Jeff Sachs and giving the W.H.O. mo’ money. The Lancet COVID Commission and One Health are important parts of the globalists’ narrative

Section 3: recommendations for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, preparing for the next, and long-term sustainable development

WHO, working with the main vaccine-producing companies and countries, needs to intensify its efforts to ensure high levels of immunisation coverage in all countries, especially in the low-income countries where vaccine coverage remains dangerously low. Countries must then implement a vaccination-plus control strategy
that includes mass immunisation; the availability and affordability of
testing; treatment for new infections (test and treat); rehabilitation
and social support for people with long COVID; and complementary public
health and social measures such as the use of face masks, the promotion of safe workplaces, and economic and social support for self-isolation.

Maintain WHO as the lead institution for response to emerging infectious diseases

WHO should remain at the centre of the multilateral response to emerging infectious diseases. Yet WHO needs strengthening. Such strengthening should include new regulatory authority, more backing by national political leaders, more contact with the global scientific community, and a larger core budget to carry out its many crucial responsibilities. The capacity of WHO should also be complemented by far greater international finance to support the health systems, research and development, and biomedical production capacity of LMICs.

Establish a global pandemic agreement and strengthen the IHR (International Health Regulations)

The
weaknesses and shortfalls of the IHR (2005) in protecting the world
against the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the decision by WHO member
states to start the process to draft and negotiate new agreements on pandemic preparedness and response, including a possible new Pandemic Treaty. We echo many other reports on COVID-19 in calling for a global pandemic agreement and for a reassessment of and update to the IHR (2005).96,  489,  490,  492

…the approval by WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization of standing regulations regarding the processing and control of international travellers and international freight and shipping under global pandemic conditions.

Reform of WHO governance

a substantial increase to the core budget of WHO is required
to increase its effectiveness at its headquarters in Geneva, at
regional offices, and in countries around the world. Moreover, WHO needs
the capacity to draw upon large-scale emergency financing
in the case of a global public health emergency. WHO should continue to
use the infrastructure it has built up so that this infrastructure is
in place when another pandemic emerges. An emergency credit line at an international financial institution, designed as a key tool of the new Global Health Fund, could provide the necessary emergency financing channel.

Regulations
for the prevention of pandemics from natural spillovers and
research-related activities and for investigating their origins

Strategies
to prevent research-related releases should include stronger
international and national oversight of biosafety, biosecurity, and
biorisk management, including the strict regulation of gain of function
research of concern…

It is certain that future pandemics will arise from
interactions between humans and animals, and that research on viruses
will continue with the potential for accidents. It is therefore
imperative that society enacts measures to reduce the possibility of
both natural spillovers and spillovers from research-related
activities…Calls for One Health approaches
to address the risks of the emergence and transmission of zoonotic
diseases are common among reports on pandemic prevention and
preparedness, and many reports have called for greater global surveillance and monitoring of disease risks, with WHO as the coordinating power.

Coincidentally, I warned my readers about Jeffrey Sachs and about One Health in a long post I wrote in May 2022, titled, “A winding tale of the WHO, monkeypox, Jeffrey Sachs’ turnaround, and One Health.”  It was subtitled, “Important backstories behind the news you’re getting. More coming.”  How prescient was that?

Here is what I wrote then about the WHO‘s International Health Regulations amendments, and about the pandemic treaty that was being negotiated:

The
US state department drafted a dozen AMENDMENTS to an existing
international health treaty that had been adopted in 2005, termed the
International Health Regulations (IHR).  These US-drafted amendments
would enable the WHO to assume control over the pandemic response to
future pandemics on a worldwide basis. This is the US writing new rules
that would give up its own sovereignty (and everyone else’s) to the WHO,
in the event of a pandemic or health emergency.  In February, very
quietly, the proposed amendments were sent out to the WHA members for
review, pending a vote this week.

I can promise you the US never
gives up even a speck of sovereignty; and that the purpose of the state
department is to maintain and expand US power.  The only conclusion I
could draw is that the US Government and/or the global elites were
confident they could control the WHO, and since using the guise of a
pandemic to grab power, influence and money had worked so well for them
so far, they were expanding the program to the whole world via the WHO. 
People like Astrid Stuckelberger, James Rogusky and others predicted
this was the mechanism to achieve a worldwide coup.

Concurrent
with the presentation of these amendments to the WHA, a new WHO treaty
has been in the process of being negotiated since last fall, and was
expected to accomplish essentially the same thing:  a means to transfer
national control over health and medical care from individual nations to
the WHO under the guise of a pandemic or medical emergency…

Regarding Mr. Sachs I wrote in May:

“The Lancet Commission published a massive 23 page report in
the Lancet on September 14, 2020 that seemed to me to be establishing
Sachs’ group as credible, and buttressing a variety of what we have come
to know as globalist narratives and agendas.

Professor Sachs therefore appeared to be a globalist flunky. And when I looked at the publications from his massive Commission, I learned the majority had to do with pushing COVID vaccinations.

So I was surprised to learn a few days ago that Professor Sachs himself had supposedly gone rogue, and published a paper in the PNAS, noting how the US  government and institutions were hiding information about COVID’s origins.  He and his coauthor wrote:

EHA
[Daszak], UNC [Ralph Baric], NIH [Fauci], USAID [one of many funders of
EHA and Wuhan], and other research partners have failed to disclose
their activities to the US scientific community and the US public,
instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that
could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2…

a
US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US
institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have
contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a
bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is
needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and
evaluation.”

Most likely,
Sachs is trying to reassert his leadership regarding the original Lancet
Commission investigation that was halted due to the notoriety of Daszak
and EcoHealth Alliance. He may also be seeking funding for such
investigation, and/or trying to repair his tattered reputation.  Will he
team up with Robert Zelikow to whitewash any future origins investigation? Stay tuned.”

Here is what I said about One Health in that article:

I used to think One Health
was just a silly concept designed to justify more funding for the
EcoHealth Alliance type of voracious grant hunter.  Certainly EcoHealth
was a major proponent of the concept.  But well-fed One Health adherents
suddenly appeared, tucked into many corners of the world (here is one
South American example), including CDC, the World Bank and WHO.  I had been wrong.

One
Health is an idea plucked out of thin air:  that in order to manage the
health of the planet, we can’t think about people in isolation.  We
have to consider them in the context of animals too, both livestock and
wild animals, and also “ecosystems”.  This might have been a good idea
if a significant chunk of human disease came from animals, but in fact,
zoonoses (infections spread to humans from animals) are pretty rare.
Think anthrax. Rabies. Monkeypox.  And while flu viruses do reassort in
animals, the risk of influenza has been factitiously ginned up by public
health agencies for decades.  I now suspect the reason was to acclimate
the public to the idea of yearly booster shots.

It seems that One
Health is an integral part of the globalist plan (proposing false
health narratives with the aim of usurping authority), so I thought I
had better give you a brief summary of this concept as I know it…

Then I marshalled a lot of evidence about One Health. Please read it if you are interested; it is quite the scam. But this piece is already so long, I will stop now. Except for one more nugget.

Here are the conflicts of interest of the authors of the Lancet COVID Commission report, in case you couldn’t guess:

Declaration of interests

SSAK
declares grants paid to the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research
in South Africa from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases),
the South African Medical Research Council, the National Research
Foundation, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials
Partnership. He is a vice-president of the International Science
Council; a commissioner of the African Commission on COVID-19; and a
member of the WHO Science Council, the Advisory Council of the
Physicians for Human Rights, the Global Medical Advisory Board on
COVID-19 for Sanofi Pasteur, and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CBa declares consulting fees from and is a member of the advisory board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. MEB and PJH are co-directors of a team of scientists at Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development,
who are co-inventors of a COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine
technology owned by Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) that was licensed
by BCM, non-exclusively and with no patent restrictions, to several
companies committed to advancing vaccines for low-income and
middle-income countries. The co-inventors have no involvement in license
negotiations conducted by BCM. Similar to other research universities, a
long-standing BCM policy provides its faculty and staff, who make
discoveries that result in a commercial license, a share of any royalty
income. To date, BCM has not distributed any royalty income to the
co-inventors of the COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology. Any
such distribution will be undertaken in accordance with BCM policy. CBu
declares grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan;
payment from University of Malaya; and is the president of the Society
for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Oceania. GCB is co-chair of the
UHC2030 International Alliance. AH declares grants and consulting fees
from the Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation. NJ declares support from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and consulting fees from the University of California, San Francisco Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. ET declares consulting fees from the United Nations Development Programme. VV-F and IS are co-chairs of the Nizami Ganjavi International Centre. MAP declares grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to
his institution and is a member of the Board of Directors for
Management Sciences for Health, and non-executive Governing Board member
of Sidra Medicine. JT declares funds from the Victorian Government to
BehaviourWorks Australia for surveys and research on COVID-19 related behaviours,
from Monash University and from Melbourne Water. AG was a member of the
Open Society Global Drug Policy Program until February, 2022. MH
declares funds from the Victorian Government, the New South Wales
Government, the Australian Government, and the Macquarie Foundation to
the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia for research and
modelling work related to COVID-19, and grants from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences that are unrelated to this work. JVL declares grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, MSD, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from NovVax,
all unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of
interest. This report does not represent the institutions nor the
organisations for which the authors work.