Understanding the WHO’s Plans for You



  • Many have reflected on the fact that Big Pharma has a perverse incentive to promote ill health, as its financial bottom line depends on it. But few understand just how elaborate its efforts to that end are
  • American podcaster and former professor of evolutionary biology Bret Weinstein describes the pharmaceutical industry as an intellectual property racket. Big Pharma patents molecules, compounds and technologies, and then looks for diseases against which their patents can be applied
  • Pharma is engaged in a continuous effort to portray its intellectual properties as more useful and safer than they are, and to persuade the medical establishment, journals, medical societies, hospitals and government to direct people toward drugs they wouldn’t otherwise be taking. So, when COVID-19 happened, the industry was more than prepared to take advantage of it
  • The introduction of the mRNA platform technology was central to the entire COVID response. The technology has a lethal flaw that would prevent it from getting to the market under normal circumstances. The COVID pandemic allowed Pharma to bypass this obstacle and deploy this incredibly lucrative technology
  • By way of amendments to the International Health Regulations and the pandemic treaty, the World Health Organization seeks to achieve global dominion and total control of the masses under the guise of public health

The video above features an interview with American podcaster and former professor of evolutionary biology Bret Weinstein by Tucker Carlson.1 Originally aired January 5, 2024, in it they discuss the COVID-19 pandemic, “the game of Big Pharma,” the catastrophic effects of the mRNA shots, and the World Health Organization’s plan for humanity going forward. It’s an excellent interview you won’t want to miss.

The Big Pharma Racket Explained

Weinstein begins by addressing what he refers to “the game of Big Pharma.” He believed himself to be somewhat of an expert on the drug industry, but during the last four years, he found himself being “schooled,” and many facets of the industry were not at all what he’d imagined.

Of course, Big Pharma has a “perverse incentive” to promote ill health as its financial bottom line depends on it. They make no money from healthy people.

“But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is,” he says, “and what the nature of that bag of tricks is. To describe it, I would say Pharma is an intellectual property racket …

Essentially, Pharma owns various things — it owns molecules, compounds, it owns technologies, and what it’s looking for is a disease to which these things plausibly apply.”

Once a disease has been identified against which one of Pharma’s intellectual properties can be used, the industry’s profits rise to the extent that:

  • The disease is widespread
  • The disease is serious
  • Competing drugs are deemed unsafe or ineffective
  • Government will mandate the drug
  • The medical establishment will declare it the standard of care

“You’ve just described pandemic response!” Carlson says. And, indeed, analyzing the pandemic response is what allowed Weinstein to identify these tricks.

Pharma, he says, is engaged in a continuous effort to portray its intellectual properties as more useful and safer than they are, and to persuade the medical establishment, journals, medical societies, hospitals and government to “direct people toward drugs they wouldn’t otherwise be taking. That’s what the racket is.”

It’s important to understand what the Pharma racket is, and how it works, because long before COVID, Pharma was “expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more dangerous than it was,” and it was “excellent at portraying a compound as more efficacious than it is.”

So, when COVID-19 happened, the industry was more than prepared to take advantage of it. COVID was “the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable,” Weinstein notes.

A Fatal Flaw

The immediate needs of the crisis allowed Pharma to do what otherwise would have been impossible, and that is to roll out mRNA technology at “warp speed” under the pretense that it was the latest and greatest vaccine technology. Gene therapies must undergo far more stringent safety and efficacy testing, all of which were bypassed in this case.

Weinstein suspects the mRNA technology “would never have gotten through even the most cursory safety tests” under normal circumstances, as it has a “terrible safety flaw.”

The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are not targeted, so they can and are taken up by any cell they encounter. This wouldn’t be so bad if the injection actually stayed in the injection site, as promised, but it doesn’t.

This was, of course, entirely predictable. Just about any compound injected will leak from the injection site and end up circulating through your body. The risk of systemic effects was further augmented by the fact that health authorities advised AGAINST aspiration of the needle prior to injection.

Aspiration involves pulling back on the plunger to make sure there’s no blood. If there’s blood, you’ve landed in a blood vessel, which means you’re injecting straight into the blood stream and not into the deltoid tissue, which would help minimize the mRNA’s spread through your body.

As explained by Weinstein, the danger of the mRNA technology has to do with how immunity naturally develops.

A viral infection occurs when a virus enters into a cell and tricks it into making copies of the virus. These copies enter into and infect adjacent cells, and many also spread to other people through coughing and sneezing. When your cells produce an antigen (a foreign protein) that your immune system cannot recognize, your immune system assumes that cell is virally infected and sets out to destroy it.

The problem with the mRNA transfection technology is that it tricks cells haphazardly throughout your body to produce a foreign protein, which your immune system recognizes as an infection in progress.

Your immune system therefore starts to destroy the affected cells, and when those cells are in your heart, brain or other internal organs, the result can be life threatening. Aside from lethal heart problems, we’re also seeing a dramatic uptick in extremely rapidly progressing cancers.

“To go back to the original story, Pharma had a potentially tremendously lucrative property that it couldn’t bring to market because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem at its heart,” Weinstein says.

“My hypothesis is that it recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand a remedy … that would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn’t spot these things.

And indeed … the safety testing was radically truncated so that long-term harms were impossible to detect. So, the hypothesis in question is, Pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring an incredibly lucrative technology — to normalize it in the public and the regulatory apparatus — to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.”

The Plot to Introduce Risky Tech Was Central to the COVID Response

In a supplementary commentary about and to this interview, Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute, writes:2

“The bigger picture, the ominous reality, was slow to dawn on me, namely that the mRNA platform technology … was central to the entire COVID response. Without understanding that, we miss the forest for the trees. It was the driving motivation for the initiation of lockdowns … and their absurd prolongation …

When you consider the scale of the damage to the whole society and the entire world, all for purposes of patent piracy and fast-tracking a technological deployment, one almost cannot imagine that any government could be so captured and corrupt. It seems to stretch the bounds of plausibility and yet here we are.

Knowing all of this helps frame up some of the mysteries of the time, such as the wild and aggressive censorship. To manage a caper on this scale required the creation of the appearance of consensus. The point was to prepare the way for the vaccine rollout, which everyone was supposed to regard as their salvation from lockdowns, masks, and closures …

There is a reason we haven’t heart any high-profile apologies or admissions of wrongdoing. The reason is that there was never a purpose to do the right thing. It was an industrial takeover from the beginning, a perfect corporatist scheme for gaining a major advantage in the wars for pharmaceuticals and their future.”

Tens of Millions Have Likely Been Killed Already

Weinstein cites research3 by Joseph Fraiman et. al., in which they reanalyzed Pfizer’s own trial data, showing there was a 1 in 800 risk of a serious adverse event. This risk was cleverly disguised by giving the placebo group the real mRNA shot just one month into the trial.

This was not a risk of 1 in 800 people, but 1 in 800 doses, and people got two doses to start. Research presented at a recent conference in Romania suggests some 17 million people have died as a result of the shots so far. Yet these shots are still recommended for children as young as 6 months, and in the absence of any kind of emergency.

And, as noted by Weinstein, while booster uptake is now in the single digits percentage-wise, we are not seeing a clear majority acknowledging that the mass vaccination campaign was a mistake to begin with. It’s as though most people simply don’t want to think about the damage that has been done. They don’t want to acknowledge that they were fooled by a sophisticated propaganda machine.

But we’re still injecting these shots into children, and that means we have a moral obligation to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that the shots are dangerous and must be stopped.

Free Speech Is a Matter of Life and Death

As noted by Weinstein, a relatively small number of alternative media voices were fortunately able to educate enough people about the harms, such that booster uptake has now dropped off the proverbial cliff. The problem we now face is that the WHO, in its amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) and the international pandemic treaty, is seeking to gain control over all media worldwide.

If the IHRs and the treaty go through, the WHO would have the sole authority to decide what medical truth is, and all countries would be obliged to censor accordingly, by whatever means necessary.

Considering how crucial alternative news have been in waking people up to the realities of COVID, what will happen if we’re forced to face another pandemic without them? You could easily say that free speech, within the context of health and medicine, is a matter of life and death. If scientific debate and opposing views are eliminated, the death toll from medical propaganda is bound to be even greater than we’ve seen already.

The WHO’s Plan in Broad Strokes

Weinstein goes on to review the WHO’s planned coup by way of the IHR amendments and its pandemic treaty. In broad strokes, these two instruments seek to achieve global dominion by the few and total control of the masses, under the guise of public health.

In short, this treaty will require all member nations that sign onto it to relinquish their national sovereignty to the WHO, making it a de facto totalitarian ruler of the whole world.

According to the WHO, the reason the COVID pandemic got so bad is because nations failed to cooperate. Hence, the reasoning goes, we need an international treaty that centralizes pandemic response powers to the WHO.

The problem, of course, is that most nations DID follow the WHO’s irrational and unscientific recommendations. Its ineptitude — whether intentional or not — is what destroyed economies and resulted in needless deaths.

Under the proposed treaty, the WHO will have the authority to declare a public health emergency on any basis, even without evidence, and will be entitled to mandate remedies that all member states will be required to implement.

This includes vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, which drugs can and cannot be used, and the censorship of everything that does not conform to the WHO’s official recommendations, just to name a few. Importantly, the censorship will not be limited to “misinformation” (erroneous information) and “disinformation” (intentionally erroneous information and lies), both of which are at least to some degree related to truth versus falsehood.

No, as explained by Weinstein, the most important term you need to understand is that of “malinformation,” defined as truthful information that causes distrust in authority.

Criminalizing Malinformation — The Legalized Silencing of Truth

So, when you point out lies by government officials, you’re committing an act of malinformation, which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security now includes in its definition of terrorist acts, in addition to spreading mis- and disinformation. This is absolutely terrifying, because “terrorism” is “a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate,” Weinstein says, adding:

“So, at the point that the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government, they are also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you.

They are not normal rights. So, there things are all terrifying, and I do think … the COVID pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that have been built around us, something that former NSA officer William Binny once described as the turnkey totalitarian state. The totalitarian state is erected around you, but it’s not activated. And then, once it’s built, the key gets turned.

We are now seeing … something that even outstrips William Binny’s description, because it’s the turnkey totalitarian planet. The World Health Organization is above the level of nations, and it is going to be in a position, if these provisions pass, to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions.”

The Timeline

The 77th World Health Assembly, during which the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty are to be voted on, is scheduled to begin May 27, 2024. The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whomever is in the room at the time of the vote.

However, the IHR amendments working group must to submit their final package of amendments by January 27, 2024.4 If the final version of the proposed amendments has not been properly submitted by that date, then the World Health Assembly does not have the legal right to vote on them at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.

This means we only have two weeks left to raise enough awareness about these amendments to prevent their adoption. So, please, help spread the word by sharing the videos listed on James Roguski’s Substack.

Roguski has also generously provided the world with a list of other actions you can take depending on where you live:5

Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), an organization founded by Dr. Meryl Nass, also has a poster that explains how the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will change life as we know it and strip us of every vestige of freedom. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.

If adopted, the IHR amendments will take effect 10 months later for any nation that does not opt out. Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments.

Timeline for the Pandemic Treaty

The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting, May 22 through 24, 2024.6 It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect as soon as 30 nations have ratified it.

Thirty days after that, the treaty will go into effect for all the nations that have signed on. Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out.

The most recent version of the treaty, dated October 30, 2023, can be found here. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) has been directed to produce yet another draft before the next meeting scheduled for February 19 through March 1, 2024, so additional revisions are to be expected.7

The Good News

While the situation may appear bleak, Weinstein remains optimistic, if for no other reason than the fact that we, the opposition to this global coup, actually have the most courageous intellectuals on OUR team.

Scientists, researchers, medical professionals, academics and journalists of all stripes across the world who dared speak out against the official narrative were ousted from their prestigious positions.

As a result, we now have a “Dream Team” of “every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil,” Weinstein says. Indeed, as noted by Tucker,8 all of these experts “now form a huge counterforce of correct information,” and they’re not going away.

That said, to truly prevent this global coup, we need you, everyone, regular folk everywhere, to speak and share the truth to the point that you’re able. For only then will our voices outnumber the voices of the propaganda machine.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola