Bill Gates new book shocked experts and journalists

Source: https://bit.ly/3Gq5FJC
In “The Corbett Report” above, independent journalist James Corbett
reviews the contents of Bill Gates’ book, “How to Prevent the Next
Pandemic.”
“It’s every bit as infuriating, nauseating, ridiculous, laughable and
risible as you would expect,” he says. “This is a ridiculous book …
There’s certainly nothing of medical or scientific value in here …
It’s a baffling book even from a propagandistic perspective …
Gates’ goal in writing the book is to disarm the public and prepare
us to accept the agenda that Gates and his allies would like to
impose on the world. Ultimately, what this is about is drumming up
general public support — or at least general public understanding
 — of the unfolding biosecurity agenda.”
Another reviewer of Gates’ book, economist Jeffrey Tucker, offered
similarly negative feedback:
“Imagine yourself sidled up to a bar. A talkative guy sits down on
the stool next to you. He has decided that there is one thing wrong
with the world. It can be literally anything. Regardless, he has the
solution.
It’s interesting and weird for a few minutes. But you gradually come
to realize that he is actually crazy. His main point is wrong and so
his solutions are wrong too. But the drinks are good, and he is
buying. So you put up with it. In any case, you will forget the
whole thing in the morning.
In the morning, however, you realize that he is one of the world’s
richest men and he is pulling the strings of many of the world’s
most powerful people. Now you are alarmed. In a nutshell, that’s
what it’s like to read Bill Gates’s new book ‘How to Prevent the
Next Pandemic.’”
By now, you’ve probably heard that the World Health Organization
is attempting to seize control (https://bit.ly/3N19abS) over global
pandemic monitoring and response, and ultimately, all health care
decisions. But did you know Bill Gates, the largest funder of the
WHO (if you combine funding from his foundation and GAVI), also
intends to play a key part in this takeover?
As Gates explains in a video at the beginning of Corbett’s report,
he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the
“Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team. This
team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s
purview, and will monitor nations and make decisions about when
to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness.
Alas, as noted by “Rising” host Kim Iversen in the video compilation
above, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that stopping the
spread of a virus is more or less impossible, no matter how draconian
the rules. Meanwhile, the side effects of lockdowns and business
shutdowns are manifold.
People’s health has suffered from lack of health care. Depression
and suicide have skyrocketed. Economies have gone bust. Violent 
crime has risen. Tucker also points out the false premise behind
Gates’ pandemic prevention plan, stating:
“This theory of virus control — the notion that muscling the
population makes a prevalent virus shrink into submission and
disappear — is a completely new invention, the mechanization
of a primitive instinct.
Smallpox occupies a unique position among infectious diseases
as the only one affecting humans that has been eradicated. There
are reasons for that: a stable pathogen, a great vaccine, and a
hundred years of focused public health work. This happened
not due to lockdowns but from the careful and patient application
of traditional public-health principles.
[T]he attempt to crush a respiratory virus through universal
avoidance could be worse than allowing endemicity to it to
develop throughout the population.”
During COVID, we basically traded false protection against one
thing for a multitude of other ills that are far worse in the long
run. Now, Gates and the WHO want to make this disastrous strategy
the norm.
Once again, we see Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate
what the world must do to make him a ton of money, because he’s
always heavily invested in the very “solutions” he presents to the
world. While he’s built a reputation as a philanthropist, his actions
are self-serving, and more often than not, the recipients of his
“generosity” end up worse than they were before.
Case in point: After 15 years, Gates’ Green Revolution in Africa
(AGRA) project has now been proven an epic fail. Gates promised
the project would “double yields and incomes for 30 million farming
households by 2020.”
That false prognosis was deleted from the AGRA website in June
2020, after a Tuft University assessment revealed hunger had actually
increased by 31%. February 28, 2022, the first-ever evaluation report
confirmed the failure of AGRA.
But getting back to the globalists’ plan to seize global control
through biosecurity governance, they are attempting to do this using
two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end
up under totalitarian governance.
The first attack comes in the form of amendments to the International
Health Regulations (IHR). The second attack comes through a new
international pandemic treaty with the WHO.
Starting with the first takeover strategy, as you read this, countries
around the world are in the process of voting on amendments to the
IHR. By May 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will have
concluded their vote on these amendments and, if passed, they will
be enacted into international law in November 2022.
The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers the WHO to declare
a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). This
is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain
contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While
the IHR grants the WHO exceptional power over global health policy
already, under the current rules, member states must consent to the
WHO’s recommendations.
This is one key feature that is up for revision. Under the new
amendments, the WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a
member state over the objection of that state. The amendments also
include ceding control to WHO regional directors authorized to
declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).
In summary, the IHR amendments establish “a globalist architecture
of worldwide health surveillance, reporting and management,” Robert
Malone, Ph.D., warns,10 and we the public have no say in the matter.
We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health
Assembly, even though the amendments will give the WHO
unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name
of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the
delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.
A summary of the proposed changes to the IHR was recently provided
by Malone.11 In all, the WHO wants to amend 13 different IHR
articles (articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53 and 59),
the end result of which is the following:
1. “Increased surveillance — Under Article 5, the WHO will develop
early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment
for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling,
simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from COVID-19
over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will
communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member
states.
2. 48-hour deadline — Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member
state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and
accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this
timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face
international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly
member states.
3. Secret sources — Under Article, the WHO can rely on undisclosed
sources for information leading it to declare a public health
emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders
such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded
GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
4. Weakened sovereignty — Under Article, when the WHO receives
undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat
in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with
the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However,
s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health
emergency of international concern.
The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign
authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.”
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly,
nations will have only a limited time — six months — to reject
them. That would put us into November 2022. Any nation which
hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound
by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace
period will be null and void.
The second attempt to gain global control is through an international
pandemic treaty with the WHO. An intergovernmental negotiating
body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health
Assembly in December 2021, for the purpose of drafting and
negotiating this new pandemic treaty.
In summary, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership
permanent. It can then extend its power into the health care systems
of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or
“socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.
While a WHO-based universal health care system is not currently
being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part
of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general
is to push the world toward universal health coverage.
And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to
“a worldwide epidemic of a disease,” without the original specificity
of severe illness that causes high morbidity, just about anything
could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.
The problem with this treaty is that it simply cannot work. The whole
premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires
shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared
across regions.
Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not
the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia,
it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID
is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.
The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere,
yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region,
person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine
and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be
addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not
to mention the loss of individual freedom.
In closing, Gates’ GERM team would be the ones with the authority
to declare pandemics and coordinate global response. Are you ready
to cede all authority over your life, health and livelihood to the
likes of Gates? I hope not.
In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” provides
poignant examples where Gates is now admitting what “The
Highwire,” I and many others have been saying since the earliest
days of the COVID pandemic, and getting censored and deplatformed
for it.
Gates is two years behind everyone else, yet despite his apparent
inability to interpret the readily available data, he now wants power
to dictate health rules to the whole world. We can’t let that happen.
It’s going to require a global response to prevent these two power
grabs, starting with the IHR amendments under vote by the World
Health Assembly. To that end, the World Council for Health has
launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can
get involved.