid DNA contamination with human gene segments capable of integrating into the human genome, a fact admitted in patents, FDA inserts, and independent lab findings.

MMRV (ProQuad): Recombinant Human Albumin Risk

ProQuad (MMRV) contains recombinant human albumin (rHA), made with a plasmid carrying the human ALB gene that could integrate into the human genome and dysregulate blood and cardiovascular systems (here).

The shot has never been tested for carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, or fertility impairment.

If recombinant human albumin (rHA) gene segments integrated into the human genome—particularly the ALB gene involved in encoding albumin—this could potentially disrupt the regulation of albumin production and its widespread biological functions.

Albumin plays a critical role in multiple physiological systems, especially in blood and cardiovascular homeostasis.

Potential Systems Dysregulated by ALB Gene Integration

  • Blood and Vascular System: Albumin regulates osmotic pressure in the blood vessels, facilitates transport of hormones, fatty acids, and drugs, and has anticoagulant properties by binding antithrombin and inhibiting platelet aggregation. Disruption could cause blood clotting abnormalities, impaired transport functions, and fluid balance issues.
  • Cardiovascular System: Since albumin affects blood volume and pressure regulation, abnormal expression might lead to dysregulated blood pressure, edema, or vascular inflammation.
  • Immune System and Inflammation: Albumin helps regulate inflammatory responses; its disruption could contribute to immune dysregulation, such as vasculitis or hypersensitivity reactions.

Associated Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

The malfunction or dysregulation of albumin expression caused by integration could manifest as SAEs involving these systems, potentially including:

  • Edema (fluid retention and swelling)
  • Thrombocytopenia or other blood clotting disorders
  • Vasculitis (blood vessel inflammation)
  • Anaphylaxis or severe allergic reactions
  • Cardiovascular abnormalities like hypertension or vascular inflammation
  • Immune-mediated conditions affecting blood and vascular health

This aligns with reported SAEs listed in the FDA insert for ProQuad (MMRV), including thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, edema, anaphylaxis, and severe allergic reactions.

The underlying hypothesis is that integration of human ALB gene segments from recombinant albumin plasmids into the genome could disrupt this key protein’s regulation, leading to these blood and cardiovascular disorders.

Thus, the biological systems regulated by albumin—primarily blood volume/osmotic balance, coagulation, transport, and vascular integrity—are the most plausible targets for dysregulation if human albumin gene plasmid fragments integrate into the human genome, and these are reflected in the types of SAEs observed.

ACIP’s Failure

The new ACIP, with new health freedom-minded members recently appointed, was supposed to be a firewall.

Instead, they chose to deliberate over the timing of doses—not the DNA contamination, not the lack of long-term studies, not the risk of permanent genomic integration in children.

This is not reform, but surrender dressed up as oversight.

What the public got was a board that kept the program alive, keeping dangerous products in circulation under the federal Vaccines for Children program, and dodging the real questions.

Bottom Line

ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorff tried to frame the febrile seizure debate as a matter of “trust,” urging the public to listen to scientists who debate openly.

But the committee didn’t debate the elephant in the room: plasmids, human gene contamination, and the utter absence of mutagenesis and carcinogenicity testing.

Both the newly appointed “health freedom” members and the long-standing vaccine loyalists on ACIP now face a test of credibility.

The authority they’ve been given carries a duty to move beyond procedural adjustments and confront deeper safety questions head-on.

That requires openness, genuine debate, and a willingness to subject their recommendations to far greater public scrutiny.

The public did not support changes to ACIP membership simply to see more of the same.

Parents and citizens expected new voices to raise real concerns and to demand stronger safety standards for children.

That expectation remains unmet, and the responsibility for addressing it lies squarely with the current panel.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Counting Backwards, The Deafening Skew Behind America’s Flawed Political Violence Data


Public discourse about political violence in the US is now driven by a single claim, that right‑wing actors commit the lion’s share of attacks. That thesis has migrated from activist reports into journalism and then into official talking points. Yet its footing is weaker than advertised. The proposition depends on datasets with moving definitions and selective scopes. It also depends on a habit of turning non‑political crime into political intent when the offender happens to have the wrong affiliations, while discounting ideologically charged offenses when they flow from left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian causes. When we examine how the numbers are built, we see a pattern. Definitions, inclusion criteria, and coding choices are doing more work than the underlying events.

Begin with first principles. A fair account of political violence must track two simple ideas. First, political motive, not the identity of the offender, is what makes an act political. Second, comparable acts must be counted on comparable terms. If a right‑wing offender’s ordinary bar fight is listed as political because he once shared extremist memes, then a left‑wing offender’s riot‑linked arson must be counted as political when it was plainly undertaken for an ideological purpose. If a database counts propaganda stickers as violent extremism on the right, it must also count left‑wing vandalism of memorials and offices as violent extremism on the left. If a study focuses only on fatal attacks, it must explain why non‑fatal bombings, arsons, beatings, and attempted assassinations, many of them left‑coded, do not count. These are not partisan demands, they flow from basic standards of inference. Like cases should be treated alike.

The most aggressive inflation starts with what gets labeled right‑wing by theme rather than by motive. Some compilers treat any identity‑biased crime as quintessentially right‑wing, even when the offender’s own rhetoric and associates place him in pro‑Palestinian or left‑wing circles. In that frame, antisemitic offenses are assigned to the right by definitional fiat, because the target is a protected group and because the right is said to be the natural home of bigotry. That approach reverses the direction of explanation. We are supposed to infer political ideology from the identity of the victim. The method equates theme with motive and then motive with right‑wing identity. Such reasoning would be rejected in any other empirical domain. It lets preconception fix the labels in advance and it protects the labels from correction when the facts of a case cut the other way.

Next, there is the tactic of counting everything around the right while counting only a narrow set of events on the left. One widely cited stream of reports counts every homicide committed by a person with white‑supremacist interest, including domestic disputes and intra‑gang murders with no political purpose. In the same breath, it excludes left‑wing violence that does not produce a corpse. The result is a double filter, add ordinary crime to one side and subtract ideologically driven, non‑fatal violence from the other. Add enough of the former and subtract enough of the latter and the headline becomes inevitable. The data will perform as designed.

A third move is the curated time window or the one‑off outlier exclusion. In some tallies, a single Islamist megattack that reshaped modern history is removed as exceptional. Removing it reduces the non‑right body count by thousands, which predictably enlarges the relative share of right‑wing violence. The rationale is presented as methodological prudence, but the consequence is political arithmetic. The new denominator makes right‑wing violence look like the dominant fraction by construction. If the goal is to measure danger and reality, there is no justification for erasing the single most consequential terrorist attack in US history. If the goal is to win a talking point, exclusion makes sense.

To see how these three moves work in practice, look closely at a few studies that shape the public conversation. Some academic‑adjacent databases operationalize political violence by category rather than by motive. Identity‑focused offenses are called right‑wing regardless of the offender’s own statements. Trivial or non‑violent acts, such as flyers or stickers, are counted alongside serious violent crimes. Meanwhile, ideologically driven left‑wing violence is discounted when it occurs during riots or in anarchist zones that officialdom preferred to frame as spontaneous unrest or mutual aid. The effect is a spectacular asymmetry. The right swallows even apolitical crime by offenders with the wrong associations. The left sheds political motive in cases where violence was plainly part of a cause. Inferences about national danger are then built on this misaligned scaffolding.

A second cluster of reports focuses on murders by extremists and then treats all killings by a person with extremist ties as extremist killings. Consider what that means. If a white‑supremacist gang member murders his girlfriend in a domestic dispute, the death is credited to right‑wing political violence. The political story gets a data point, but there was no political motive, there was only a crime that would have occurred regardless of ideology. Multiply this across a year and you can generate a lopsided pie chart. Then look at the inverse. Left‑wing attacks that injure, burn, intimidate, and terrorize but that do not result in death are omitted because no one died. The chart does not budge. The public sees the chart. The chart says the right is the problem. The construction of the chart does the work.

A third tranche of analysis focuses on the narrow category of terrorist murders. In one prominent version, only events with at least one fatality are counted. Plots are excluded, foiled attacks are excluded, attempts are excluded, arsons are excluded unless someone dies, riots are excluded unless a specific homicide is tied to political motive defined in a narrow way, and the September 11 attacks are placed in a separate box. In addition, the classification of several offenders as right‑wing is made on loose criteria, sometimes on the presence of racist postings or confused manifestos that do not articulate a political plan. When critics scratched the surface and re‑coded ambiguous cases, the large gap between right and left nearly vanished. Correct a few design choices and the headline dissolves into parity or into a more complex distribution that resists sloganeering.

In any rational inquiry the cure for definitional bias is casework. We must test the rules against particular incidents that the public has been taught to treat as examples of right‑wing political violence. When we do, many do not fit. They are either left‑coded, mixed, or non‑political. They often show untreated mental illness rather than doctrine. They often show radical milieus that have little to do with conservatives. They often show offenders who never voted in a Republican primary, who never donated to Republican candidates, and who told friends they had progressive or anti‑establishment views.

Consider the case of Vance Luther Boelter. He was appointed by a Democratic governor to a state workforce development board. He moved in Democratic circles. When he erupted in murderous violence, he targeted Democratic officials who had voted with Republicans on a specific immigration measure. He did not hunt Republicans. He hunted Democrats who in his view had betrayed a cause. The material recovered from his car included anti‑Trump flyers tied to a coordinated protest theme and other standard progressive paraphernalia. Sympathetic reporting later attempted to rebrand him as a Republican or a marginal Trump voter based on contested claims by acquaintances with obvious motives to sanitize the politics of the incident. The uncontested facts tell a simpler story. This was a politically motivated attack, but it was intra‑Democratic retribution over immigration policy. In any balanced dataset, the incident would count as left‑coded or at least as non‑right. It has instead been recycled as an instance of right‑wing violence because the victims were Democrats. This is definition by target again, not by motive.

Now take David DePape, the attacker in the Paul Pelosi case. The public was assured that he was a specimen of right‑wing rage. That claim folded fast when his history emerged. He was a Canadian national who was living and voting in the United States illegally. He lived for years in a progressive enclave with a left‑coded partner known for street protests and for far‑out radicalism. His home displayed a BLM flag and LGBTQ imagery. He had registered to vote with the Green Party and once cast a Green vote for a socialist candidate. He drifted into conspiracism and apparent psychosis, telling people he thought he was Jesus. None of this suggests a coherent right‑wing identity. It suggests a volatile mixture of mental illness and fringe ideology with leftist antecedents, followed by a paranoid fixation that eventually incorporated anti‑Pelosi fantasies. It is not hard to see why a media ecosystem primed to find a MAGA archetype fastened on that angle. It is harder to explain why serious compilers continue to code this event as right‑wing. If motive and milieu matter, the classification should be mixed or indeterminate at best. If the presence of a partisan target is enough to fix the label, then we are back to definition by victim rather than by motive.

Turn to Cody Allen Balmer, the arsonist who attacked the Pennsylvania governor’s residence. In real time, several commentators and officeholders offered the ritual line, another example of far‑right political violence. The details contradict the script. Balmer described himself as a Marxist. He expressed pro‑Palestinian themes and targeted the governor because he believed that the governor would harm Palestinians. His record shows serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and he had a trail of domestic violence and criminal charges. He never registered as a Republican, never voted in a Republican primary, and there is no record of Republican donations. When precise facts are inconvenient, the narrative retreats to ambiguity. Maybe he had some right‑wing sympathies. Maybe he saw posts on 𝕏. Maybe he was disturbed by current events in a way that aligned with conservative anger. The facts remain. Marxist self‑description, pro‑Palestinian motive, mental illness, and no partisan ties to the GOP. A fair coder would place this event on the left or mark it as non‑right. Yet the incident continues to be invoked in public as evidence for the thesis that right‑wing violence predominates. That is not data, it is branding.

Finally consider Anderson Lee Aldrich, the Club Q shooter. The instant narrative labeled the attack anti‑LGBTQ political violence from the right. The emerging record will not cooperate. Aldrich identified as non‑binary and asked to be addressed as Mx. Aldrich. He frequented Club Q and other gay venues. He never voted Republican, never participated in a GOP primary, and was never a donor to Republican candidates. His life showed serious dysfunction and suicidality, an arrest following threats involving a homemade bomb, and a trail of psychiatric treatment. In the courtroom, the picture was of a disturbed young person with violent fantasies and a warped relationship to identity, not a doctrinaire activist from any organized right‑wing scene. No fair reading of his history yields the conclusion that he was a conservative extremist. The rush to brand him as such flowed from the theme of the attack and the identity of the victims. The method is the same as before. Reverse engineer motive from target, then paint the act with the broadest possible brush.

These four cases are not cherry‑picked. They are prominent illustrations of a wider tendency. Where the facts point left or toward non‑political pathology, coders and commentators still push right. Where left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian attacks are unambiguous, the event is reframed as criminal violence with no ideology or it disappears into the gray spaces of data design. In the aggregate the skew compounds. Trivial propaganda acts inflate counts on the right. Non‑fatal left‑wing attacks are excluded. Ambiguous lone offenders are labeled right‑wing by default. Islamist and eco‑extremist events are minimized by time slicing or by outlier exclusions. Once the machinery is assembled, the conclusion is guaranteed. The right will look like the predominant source of political violence even if the underlying reality is mixed or if the greater share of routinized street violence has flowed from the left.

What would a sound methodology look like. Begin by coding motive, not identity, and require clear evidence for political intent. If the offender cannot articulate a political goal and there is no credible public record of one, do not count the act as political. Next, treat like cases alike. If domestic homicides by extremist affiliates count on one side, count them on both sides, or better, exclude them on both sides unless there is evidence the killing was carried out for political reasons. Third, include serious non‑fatal political violence, including arson, bombings, beatings, and attempted assassinations, and then weight incidents by severity. The public cares about danger, not only about death statistics. Fourth, avoid definitional shortcuts that infer ideology from target identity. Fifth, publish full incident lists with coding rationales so that outside reviewers can audit classifications. If your conclusions depend on hidden spreadsheets and shifting labels, they are not conclusions, they are talking points.

One might object that the exact labels do not matter because the trend is the same no matter how you count. That is false. Labeling shapes resource allocation and legal focus. When the data tell the public that right‑wing violence dwarfs left‑wing or Islamist violence, agencies are pressured to divert attention and funds accordingly. That may be wise in some periods. It is reckless if the numbers were built to sell a narrative rather than to inform about risk. It also warps civic understanding. Citizens begin to see ordinary conservatives as adjacent to violent fringe actors. Speech is chilled. Political engagement is stigmatized. The result is a brittle public square in which statistical fog is used to distress one side of the aisle.

Another objection says that it is unfair to distinguish between violent neo‑Nazis and conservatives because the former draw on a right‑coded tradition. The answer is simple. Fringe racists reject the central principles of modern conservatism and are expelled from mainstream conservative institutions. They are not part of the Republican coalition. They are enemies of it. Counting their apolitical crimes as right‑wing political violence smears millions of citizens by association. It is intellectually lazy and morally corrosive.

A third objection says that Islamist violence and left‑wing violence are red herrings, because the object of current concern is domestic extremism by whites. This reply repeats the selection problem at a higher level. The question is not whether we should ignore white offenders, the question is whether we should ignore other offenders, other ideologies, and other patterns of violence in order to uphold a single storyline. A government that can only see one danger is a government that will miss the next danger.

A final objection is rhetorical rather than empirical. It says that scrutinizing the numbers is an attempt to excuse violence on the right. The response is closure. No one is excusing anything. Violence for political ends is wrong. It should be punished. The claim under review is narrower. We are asking whether the claim of a dominant right‑wing share is supported by neutral counting. When we track motive, when we code like with like, and when we stop converting ordinary crimes into political statements, the dramatic right‑dominance story collapses. What remains is a complex landscape in which left‑wing and Islamist offenders, along with non‑political violent actors, account for a great deal of harm and pressure. The conservative point is not special pleading. It is a request for sobriety and standards.

Returning to the four cases. A Democratic appointee murders Democrats for voting with Republicans on immigration, a left‑coded conspiracist with visible progressive markers attacks the husband of a Democratic leader, a Marxist arsonist targets a Democratic governor over a pro‑Palestinian grievance, and a non‑binary club regular with a history of mental illness commits a mass shooting at a gay venue. None of these fit the template of organized right‑wing political violence. All four have been placed into that template anyway. If that is how the corner cases are handled in public view, imagine how less visible cases are coded. Imagine how many times the label is fixed by target, not by motive. Imagine how many times non‑fatal left‑wing violence is thrown out of scope. The dataset is not a mirror of reality, it is a machine for producing a preferred answer.

The remedy is not to flip the sign and declare that most political violence comes from the left. The remedy is to build an honest ledger. If we do, two conclusions will follow. First, much of what is today labeled right‑wing political violence is either non‑political crime by people with ugly affiliations or it is ambiguous lone‑offender pathology. Second, a large share of ideologically motivated street‑level aggression, from riots to arson to targeted intimidation, has been left‑coded or aligned with left‑wing and pro‑Palestinian causes in recent years, and it has been discounted by the very studies that purport to measure the phenomenon. Those conclusions do not vindicate anyone. They force us to see the shape of the problem without partisan blinders.

This is not an attempt to shock the conscience with graphic anecdotes or to turn data into propaganda. The aim has been clarity. Will stricter definitions and transparent coding erase right‑wing political violence. Not at all. They will do something better. They will put it in its proper proportion alongside left‑wing and Islamist violence and alongside non‑political violent crime. Only then can citizens and officials’ reason about risk without falling for the rhetoric of the spreadsheet. Only then can we protect the republic without sacrificing the truth to the fashion of the moment.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

COVID-19 mRNA Shot Plasmids Contain 3 Human DNA Segments Capable of Integrating Into the Human Genome—Matching 3 Main Post-Vaccine Side Effect Categories

15.September.2025.

Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments regulating blood, immune, and neurological functions—the very systems most often harmed after injection, suggesting the blueprint may cause the injuries.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are built using DNA plasmids.

By definition, plasmids are integration-competent DNA molecules—they are the very tools genetic engineers use when they want to insert new code into a genome.

In other words, plasmids can integrate into human DNA.

Independent labs have confirmed that residual plasmid DNA fragments remain in Pfizer’s finished vaccine vials.

A French government-funded study led by Dr. Didier Raoult (Nov 2024) confirmed that Pfizer’s vaccine contains 5,160 ng of plasmid DNA per dose—516 times higher than the FDA and EMA’s safety limit of 10 ng.

The contamination included sequences from the vaccine’s manufacturing plasmid such as a bacterial origin of replication, a kanamycin resistance gene, and an SV40 initiation factor—a sequence historically linked to oncogenesis (the process of tumor formation or the induction of tumors).

A December 2024 peer-reviewed study in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot contained 227–334% more DNA contamination than WHO limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence, and urged an immediate moratorium on mRNA vaccines.

As the article reveals:

  1. These residual plasmid DNA fragments carry three human genetic sequences.
  2. And the systems those sequences regulate—blood/cardiovascular, immune, and neurological—are exactly the same systems most often injured after the shot.

Meaning the very blueprint Pfizer used to mass-produce its mRNA shot is built from human DNA control codes—and the same biological systems those codes regulate are the ones showing up again and again in the most serious vaccine injuries.

The unavoidable question is whether this overlap is accidental—or whether regulators have ignored the possibility that Pfizer’s plasmid design itself is contributing to the very injuries now dominating the safety signal.

Peer-Reviewed Evidence on Adverse Events

The 2022 Systematic Review

A 2022 systematic review published in Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine synthesized 74 published studies on COVID-19 mRNA vaccine adverse events.

Severe AEs were classified into five groups: cardiac, allergic/immune, neurological, pregnant, and immunocompromised.

Among these, the majority of serious AEs were cardiac, immune, and neurological.

The review concluded: “Most of the reported severe adverse events were related to cardiac events,” and emphasized that allergic/immune and neurological complications also dominated the literature.

The 2024 Review

A 2024 review in Pharmacology Research & Perspectives confirmed the same pattern.

It found that the main serious adverse events reported after COVID-19 vaccination were:

  • Cardiac: myocarditis, pericarditis, tachyarrhythmias, clotting disorders—with highest risk after Pfizer in young men.
  • Immune/allergic: anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, immune dysregulation linked to lipid nanoparticles and PEG.
  • Neurological: Guillain–Barré Syndrome, Bell’s palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, seizures, neuroinflammation.

The authors stressed these three categories as the primary clusters of serious outcomes in both clinical and post-marketing data.

What’s Inside Pfizer’s Plasmid

Pfizer’s vaccine is produced from a DNA plasmid template.

That plasmid doesn’t just contain bacterial sequences.

It carries human untranslated regions (UTRs) said to be chosen to stabilize the synthetic RNA and make it behave like a high-output human transcript.

These include:

  • α-globin 5′UTR (blood/cardiovascular): In native biology, the 3′UTR of α-globin is the canonical stabilizer of mRNA during red blood cell development. But researchers have shown that the α-globin 5′UTR can be repurposed in synthetic constructs to boost translation efficiency in mammalian cells. In either case, the sequence is drawn from human blood biology, tying the plasmid design to the cardiovascular system — the single strongest AE signal.
  • AES/TLE5 3′UTR fragment (immune system): The AES/TLE5 gene family encodes transcriptional co-repressors involved in various developmental and signaling pathways, including immune functions. Its 3′UTR fragment was selected in mRNA engineering screens for its ability to extend RNA half-life and increase protein yield. By making spike RNA persist longer and produce more antigen inside antigen-presenting cells, this sequence indirectly drives heightened immune activation. That aligns directly with the allergic/immune AE category flagged in safety reviews.
  • MT-RNR1 fragment (neurological): MT-RNR1 encodes the mitochondrial 12S rRNA, essential for mitochondrial protein synthesis. Variants in MT-RNR1 are linked to hearing loss, drug-induced ototoxicity, and neurological mitochondrial syndromes. While MT-RNR1 is not an mRNA and lacks a natural 3′UTR, researchers have repurposed fragments of it in synthetic mRNA technology as stabilizers to enhance RNA persistence and translation. Its inclusion in Pfizer’s plasmid therefore borrows from a gene with direct neurological relevance, aligning with the neurological AE category consistently documented after vaccination.

The presence of these three human genetic sequences is confirmed in an October 2023 Nature npj Vaccines publication:

“Pfizer-BioNTech’s 5′ UTR sequence is derived from the human hemoglobin α-globin (HBA1) gene, an efficient expressor… For the 3′ UTR, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine combines one segment from a human mRNA encoding amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES) and another from mitochondrial 12 S rRNA (mtRNR1).”

This means it is not speculation—Pfizer’s own blueprint borrows directly from human blood, immune, and neurological genes.

And these happen to be the very systems most often injured in patients.

By their nature, these fragments are regulatory code.

If plasmid DNA fragments enter the nucleus of human cells, they are integration-competent and capable of altering gene regulation.

That means the very systems from which these sequences were borrowed—blood, immune, and neurological—could be dysregulated.

The Overlap No One Wants to Talk About

  • Adverse events: Independent reviews in 2022 and 2024 both concluded that the dominant serious side effects after Pfizer’s mRNA shot are cardiac, immune, and neurological.
  • Plasmid design: Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments that regulate blood, immune, and neurological systems.
  • Plasmid nature: By definition, plasmids are capable of genomic integration.

This isn’t coincidence.

It’s alignment.

The design choices in Pfizer’s plasmid template mirror the very domains where the worst vaccine injuries concentrate.

Evidence of Plasmid DNA Integration

Independent researchers have already presented evidence that vaccine-derived plasmid DNA can integrate into human cells.

  • Nature Scientific Reports Study (2023): A peer-reviewed paper demonstrated that when linear DNA fragments were introduced into human cells, between 1–10% of the transiently transfected cells became stably transfected, and in some constructs integration reached 10–20%. Junction sequencing confirmed the foreign DNA had been incorporated into the host genome. The authors concluded: “All of the forms of linear DNA resulted in a high fraction of the cells being stably transfected—between 10 and 20% of the initially transfected cells”
  • Kevin McKernan’s Study (2024): In February 2024, McKernan and colleagues published a preprint showing that plasmid DNA from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) integrated into the genome of human ovarian cancer cell lines (OVCAR3) in vitro. Using qPCR and DNA sequencing, they detected plasmid-specific sequences—including the spike gene and SV40 cancer promoter (yes, that’s in the plasmids, too)—persisting in the genomic DNA of exposed cells, indicating integration. Importantly, this was shown in a cancer cell line, not normal human cells, and there is no direct in vivo evidence in humans. The study demonstrates integration in this controlled lab model but does not prove it occurs in vaccinated people.
  • Phillip Buckhaults’ Findings (2024). McKernan’s warning was later echoed by Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, a cancer genomics expert at the University of South Carolina. In November 2024, Buckhaults presented results from normal human epithelial stem cells (colon organoids) exposed to mRNA vaccines. Using qPCR, his lab detected persistent plasmid DNA sequences—including the spike gene, SV40 promoter, and NeoKanR gene—in the genomic DNA of these cells one month later. This evidence of integration in non-cancerous cells addressed the main criticism of McKernan’s earlier study.
  • Intracellular Reverse Transcription Study (2022). A peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Genetics and DNA Research found that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) was reverse transcribed into DNA inside human liver cells (Huh7) within 6–48 hours of exposure. This study was said to deal with the vaccine’s mRNA component rather than plasmid contamination, but it reinforces the principle that nucleic acid from the shot can be copied into DNA inside human cells—complementing the plasmid integration evidence reported later.
  • Mechanistic Review on Genome Integration (2022). A review in the Journal of Neurological Disorders (Kyriakopoulos, McCullough, Nigh, Seneff) outlined plausible pathways for mRNA vaccine sequences to integrate into the human genome, citing LINE-1 retrotransposons and polymerase θ as mediators. The authors noted that spike-induced DNA damage and engineered mRNA stability (via methylpseudouridine and long poly(A) tails) may increase the likelihood of integration during DNA repair. While not experimental proof, the review concluded that genome interference by vaccine mRNA is “more than a theoretical possibility.”

Together, these findings underscore that integration is not just a hypothetical risk.

Published studies and independent genomic analyses now show plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can, under certain conditions, insert into human DNA.

Bottom Line

This is not claiming causation.

What it is showing is an investigative match:

  • Three human DNA sequences in the plasmid → blood, immune, neurological regulation.
  • Two independent peer-reviewed reviews (2022, 2024) → cardiac, immune, neurological injuries are the main serious AEs.

When the blueprint and the outcome line up this closely, the question is not whether the overlap exists.

It does.

The question is why no regulator has demanded a forensic accounting of whether integration of these human DNA fragments is occurring in patients—and whether this design is partly responsible for the most serious injuries tied to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

And we don’t even know the full picture—because Pfizer has never publicly disclosed the complete plasmid sequence, leaving unanswered what other genetic elements may have been built into the blueprint.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

U.S. and South Korean Scientists Lab-Engineer Frankenstein Bird Flu Viruses in Georgia: Journal ‘Virology’

14.September.2025.

Georgia State University is creating pandemic-capable mutant avian influenza pathogens with NIH funding.

This month, the journal Virology published a study confirming that U.S. researchers at Georgia State University and South Korean collaborators from Jeju National University and Sungshin Women’s University are using reverse genetics to create chimeric H5N1 “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant AI154656.

Researchers combined purported highly pathogenic avian influenza genes with a laboratory H1N1 backbone.

This is not happening in isolation.

It’s unfolding amid international “pandemic preparedness” efforts, where the creation of dangerous bird flu pathogens goes hand-in-hand with the rollout of vaccines as the supposed solution, which no mainstream or non-mainstream sources are warning about—except this website.

It follows the same playbook as COVID-19, which multiple U.S. agencies have said most likely came from a lab incident.

The new bird flu pathogen creation comes as the United Nations has staged its first-ever global bird flu summit, mobilizing 500 officials and scientists to coordinate “control strategies,” surveillance, and vaccination campaigns—confirming that the very governments engineering these Frankenstein viruses are simultaneously organizing the policies and vaccines that will follow.Subscribe

Building Hybrid Pathogens

The paper openly admits to constructing synthetic flu viruses:

“Reverse genetically engineered reassortant H5N1 influenza viruses were generated using hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase genes derived from either A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (Vietnam rgH5N1) or A/Indonesia/05/2005 (Indonesia rgH5N1), with the remaining seven gene segments derived from A/PR/8/34 (H1N1).”

In plain terms: they spliced bird flu proteins from Asian outbreaks onto a lab H1N1 backbone.

That’s a lab-born hybrid that doesn’t exist in nature.

The very definition of engineered pathogen creation.

Inflammatory Collapse

The experiments revealed catastrophic immune reactions:

“Vaccinated AG129 mice demonstrated significantly higher levels of IL-6, IL-1β, the regulatory cytokine IL-10, and the neutrophil-attracting chemokine KC (CXCL-1) compared to vaccinated A129 mice.”

This translates to runaway lung inflammation—a cytokine storm–like collapse that mirrors the reportedly lethal immune overactivation seen in severe flu and COVID cases.

The Authors

Here are all of the authors, some also holding affiliations in South Korea:

  • Ki-Hye Kim
  • Hye Suk Hwang
  • Youri Lee
  • Yu-Jin Jung
  • Eun-Ju Ko
  • Jae Min Song
  • Sang-Moo Kang.

But all of them are affiliated with Georgia State University in Atlanta, which you can contact here.

Bottom Line

The paper proves two damning facts:

  1. Engineered bird flu hybrids were built in a U.S. lab with help from South Korea, using reverse genetics.
  2. These constructs triggered lethal inflammatory outcomes when combined with vaccination.

This is not preparation, but orchestration.

It’s the same pattern we saw before the COVID-19 pandemic, now being repeated with bird flu.

This isn’t isolated “basic science.”

It’s a pipeline: build dangerous pathogens, then promote vaccines as the “solution.”

The COVID-19 pandemic was said to have been caused by this very thing.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

And NOW’S The Time To Impose The January 6 Rules


The criminalization of free speech and support for cancel culture for everyone–from President Trump down to his voters–related to Jan 6 established new rules. Now, it’s time to follow them.

Let’s just simply call them the “January 6 Rules.”

Apparently, in some attempted “gotcha” effort, social media influencers on the Left are calling out MAGA’s purported ideological pivot following the vile response by many on their side to the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week. Kirk’s legion of admirers is publicly identifying individuals—many of whom unsurprisingly work in the education system—cheering Kirk’s murder online. Several have been fired including perpetual head case Matthew Dowd at MSNBC.

But it is MAGA’s crusade to “cancel” those haters and not the expression of hate itself necessarily, causing performative pearl-clutching on the Left. What happened to the conservatives’ defense of unfettered free speech and rejection of ‘cancel culture’, professional posters such as Michael Tracey that ask online below?

Well, to Tracey and his ilk, allow me to answer: January 6, 2021.

Immediately following the media’s crowning of Joe Biden as president, the Left insisted any talk of voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election represented “the Big Lie,” a term first used by Adolf Hitler; subsequently, everyone including President Trump who openly doubted the outcome of the election was branded a nazi.

After a four-hour protest on January 6, the Left claimed President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that morning had “incited” a mob that attempted to overthrow democracy—while of course conveniently omitting the “peacefully and patriotically” part of the address. The Democratic-led House of Representatives impeached the president a week later for “incitement of insurrection” despite the fact that absolutely no “insurrection” nor “incitement” occurred.

Trump, along with hundreds of thousands of his supporters, were deplatformed by social media titans. Amazon Web Services also shuttered Parler, at the time considered the conservative alternative to Twitter.

When Joe Biden took power, his Department of Justice immediately opened a criminal investigation into the president based not just on his words and actions but also those of his aides and voters. Every Trump associate from his closest advisors to former Vice President Michael Pence were hauled before a grand jury in Washington and forced to disclose details of private conversations with the president. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro went to jail for refusing to cooperate with the Biden DOJ’s counterpart in Congress, the January 6 Select Committee.

Top DOJ official Jeffrey Clark was named a co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related indictment for writing a letter that was perfectly legal and never sent. (The attempted cancellation of Clark is still underway at the D.C. Bar.) Well-funded nonprofits working with Democratic officials sought to disbar attorneys who had worked on election-related lawsuits for the president.

Dozens of Trump advisors were indicted in other states for organizing and sending alternate slates of electors for January 6, a common act of political protest that a top National Archives official later confirmed happens every four years.

An Arrest Per Day for Political Speech

During the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history—a factoid Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray often bragged about—the feds arrested an average of at least one Jan 6 protester per day. Investigators, with the voluntary help of Big Tech, retrieved deleted social media accounts including private messages to look for anything that could be considered evidence of incriminating behavior. In many cases, memes mocking Democrats or questioning the 2020 election were included in arrest warrants even for nonviolent misdemeanants.

At trial, J6 prosecutors claimed that any reference to the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution, and the Declaration of Independence in private group chats was proof of wrongdoing. Even repeating or posting the words of Thomas Jefferson—”the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”—meant that the particular J6er wanted war and was entitled to imprisonment, according to the Biden DOJ.

Government witnesses including Capitol police officers routinely explained to Trump-hating D.C. jurors that the simple act of carrying an American flag inside of what used to be considered the “People’s House” and chanting “USA, USA!” was a crime.

The list goes on and on. But there is no question that the J6 prosecution of President Trump, his allies, and his voters represented the government’s gravest attack on free speech in U.S. history.

And that was only part of the torment endured by J6ers. Branded as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists” by everyone from Joe Biden down to the local yokel newspaper reporter in every town while J6ers were cancelled en masse by society. Most were immediately fired. Private companies stripped J6ers of their service; DoorDash, AirBnB, Lyft, and Uber were just a few that cancelled the accounts of J6ers, even those charged with petty offenses. Major financial institutions cancelled mortgages, credit cards, and banking accounts.

Those impacts continue to this day while many J6ers still struggle to find employment and put their lives back together.

So yes, Michael Tracey, things have changed. For four years, your side promoted the criminalization of free speech and endorsed cancel culture all in the name of the “Big Lie” and the “insurrection.” The Biden regime and the media used January 6 to try to cancel President Trump and the entire MAGA movement.

It didn’t work—and neither will the guilt-tripping about so-called abandoned principles, so go crawl back into your hole, sit down on the high stool facing the corner walls with your tall dunce cap on and just shut the hell up now already Michael Tracey.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

A Praise of Discord. Polarization Plunges Us All into Hell. Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Is a Perfect Example. Folks Who Won’t Speak to You Because You are Not COVID-Jabbed are Too.

11.September.2025.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk appears at Utah Valley University in Orem on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025.

Charlie Kirk is dead. He was a father, son, husband, citizen, speaker, pundit, commentator.

Social Engineering has taught us it is fine to demonize anyone, ANYONE, who disagrees with us. Disagree strongly enough and it’s OK to kill them. The cure? Encourage vigorous discord as a social good.

Here is Charlie’s audience just before he was assassinated:

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk appears at Utah Valley University in Orem on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025.

He was being listened to by a throng of students who wanted to hear, challenge, interact with, debate, agree with, contend with, uphold what he had to say. But someone thought that they had the right (maybe they thought they had the duty) to protect people from whatever it was that he hated in what Charlie had to say.

Charlie Kirk was not shot because he was a father, son, husband, citizen. He was shot because he dared to say something that another person disagreed with. He was shot because some loon with a gun in his hand (and I am a firm upholder of the second amendment – the gun could just as well have been a cross bow or a sling shot) believed that his disagreement is the same as a justly delivered death sentence, issued by the Lord God Jehova or a Court of Comepetent Jurisdiction or the little green men from Mars who have been giving him directions since he was 12 and wanted to masturbate. It does not matter what the rationale he gives himself might be. The fact is that this particular loon has been intentionally engineered as the rest of us have been: we have been falsely led to believe that differing with us is the same as threatening us, that coming to different conclusions from the same or a similar set of facts (or beliefs or prejudices or fears or illusions) is a social crime for which any punishment is justified. That punishment can be social iosolation (shunning, excommunication, banishment, etc.), imprisonment, or, as in this case, execution by firing squad [of one].

Your husband/wife/son/daughter/mother/father/pediatrician/neighbor/boss/landlord/taxi driver took the jab and you didn’t? Then it makes sense to them, previously loving and compassionate, to cut you out of their life or shun you, call for your imprisonment or never let you darken their doorstep again. Or maybe it makes sense to kill you. It did to the Utah loon who executed Charlie Kirk.

We have been falsely led to believe that whatever offends us is automatically wrong. Whatever is wrong is automatically unscientific or unsupported by facts. Whatever is unscientific or unsupported by facts is automatically bad. Whatever is automatically bad must be silenced. Whatever must be silenced is our right to silence., Whatever is our right to silence can, may, must and should be sileneced by any means since it is to the mythical and elusive “greater good” to silence that which is bad and that, since we are serving the greater good in some way, the ends automatically justify the means.

Paul Alexander writes a substack in which he regularly 1. supports Donald J. Trump, excusing anything he does which is bad (such as Operation Warp Speed and the mRNA bioweapons) as mistakes that other people lied and misled him in to doing and supporting and 2. rales against people who commit vile acts against others who happen to also be Muslim and illegal immigrants. He regularly calls for them to be executed without a jury trial or any other due process. We have, he says, the video surveillance footage that shows the guy on the Light Rail in Charlotte, NC, plunging a knife repeatedly into the body of a nearby woman and continuing until he has killed her. Then he mutters that he got the White girl. String him up, Paul says, hang him high. Kill the feral beast without a trial or a judge. Just kill him.

Well, Paul, that is precisely the reasoning that the Utah loon used to kill Charlie Kirk, who was also the innocent victim: Hang him high. Just kill him.

And you, Paul, and those like you who believe that the very real and perfectly justified outrage we feel when violence and wrong erupts authorizes us to become savage beasts of equal lawlessness and brutality. You seem to adhere to the notion that law and justice are only for the easy times, the simple times, the low-emotion times, that once our ire is raised, we are justified in anything we want to do, but because it is us, not them, doing that “anything”, somehow that is just fine. Somehow that is even virtuous because we justified our brutality by the metric of our passion.

Bullshit.

The path back to some sort of civil society is not to call for more murder because murder was committed unless you are the top dog in a dog eat dog, eye for an eye world. And if you are, I am buying a ticket on the first transportation out because that is not a world in which I want to live. Enjoy your brutal cave world, Brother. I’ll opt for regularly applied, fair handed and predictable justice, thank you ever so much.

The way back requires us to call for more justice because murder was committed not less justice because murder was committed. I used to be opposed to the death penalty. But I have lived through decades in which the magnitude of Crimes Against Humanity past and those in the works are monstrous enough for me to have abandoned that stance. I now believe firmly in a real trial and a death penalty, executed [sic] publicly and with world-wide dissemination for the grand masters of grand crime. I believe that there are cases where real justice may well call for execution.

But we cannot have a just and civil society without a welcome attitude to discord, to disagreement, to difficult conversations.

No one ever died from listening to the other side of a conversation that you do not want to listen to.

When conversations are difficult and emotions are running high, certainty is evident (on both sides) and the points of view are apparently irreconcilable, the continuation of a sane society (or the acheivement of that lofty goal) can only be attained by re-engaging, often after some time to cool off, in fact, usually from a different angle or at a different level of abstraction or engagement.

Civil society cannot be built when disagreement means you whip out your hand gun and I whip out mine and we have a shoot ‘em out at the OK Corral to prove whose point was best fitted for survival. The Utah loon is insane (or government mind-controlled, which would put him in much the same category). It is even more importantly to call for the rational welcome of, not destruction of, discord, real, solid, tough, tangledly messy and difficult discord.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

U.N. Stages First-Ever ‘Global Dialogue’ for Bird Flu, Mobilizes 500 International ‘Experts and Decision-Makers’ for Pandemic Coordination


Prioritizing “control strategies” for backyard poultry systems, early warning systems, vaccination strategies, and biosecurity measures.

In another unprecedented instance of worldwide bird flu pandemic coordination, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has mobilized “around 500 experts and decision-makers to galvanize multisectoral collaboration and investment” at a three-day meeting in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

The FAO’s latest move comes as scientists in Brazil’s Butantan Institute recently engineered never-before-seen H5 bird flu pathogens using reverse genetics—chimeric lab-built viruses that never existed in nature, created under the banner of “pandemic vaccine preparedness.”

Led by Secretary-General António Guterres of Portugal, the United Nations is a highly influential body that can shape international laws, economies, and policies, as many critics view its push for centralized global governance as a dangerous step toward eroding national sovereignty.

The U.N. exploited its unprecedented power during the COVID-19 pandemic by endorsing harsh emergency measures that led to widespread human rights abuses, including repression, censorship, and excessive force against vulnerable populations under the guise of crisis control.

As this website has exclusively been reporting, Brazil, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, and several countries in Europe are all coordinating bird flu gain-of-function research, reverse-genetics experiments, and vaccine development.

Together, these developments show a coordinated global apparatus in which the same governments engineering new bird flu pathogens are simultaneously assembling under the U.N. to dictate the vaccines and policies that will follow.

Unprecedented International Bird Flu Mobilization

For the first time in history, the United Nations has staged a worldwide bird flu summit, bringing together hundreds of handpicked government officials, scientists, corporate executives, and bureaucrats in one room to coordinate pandemic policy.

Just like they did before the COVID-19 outbreak with the infamous “Event 201” exercise, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

This is unprecedented.

The U.N. has never before convened this level of global multisectoral coordination on avian influenza.

But it confirms my warning that governments and global institutions aren’t just preparing for pandemics—they’re actively building the infrastructure for them.

While the U.S. is telling the public that it’s about “protecting food security” and “backyard poultry systems,” the deeper reality is clear: the very same governments funding bird flu gain-of-function, reverse genetics, and Frankenstein chimera experiments are now organizing the response framework—and pre-positioning vaccines as the solution.

‘Surveillance, Biosecurity, and Vaccination’

This is pandemic planning.

Beth Bechdol, FAO Deputy Director-General, declared: “Failure is not an option.”

What she did not say is that many of the “solutions” already on the table are vaccine campaigns waiting to be rolled out, designed in lockstep with the engineered crisis itself.

The official agenda is revealing:

  • Targeting backyard poultry systems in low-income countries
  • Building global early warning systems for outbreak detection
  • Expanding vaccination strategies as central to control
  • Hardening biosecurity measures across poultry operations
  • Integrating animal and human health policy under the U.N.’s “One Health” framework
  • Locking in surveillance tools for rapid outbreak response.

Brazil’s Agriculture Minister Carlos Favaro praised his country’s “swift and effective response” to bird flu detection earlier this year, framing it as proof of a “credible sanitary system.”

FAO’s Chief Veterinarian Thanawat Tiensin doubled down on the vaccine-surveillance model, saying: “Improved surveillance, biosecurity, and vaccination when appropriate… are keys to controlling this disease.”

Bottom Line

This was not just another conference.

The U.N. has openly staged a first-of-its-kind global command center for bird flu, aligning governments, corporations, and scientists under one pandemic framework.

While labs around the world continue to manufacture the threat through reckless genetic engineering, the U.N. is setting the stage for mass-coordinated countermeasures—vaccines and surveillance systems—before the next intentional or accidental outbreak even begins.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Senator Ron Johnson Exposes Stanford Doctor’s Ignorance on COVID Shot Science (Watch Video)

10.September.2025.

Yesterday, during a Senate hearing on “How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) left Stanford University infectious disease doctor Jake Scott speechless.

Stanford University issued several official announcements and memos both recommending and at times requiring the COVID-19 vaccine, especially during the early stages and throughout the pandemic, later transitioning to strong recommendations.

The university even required COVID vaccination for all undergraduate, graduate, and professional students planning to enroll in the 2021-22 academic year, with a deadline to be vaccinated and submit proof by July 23, 2021, for undergraduates and July 30, 2021, for graduate and professional students.

Enrollment holds were placed on students who did not meet the requirement or deadline, preventing them from registering for classes.

Senator Johnson’s exchange revealed just how little the so-called “experts” really know about the COVID-19 mRNA shots.

The Illusion of Knowledge

MAHA Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Aseem Malhotra has warned about the “illusion of knowledge” in modern medicine—where doctors appear informed but actually repeat talking points without understanding the underlying science.

Sen. Johnson’s questioning of Dr. Scott put that illusion on full display.

Modified mRNA vs. Natural mRNA

Johnson began by asking whether the mRNA inside the COVID shots is “true mRNA.”

Scott confidently claimed it was and that it degraded quickly, just like natural mRNA.

Johnson corrected him on the spot:

“No, it does not. It’s modified mRNA, and it’s designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body. We don’t know how long.”

Scott was caught flat-footed.

He didn’t seem to know one of the most basic facts about how these shots were engineered.

Lipid Nanoparticles Travel the Whole Body

Johnson pressed further, asking if Scott realized lipid nanoparticles were designed to cross even the toughest biological barriers—like the blood-brain barrier and the placenta.

He reminded Scott of the Japanese biodistribution study showing vaccine components accumulating in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Scott’s defense crumbled.

He said the injections stayed “primarily” in the arm, echoing Anthony Fauci’s false assurance.

Johnson pounced:

“The designers knew… it biodistributed all over the body, but our CDC, Anthony Fauci said it was going to stick in the arm.”

How the Shots Work — and Why They’re Dangerous

Johnson then schooled Scott on the core mechanism of the mRNA shots:

“It’s messenger RNA, modified RNA, encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle that distributes all over the body… it unloads its mRNA into the cell, and it turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it.”

He connected this to myocarditis: spike proteins turning heart cells into factories that trigger inflammation.

DNA Plasmid Contamination

The senator wasn’t done.

He confronted Scott with findings from Dr. Kevin McKernan’s peer-reviewed study showing Pfizer’s shots are contaminated with plasmid DNA at 36 to 627 times higher than the FDA’s legal safety limit.

Johnson asked if Scott knew the regulatory threshold was 10 nanograms per dose.

Scott admitted he didn’t.

Johnson asked, “Does that concern you?” before pointing out that the shots in fact did not save millions of lives, as the mainstream often falsely claims.

Watch the exchange below, posted by @_aussie17 on Twitter/X:

Bottom Line

This five-minute exchange proved the point Senator Johnson has been making for years: the medical establishment is peddling a product they don’t even understand.

A Stanford doctor defending the shots couldn’t answer basic questions about how the technology works, where it travels in the body, or how badly it exceeds contamination limits.

The “illusion of knowledge” is alive and well in American medicine—and it took one senator, not a scientist, to pull back the curtain.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

USAID and Soros-Backed NGO Sparked Nepal’s Youth Revolution. Other Countries Including The US Would Be Wise To Take Heed.


The fall of Nepal’s government this month was not the sudden consequence of youthful anger alone. It was the inevitable result of years of corruption funded and facilitated by US tax dollars, laundered through USAID, and carried out by its chosen consultants like Deloitte and its NGO partners such as the Soros-backed Niti Foundation. What was marketed to the Nepali people as democratic strengthening was in reality a hollow project of manipulation, siphoning money into the hands of politically connected elites while corroding every institution it claimed to support. The irony is inescapable. The very programs meant to build democracy hastened its collapse.

President Donald Trump put it bluntly when he called the USAID deals “completely corrupt and a fraud.” His instincts were correct. USAID promised tens of millions to implement federalism and biodiversity projects, yet much of this aid was hidden from oversight and funneled through channels designed to avoid accountability. Deloitte and Niti Foundation embedded themselves in the machinery of government, not to strengthen transparency but to bend it toward their own designs. Instead of robust institutions, Nepal received shadow agreements, compromised officials, and a rising tide of cynicism. When the money dried up, and when CIA-linked influence waned, the hollow edifice collapsed. The result was the youth-driven “Nepo Kids” uprising.

The immediate spark came from social media. Videos on TikTok and posts on 𝕏 exposed the lavish lifestyles of Nepal’s political elite, particularly their children. These “Nepo Kids” flaunted luxury cars and foreign vacations in a country where per capita income is barely $1,400. The contrast was explosive. Ordinary Nepalis, already aware of corruption, now saw it mocked before their eyes in real time. Hashtags amplified their outrage. For a generation raised on smartphones, this became not only political evidence but also a call to arms.Subscribe

The government responded with the arrogance of authoritarians. In a move that reeked of desperation, it ordered social media platforms to register under new censorship rules and, when they refused, it shut them down entirely. Facebook, 𝕏, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp, even LinkedIn went dark. Rather than suppress anger, the blackout ignited it. Students poured into the streets. The so-called “Gen Z protests” quickly transformed from rallies against censorship into an all-out uprising against an entire political order. Once police violence escalated, the protests turned into revolution.

Yet to understand why the protests had such force, one must look deeper at the corruption exposed months earlier. Investigative reporting revealed that USAID had secretly funneled $33 million into federalism projects through irregular agreements signed by the Finance Ministry without constitutional approval. USAID’s chosen partner was the Niti Foundation, an NGO seeded with money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Niti operatives, presented as “consultants,” were embedded in government offices, quietly shaping policy with foreign influence. Officials who should have resisted these intrusions were compromised by conflicts of interest, as in the case of Balananda Poudel, who both chaired a constitutional commission and had ties to Niti.

When whistleblowers revealed these entanglements, the government tried to deny everything. The Ministry of Finance claimed no USAID money had gone to federalism. That lie was exposed by its own officials, who showed that hundreds of municipalities had already received US-funded support. Documents surfaced proving the secret agreements, the involvement of Deloitte as contractor, and the bypassing of Nepal’s constitutional bodies. The scandal was devastating. To young Nepalis, it confirmed what the “Nepo Kids” images dramatized: their leaders were liars who treated the nation as spoils for themselves and their foreign patrons.

The ruling coalition led by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli presented itself as Marxist-Leninist, committed to equality. In practice, it was a corrupt patronage machine. This is why the uprising was not merely a flash in the pan. It was the reaction of a generation that had been told socialism would bring justice, only to watch foreign aid turn into a vehicle for nepotism. The “people’s government” became the face of hypocrisy, living in palaces, silencing dissent, and taking secret checks from abroad.

The violence of September 2025 was the climax. Protesters torched parliament, stormed party headquarters, and burned the homes of senior officials. Police gunfire killed nearly 20 demonstrators. The army imposed curfews, but the state had already lost legitimacy. Oli resigned. His ministers fled. The old order fell apart in smoke and flames.

The truth is that this outcome was set in motion long before. When USAID, Deloitte, and Niti Foundation decided that bypassing democratic oversight was acceptable, they planted the seeds of collapse. When US tax dollars were diverted to corrupt officials under the guise of “federalism,” they undermined the very democracy they claimed to promote. And when Soros-linked NGOs embedded themselves inside Nepal’s institutions, they guaranteed that Nepal’s people would one day rise against both their own leaders and the foreign patrons who enabled them.

This is the great irony. USAID and its allies claimed to be building democracy. Instead, they built resentment. They claimed to empower institutions. Instead, they hollowed them out. They claimed to promote transparency. Instead, they trafficked in secrecy. And when the reckoning came, it was not just the communist regime that fell. It was the credibility of the entire development model pushed by Washington and Brussels for decades.

In the digital age, the people do not need permission to see corruption. They only need a smartphone and the courage to share what they see. The Nepo Kids campaign was not orchestrated by a think tank or funded by a donor. It was organic outrage. The more the state tried to censor it, the more it spread. When US aid was revealed to be part of the rot, the protests gained moral clarity. This was not simply about ending censorship or bringing down one government. It was about rejecting a system where elites and foreign agents treat an entire country as their playground.

Critics may ask, is this not simply another chaotic uprising in a troubled country? No. What made this revolt unique was the convergence of corruption, censorship, and foreign interference, all exposed simultaneously. Without the USAID scandal, the Nepo Kids campaign might have been a passing viral story. Without the censorship, protests might have remained online. But with all three aligned, the outcome was revolution.

The lesson for the US is sobering. When our aid is co-opted by globalist contractors and NGOs, it ceases to be help and becomes poison. When we lecture others about democracy while hiding the strings we pull, we destroy our credibility. And when we fund corruption abroad, we betray not only foreign citizens but also American taxpayers who never consented to bankroll foreign elites.

The lesson for Nepal is equally stark. Foreign-funded democracy projects do not guarantee liberty. They can erode sovereignty. Real reform comes not from secret deals but from the will of the people. In September 2025, that will was made manifest in the flames of parliament and in the resignation of a prime minister who thought censorship could save him.

The Nepo Kids revolution was a rejection of corruption, nepotism, and foreign manipulation disguised as aid. It was also a warning. Other nations facing similar entanglements should take heed. When democracy is hollowed out by those claiming to build it, the eventual backlash will not be polite. It will be revolutionary.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

China Lab Engineers Two New Bird Flu Constructs: One Binds to Host Cells 64x Stronger, the Other Is 100% Lethal in Mammals

8.September.2025.

Chinese scientists use reverse genetics to build Frankenstein H5N1/H1N1 hybrids inside government-run labs.

In a new study published last month in the journal Virology, Chinese government-linked scientists at the Changchun Institute of Biological Products (Sinopharm) say they have engineered two new H5N1 influenza constructs: a virus-like particle (VLP) that binds to host cells 64 times stronger than controls, and a recombinant chimera virus that killed 100% of mammals (mice) in challenge tests.

In plain terms, China’s Sinopharm lab built one bird flu construct that grabs onto cells 64 times harder, and another that wiped out every single mammal it infected.

The creation of these brand-new viral constructs comes after Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA acknowledged that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19, raising concerns that ongoing government experiments like these could trigger another deadly pandemic.

High-risk bird flu experiments are being conducted all over the world as governments invest billions of dollars into bird flu pandemic measures—and no one’s talking about it.Subscribe

Who Did the Work

The study’s lead author is Yongbo Qiao from the Changchun Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd, Changchun, China, under the State Key Laboratory of Novel Vaccines for Emerging Infectious Diseases, China National Biotec Group Company Limited (Sinopharm), Beijing, China.

Other contributors include Mengru Tang, Mo Du, Chen Zhao, Yuan Lv, Junjun Zhou, Ying Liu, Yutian Wang, Shuang Li, and Yehong Wu.

Construct 1: Virus-Like Particles (VLPs)—64x Stronger Binding

The authors describe how their engineered VLPs displayed dramatically enhanced binding to host cells:

“Functional analysis through hemagglutination assays demonstrated superior RBC binding capacity of HA-VLPs, exhibiting 64-fold higher titers (1:512) compared to HA-Mono (1:8) and HA-T4 (1:32).”

These virus-like particles, built from H5N1 hemagglutinin (HA) and H1N1 matrix protein (M1), bound 64 times more strongly to red blood cells than the HA protein alone.

That is a clear gain-of-function in host binding—the pseudo-virus behaves more like a fully infectious virion, even though it lacks a genome.

Construct 2: Recombinant Chimera Virus—100% Lethal in Mammals

The study also engineered a recombinant chimera virus using reverse genetics: H5N1 HA + NA genes spliced with H1N1 internal genes.

Reverse genetics is a lab technique that lets scientists build purported viruses entirely from cloned DNA, piece by piece, instead of isolating them from nature.

The researchers tested it in mice at 10x LD50 (the dose that kills 50% of test animals):

“All of the mice treated with PBS or HA-Mono died within 8 days post challenge, with considerable body weight loss (over 25%).”

Every mouse infected with this engineered chimera virus died within 8 days.

This shows the construct was 100% lethal in mammals, making it a true Frankenstein hybrid virus created under the banner of “vaccine research.”

Where the Experiments Took Place

The work was carried out at:

  • Changchun Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd (Sinopharm), Changchun, China
  • State Key Laboratory of Novel Vaccines for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Beijing, China.

Bottom Line

China’s state-run Sinopharm lab engineered two alarming H5N1 constructs:

  • A virus-like particle (VLP) that binds to host cells 64x stronger than controls.
  • A recombinant chimera virus that proved universally lethal in mammals.

Both represent dangerous gain-of-function experiments cloaked as vaccine development.

With H5N1 already carrying a human fatality rate of ~52%, these engineered constructs show how Chinese labs are building Frankenstein viruses with enhanced binding and lethality.

If COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that weaponizing bird flu in the name of “vaccine research” is a gamble with humanity’s survival—and China’s new Frankenstein constructs prove they’re still rolling the dice.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Bill Gates Funds New Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccine That Forces the Body to Produce Entire Coronavirus, Not Just Spike Protein: ‘bioRxiv’ Preprint

7.September.2025.

Shot hijacks human cells to churn out “heterotrimeric” hybrid spikes—Frankenstein chimeras made of Wuhan and Omicron parts never found in nature.

A new preprint published August 19, 2025, in bioRxiv reveals that a Gates Foundation–funded team at Caltech, Gladstone Institutes, and Acuitas Therapeutics has engineered a self-amplifying mRNA vaccine platform that doesn’t just code for spike protein—it forces human cells to self-replicate the RNA instructions and churn out entire enveloped coronavirus-like particles (eVLPs).

Who & Where

The study was conducted by Chengcheng Fan, Alexander A. Cohen, Kim-Marie A. Dam, Annie V. Rorick, Ange-Célia I. Priso Fils, Zhi Yang, Priyanthi N. P. Gnanapragasam, Luisa N. Segovia, Kathryn E. Huey-Tubman, Woohyun J. Moon, Paulo J.C. Lin, Pamela J. Bjorkman, and Magnus A. G. Hoffmann, with affiliations at Caltech, Gladstone Institutes (UCSF), University of Washington, UC Berkeley, and Acuitas Therapeutics in Vancouver.

Funding disclosures make it explicit:

“These studies were funded by … Gates Foundation INV-034638 (P.J.B.) and INV-056219 (M.A.G.H.).”

That means Bill Gates’ foundation bankrolled this self-amplifying virus-factory vaccine.

Self-Amplifying & Whole Virus Design

Unlike first-generation COVID shots, this platform is designed to keep copying itself inside the cell—leading to higher, longer-lasting output.

Self-amplifying vaccines not only instruct the body’s cells to make the coronavirus spike protein—like the original mRNA COVID vaccines do—but they also instruct cells to make an enzyme that makes “copies of the original strand of RNA.”

This process leads to the production of even more spike protein within the body than first-generation mRNA COVID jabs produce.

Purported “benefits” of samRNA include extended duration (time) and magnitude (amount) of spike protein creation, a “strong” immune response, and requiring a smaller dose than original mRNA jabs.

The new study comes on top of Yale University School of Medicine’s discovery that spike protein from the original jabs can linger in the body for 709 days—when, earlier in the COVID pandemic, health authorities told us the spike protein only stays in the body “up to a few weeks.”

The authors of the new Gates-funded preprint describe their work this way:

“We recently developed the ESCRT- and ALIX-binding region (EABR) mRNA vaccine platform, which encodes engineered immunogens that induce budding of enveloped virus-like particles (eVLPs) from the plasma membrane, thereby resulting in presentation of immunogens on cell surfaces and eVLPs.”

This means the injected RNA doesn’t just make spike once—it replicates, keeps instructing, and drives cells to bud off whole coronavirus-like shells.

Far more viral material is created inside the body compared to regular mRNA jabs.

The implication: If standard mRNA already triggered spike toxicity and DNA contamination concerns, self-copying versions exponentially magnify those risks.

Cells Turned Into Virus Factories

The experiments confirmed that mammalian cells, when hit with this design, shed whole synthetic viral particles:

“To verify that the designed constructs induce eVLP budding, HEK293T were transiently transfected … After 48 hours, transfected cell supernatants were harvested, and eVLPs were purified by ultracentrifugation.”

Translation: In the lab, the vaccine instructions reprogrammed cells to manufacture and release entire pseudo-coronaviruses.

Novel Hybrid Spikes Created

Even more alarming, when two versions of spike were included (Wuhan + Omicron), they fused into brand-new hybrid proteins:

“Co-expression of ancestral Wu1 and Omicron S in the same cell could result in the formation of S heterotrimers consisting of Wu1 and Omicron S protomers.”

That means the vaccine doesn’t just make past spikes—it fabricates chimeric coronavirus spikes never seen before in nature.

Confirmed by Cryo-EM

This wasn’t theoretical modeling.

Cryo-electron microscopy reportedly directly showed the new synthetic hybrids:

“Single-particle cryo-EM analysis confirmed … trimerized HT2 and HT3 S proteins … These data demonstrate heterotrimeric S formation for soluble forms of SARS-CoV-2 S proteins.”

In other words, scientists actually imaged the new hybrid coronavirus spikes generated by the vaccine platform.

The Bigger Picture

This Gates-funded research is not isolated.

As my previous investigations have shown, governments and global foundations are already bankrolling self-amplifying mRNA (sa-mRNA) platforms worldwide.

Japan has already approved one (ARCT-154), and the Biden administration handed Gritstone Bio a $433-million contract to advance its own self-copying jab.

These vaccines are said to be “more efficient.”

But the reality is they extend duration and magnitude of spike production inside the body.

Cambridge University scientists already warned that first-gen mRNA is misread 10% of the time, producing rogue proteins in one-third of recipients.

If self-amplifying vaccines magnify those errors, the risks grow exponentially.

Bottom Line

Gates Foundation money funded an mRNA vaccine that self-replicates and programs cells to manufacture entire coronavirus-like particles.

This goes far beyond spike: cells become virus factories, producing synthetic hybrid spikes never found in nature.

Combined with the self-amplifying mechanism, the body isn’t just briefly making spike—it’s pushed into prolonged production of whole pseudo-viruses.

Bill Gates’ fingerprints are now on a technology that forces the body to churn out entire synthetic coronaviruses, amplified from within.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with: