Aspirin, ibuprofen and other pain-relieving drugs may actually make agony WORSE, study warns

Aspirin, ibuprofen and other pain-relieving drugs may actually make agony WORSE, study warns

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2599808451704/aspirin-ibuprofen-and-other-pain-relieving-drugs-may-actually-make-agony-worse-study-warns

Taking aspirin and ibuprofen as painkillers could be completely pointless, a study suggests.

Experts have now warned the cheap drugs may actually leave patients in agony for longer.

The findings call into question the conventional practice of treating pain with anti-inflammatory drugs, taken by millions around the world.

Researchers today praised the ‘excellent’ study, which was based tests in the lab on human cells and mice.

However, they have urged people not give up their painkillers overnight because the drugs are proven to be effective in the short-term.

https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=45vvI2_0fadB7Si00
Taking aspirin and ibuprofen as painkillers could be completely pointless, a study suggests. Experts have now warned the cheap drugs may actually leave patients in agony for longer

The study by researchers in Canada and Italy suggests inflammation may not be the nemesis after all.

Instead, it could be protective in the long-term. One researcher said that it ‘may be dangerous to interfere with it’.

Popular anti-inflammatories include diclofenac, naproxen, and piroxicam.

The research, in the Science Translational Medicine journal, also looked at steroids like dexamethasone, which works in a similar fashion.

Anti-inflammatory drugs work by blocking neutrophils, white blood cells which help the body begin the healing process.

Experts analysed blood samples, taken on three occasions, from 98 people battling lower back pain.

Patients whose pain eventually went away had significantly more neutrophils in their blood, compared to those still struck down.

This inspired the researchers to test blocking neutrophils in injured mice with anti-inflammatory drugs dexamethasone and diclofenac.

https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=24Psgv_0fadB7Si00
Scientists have found blocking neutrophils, a type of white blood cell which causes inflammation as part of healing tissues, actually prolonged the duration of pain in studies  on mice. The experts were inspired to run the experiment after finding differences in genetic samples taken from people who suffered from ongoing lower back pain

HOW AMERICA GOT HOOKED ON OPIOIDS AND IS THE SAME HAPPENING HERE?

Research has shown hospital admissions for opioids has soared 50 per cent in the last decade in England adding to fears the UK could be facing a similar opioid crisis to the one in the US which has devastated thousands of families.

In the early 2000s, the FDA and CDC started to notice a steady increase in cases of opioid addiction and overdose. In 2013, they issued guidelines to curb addiction.

However, that same year – now regarded as the year the painkiller epidemic took hold – a CDC report revealed an unprecedented surge in rates of opioid addiction.

Overdose deaths are now the leading cause of death among young Americans – killing more in a year than were ever killed annually by HIV, gun violence or car crashes.

In 2019, the CDC revealed that nearly 71,000 Americans died from drug overdoses.

This is up from about 59,000 just three years prior, in 2016, and more than double the death rate from a decade ago.

It means that drug overdoses are currently the leading cause of death for Americans under 50 years old.

The data lays bare the bleak state of America’s opioid addiction crisis fueled by deadly manufactured drugs like fentanyl.

Most control mice stopped feeling pain within two months.

But rodents on the anti-inflammatory drugs experienced for pain for twice as long on average, with some in pain for 10 times longer than the control group.

Replicating the experiment with painkillers that don’t target inflammation, such as paracetamol (acetaminophen), did not produce the same extended pain response.

This suggested inflammation played a role in healing injuries and resolving pain, the authors said.

The findings were supported by a separate analysis of 500,000 people that showed that those taking anti-inflammatory drugs to treat their pain were more likely to have pain two to 10 years later.

Professor Jeffrey Mogil, author of the study from McGill University in Canada, said by interfering with this initial painful period medics could be doing more harm than good.

‘Neutrophils dominate the early stages of inflammation and set the stage for repair of tissue damage,’ he said.

‘Inflammation occurs for a reason, and it looks like it’s dangerous to interfere with it.

‘For many decades it’s been standard medical practice to treat pain with anti-inflammatory drugs.

‘But we found that this short-term fix could lead to longer-term problems.’

He added that while ibuprofen was not studied explicitly in the experiments, it would have been reflected in analysis of 500,000 Britons.

‘It is highly likely that a large percentage of those in the UK Biobank who reported taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were in fact taking ibuprofen,’ he said.

Fellow author, Dr Massimo Allegri, from Monza Hospital in Italy, argued the findings could mean medics need to treat painful injuries differently.

‘Our findings suggest it may be time to reconsider the way we treat acute pain,’ he said.

‘Luckily pain can be killed in other ways that don’t involve interfering with inflammation.’

Experts called for further trails comparing anti-inflammatory drugs to other painkillers that don’t disrupt inflammation.

Chronic pain, and the medications prescribed to counter it, are one of the drivers of the prescription painkiller addiction crisis in both the US and Britain.

Dr Franziska Denk, an expert in chronic pain from King’s College London, said the study was a ‘wonderful start’.

But she claimed further research needed to be done before changing how medics treated patients.

‘It would most definitely be premature to make any recommendations regarding people’s medication until we have results of a prospectively designed clinical trial,’ she said.

‘In my opinion, this study should not generate a debate around the use of NSAIDs in low back pain – much more research is needed to confirm these findings first.’

Professor Blair Smith, an expert on pain from the University of Dundee, said the latest study was an ‘excellent’ piece of research but people should continue to take their medications as advised until further scientific work is completed.

‘It is also important to note that anti-inflammatory drugs are effective in short-term pain management,’ he said.

‘There is good quality evidence to back this up and they should not be withheld unnecessarily.’

Ongoing chronic pain has been blamed for fuelling a painkiller addiction crisis in both the UK and the US which has blighted thousands of lives.

A London School of Economics study published in February found hospitalisations for opioid overdoses in England have soared by 50 percent in a decade.

Experts have also warned prescription painkiller use is likely on the rise as millions of patients suffer in agony while trapped on record-high waiting lists for surgeries like hip replacements on the NHS.

In the US the opioid addiction crisis has resulted in 600,000 deaths from overdoses since 1999.

Around 5million people a year in England are given prescription opioids, and more than half-a-million taken them for at least three years, according to a 2019 Government report.

OK BOP showing concern about the temp meds exposed to being shipped by MAIL ORDER PHARMACIES

Oklahoma Board of Pharmacy Needs Volunteers

Posted: 09 May 2022 02:53 PM PDT

 Task Force/Committee Volunteers Needed 

The Board of Pharmacy is needing volunteers to create a Task Force/Committee for evaluating temperature excursions and the shipping of prescriptions by pharmacies to patients who are located in state and out of state.

This Task Force/Committee will more than likely need to evaluate the potential of creating rule changes to the existing rules.

All interested parties will need to submit the below items to Marty Hendrick via email at Mhendrick@pharmacy.ok.gov to be considered for this task force. 

 

  • Letter of interest on serving on the Task Force/Committee.
  • Resume of pharmacy work experience.
  • Past experience in a pharmacy practice that involves shipping prescriptions to patients.

 

535:15-3-11. Prescription drugs 

(f) Prescription shipping. The pharmacy shall maintain and use adequate storage or Cargo transportation services and use shipping processes to ensure drug stability and potency. Such shipping processes shall include the use of appropriate packaging material and/or devices to ensure that the drug is maintained at an appropriate temperature range to maintain the integrity of the medication throughout the delivery process. Visit this company for those looking for pallet suppliers in California.

 

(1) No prescription shipped to a citizen of Oklahoma should have a temperature excursion that exceeds the temperature storage conditions outlined within the package insert or by the manufacturer of the drug product. 

 

(2) A pharmacy or pharmacist shall refuse to deliver by mail or common carrier a prescription drug which, in the professional opinion of the pharmacy or pharmacist may be therapeutically compromised by delivery by mail or common carrier. 

 

(3) A mail order or non-resident pharmacy shall make available to the patient or patient’s caregiver the contact information for the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy.

#StopTheWHO: How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments

#StopTheWHO: How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/campaigns/stop-the-who/2022/05/stopthewho-oppose-international-health-regulation-amendments/73799/

#StopTheWHO

The WHO is making a power grab over our health sovereignty by changing the International Health Regulations

In May 2022, World Health Organization (WHO) intends to amend the International Health Regulations to give greater control to itself and Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director-General of WHO. This pushes our world towards a centralized governance model of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management, where the people have no say.

Background

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

Key Issues to Understand

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

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

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

Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR

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

  1. Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
  2. 48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states. 
  3. Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
  4. Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state,  the Director-General may (not must) consult with the  WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
  5. Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full.  Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.

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

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

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

Why People Must Take Action Together

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

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

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

Global #StopTheWho Campaign Activated

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

  1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos 
  2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
  3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
  4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
  5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
  6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
  7. Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

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

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

In Unity for Health, Freedom, and Sovereignty,

World Council for Health (www.worldcouncilforhealth.org)

Who said that the 50 MME’s in the proposed 2022 CDC guidelines wouldn’t replace the 90 MME/day limit ?


I’m not sure if you already know, but the State of Minnesota has been openly discriminating against chronic pain patients enrolled in Minnesota healthcare programs. Here in MN, people with lower incomes who are enrolled in programs like Medicaid and Minnesotacare (these are a population mostly comprised of low income, disabled and minority enrollees) has been limited SEPARATELY in opioid prescribing. State officials have admitted pressuring Medicaid/MnCare providers not to prescribe specifically to low income enrollees and they are doing so under threat of physician disenrollment from treating individuals in state programs. For many doctors and prescribers, this is the threat of financial ruin in return for their compassion.
Unfortunately, after almost 13 years of chronic pain, I have found myself enrolled one of these programs and experienced this discrimination personally. Recently, my diagnosis has worsened far beyond the herniated lower back that started my journey, and now I have fibro (possibly with fibro neuropathy in my feet, and they can’t seem to find the diagnosis for it). Very recently, after a fall, they discovered that my lower neck now has compressed discs and I have bone spurs and disc degeneration in my neck too. It burns so badly at night that it wakes me up and I can’t get back to sleep no matter what. Due to this new diagnosis, and also what I think have been really noticeable changes in medication potency of the hydro brand I’ve been taking for a long time (mallinckrodt hydrocodone 10/325), I respectfully requested a small increase in my pain medication to 70 mme (I’m currently at 65. I am a legacy patient with a very good record).

I was refused the small increase and told that I was at the “upper limit for my insurance”… I asked my provider with that meant and she said that under the kind of insurance I have (Minnesota Healthcare programs), I cannot be increased at all. I was also told that I can only be prescribed two kinds of medication…hydrocodone, and as she recently suggested Suboxone (I told her there was no way I would ever take Suboxone because I want to keep my teeth and I don’t want to be blackballed for the rest of my life). Schedule prescribe those two medications to me or nothing at all. Those are my options. Also, I found it frightening and insulting that she tried to throw me into Suboxone. After a short discussion I found she didn’t know anything about Suboxone AT ALL and that she was only considering prescribing that from a hyped up discussion she had with another PA practitioner. It was really kind of shocking that she would want me to take something that she didn’t know a thing about!

I did some research on her claims and I found that, yes…Minnesota Health Care programs are pushing doctors not to prescribe anyone beyond 50 MME of anything but Suboxone, and this was clearly designed to severely limit people like me who found themselves included with people from specific groups that the state decided were high risk. It was hard to accept that Minnesota, which likes to promote racial equity, was pigeonholing all of us together and discriminating against us all based on racial and income stereotypes. However I was not able to find where I was limited to only two different kinds of opioids, however, so that might also have been my provider fibbing, I’m not sure. Perhaps they were allowed to prescribe more hydrocodone? I don’t know.

But at any rate there are two articles that were published in the Minneapolis Star News Tribune that directly explains how the state is targeting people on Medicaid/Minnesotacare in Minnesota to be treated differently than people with private insurance. The people who initiated this were actually proud of blackmailing doctors to abuse low income people.

So this is where it’s at now. I’m not sure what I should do with this now, but I wrote a complaint of discrimination toward Minnesota Health Care programs. That was about a month ago now and I still have not received any reply.

Anyway, I was wondering if you knew anything about this and if you had any ideas to leverage this further for the cause. I do know that Kolodny has put up a remote office in Minnesota for PROP and we’re also dealing with the Steve Rummler Hope organization here too. I don’t have any other chronic pain allies in the state, unfortunately, which would be really helpful, but at this point I’ll take any help anyone can give me to move forward with this.

Combining Certain Medications With Ibuprofen Can Permanently Injure Kidneys

Combining Certain Medications With Ibuprofen Can Permanently Injure Kidneys

Combining Certain Medications With Ibuprofen Can Permanently Injure Kidneys

Commonly prescribed hypertension medications may be harmful in combination with ibuprofen.

Anyone who is taking a diuretic and a renin-angiotensin system (RSA) inhibitor for hypertension (high blood pressure) should be cautious about also taking the painkiller ibuprofen, according to new research.

Diuretics and RSA inhibitors are commonly prescribed together for people with hypertension and are available under various pharmaceutical brand names. Pain-relievers such as ibuprofen are available over-the-counter in most pharmacies and stores in popular brands including Advil and Motrin.

Researchers at the University of Waterloo used computer-simulated drug trials to model the interactions of the three drugs and the impact on the kidney. They found that in people with certain medical profiles, the combination can cause acute kidney injury, which in some cases can be permanent.

Ibuprofen is a medication in the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) class that is used to treat pain, fever, and inflammation. This includes painful menstrual periods, migraines, and rheumatoid arthritis. Common brand names with ibuprofen as the active ingredient include Advil and Motrin.

“It’s not that everyone who happens to take this combination of drugs is going to have problems,” said Anita Layton, professor of applied mathematics at Waterloo and Canada 150 Research Chair in mathematical biology and medicine. “But the research shows it’s enough of a problem that you should exercise caution.”

Computer-simulated drug trials can quickly produce results that would take much longer in human clinical trials. Layton and her team use mathematics and computer science to give medical practitioners a head start with issues like drug complications.

The research, in this case, can also speak directly to the many people who are taking drugs for hypertension and may reach for a painkiller with ibuprofen without giving it much thought.

“Diuretics are a family of drugs that make the body hold less water,” Layton said. “Being dehydrated is a major factor in acute kidney injury, and then the RAS inhibitor and ibuprofen hit the kidney with this triple whammy. If you happen to be on these hypertension drugs and need a painkiller, consider acetaminophen instead.”

Layton’s new research paper, with co-authors Jessica Leete, Carolyn Wang, and Francisco J. López-Hernández, “Determining risk factors for triple whammy acute kidney injury,” appears in the journal Mathematical Biosciences.

Here is a hyperlink to a page with all of these meds listed… it is pretty long… so I am just providing the hyperlink

https://clinicalcodes.rss.mhs.man.ac.uk/medcodes/article/50/codelist/res50-ras-inhibitors/

 

The future in pharmacy is coming and pts may not be happy

When Jan 1, 2023 comes around and you are on Medicare Part D or Medicare Advantage Prgm … if the PBM’s do not change the contracts that they are “offering” independent pharmacies for 2023… your independent pharmacy will either be a “cash only” pharmacy or out of business.

Since the PBM’s came around in 1969-1970, their “contract negotiations” have always been “take it or leave it”…  if you don’t take/sign the contract…”we” will make your customers/pts LEAVE your pharmacy because there will be some pharmacies in your area that will sign it..

back then, other than the manual forms that had to be filled out on every Rx filled and wait for a couple of months for the PBM’s to reimburse you..their reimbursement formula was not all that bad.

Today there is about <50% of the number of independents in our country as was in business at their peak in the mid-70’s. When I opened my independent pharmacy in 1976, in a small town/county seat of 30K-35K…there was 12 other independent pharmacies.  20 yrs later, I was burnt out, a new Revco store was opening up and I took the opportunity to sell our pharmacy… leaving only ONE INDEPENDENT PHARMACY  left in town.  That town now has two independent pharmacies and the newer one built his business on compounding.  The town is now dominated by Walgreen, CVS & Kroger.

Since 1970, the top 4-5 PBM’s are owned by INSURANCE COMPANIES and currently they handle the payment of abt 80% of all Rxs filled and now each have multiple highly automated mail order pharmacies. Walgreens has already announced plans to implement regional “central fill, high automated pharmacies”… where they indicate that they will direct all non-control Rxs refills to be filled and transported by to the Walgreen’s store of the pt’s choice.  Of course, they are counting on people being “trained” to order their necessary refills a few days ahead.  It looks like Walgreen expects the PBM not to budge on the reimbursement in their contracts and CVS has already announced that they are going to close about 10% of current stores. Things appear to be changing, and the pt’s individual health care needs appears to at the very best second to the needs of the insurance industry to making increased profits

ABC News Affiliate Accidentally Discovers the Truth About COVID Vaccines

I have never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but after being a licensed Pharmacist for 52 yrs… I have never seen a new medication come to market in less than a DECADE of clinical trials and even then I have seen meds going thru 10 yrs of clinical trials get pulled from the market, within the first year on the market, because of some adverse event that did not show up in the clinical trials.  And millions of people were persuaded – or forced-  – to get vaccinations that were only available with EUA (EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION) from the FDA.  In my opinion, they were pushing two vaccine based on a process (mRNA) that was TOO NEW & TOO UNTESTED…  I made sure that we got the J&J/Jansen vaccine because it used the same process that we have used for years creating our flu vaccination.  Now “they” have decided because of a few blood clots in pts getting this vaccination… they are back to pushing the mRNA products… when you look at the data on those getting blood clots was in females 20y/o – 45/yo – the age which birth control meds are more likely to be used and BC’s are known to possibly create blood clots… It is getting hard to separate the FACTS from the DISINFORMATION

 

ABC News Affiliate Accidentally Discovers the Truth About COVID Vaccines

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/abc-news-accidentally-discovers-truth-covid-vaccines/

The World Tribune has a stunning story about an ABC News reporter’s effort to target the unvaccinated and support the Biden policy to force vaccines. WXYZ in Detriot, an ABC affiliate, asked viewers to share stories of loved ones who died of COVID after refusing or delaying to get the vaccine. This request produced an unexpected truth bomb.

By noon on Monday, the post had received over 39,000 angry and often heartbreaking responses. Virtually every string contains a firsthand report by people whose family members are grieving the loss of loved ones of all ages.

Typical of many of the responses, one woman wrote poignantly:

And there were more:

 

Petition for Compassionate Release by Paul Volkman, MD

Petition for Compassionate Release by Paul Volkman, MD

https://doctorsofcourage.org/petition-for-compassionate-release-paul-volkman-md/

Paul Volkman, MD

75 y/o Paul Volkman, MD was given 4 life sentences for treating pain patients with opioids.  He is applying for compassionate release from prison.  He won’t be practicing medicine again, and he is not a danger to society.  The problem he faces, however, is that the FBOP doesn’t want to release any prisoners because they are their money-maker. And even though there is a law to give inmates compassionate release, it is the FBOP’s decision and they usually decide “No” to any request.  In my experience in the FBOP, they let inmates dying of cancer die in their cells rather than give them compassionate release and let them die at home.  This disrespect of the law has to end with taking away immunity from federal employees.

Dr. Volkman asked me to publish his addition that he sent to his lawyer to add to his petition. I pray that they do give him compassionate release, and ask you to do the same.

To the FBOP:
As I stated in my pro se petition, confirmed by you in your supplement, that under the FSA the adjudication of my petition for sentence reduction (compassionate release) is strictly limited to evaluation of the 3553(a) factors spelled out in the black letters of the law.  The criteria are:

  1. Risk of re-offense;
  2. Danger posed to the community upon release;
  3. Medical issues defined as comorbidities to COVID;
  4. Viable release plan.

The AUSA has effectively conceded my right under the law to apply for compassionate release, and conceded that my medical conditions, documented by provided medical records, combined with my advance age of 75+, satisfy the legal requirements for granting my petition for compassionate release.  Since my offenses of conviction, to which I maintain my actual innocence, all involved alleged issuance of prescriptions for controlled substances “without legitimate medical purpose”, it is, by definition, quite impossible for me to reoffend, or to pose a danger to the public upon release, since I no longer possess a medical license, and could never again obtain one, as a convicted felon.  As to my housing arrangement upon release, my daughter, son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren eagerly look forward to my living with them.  The AUSA has therefore put forward no substantive objection to my petitions, so he has resorted to an attempt to relitigate my criminal case.  As you have told me, this is inappropriate and irrelevant to the requirements of the FSA.

Nevertheless, the AUSA has unfairly and falsely attacked my personal and professional character, just as he did in his closing arguments at trial, to secure multiple unjustified and unproven convictions by any means necessary. (See Doc. 504, pp8776 ff).  The AUSA repeatedly characterized me as a “heartless, callous monster”, a “pills-for-cash” drug dealer, although the AUSA was well aware that waves of undercover agents had been sent to my office to make “controlled buys”, but were sent away empty-handed.  Co-defendants Denise and Alice Huffman had been given 5K 1.1 credit for cooperation, but both testified at trial that I have never received any money for selling prescriptions or pain pills.  At the jury instruction conference, Judge Beckwith commented that “there has been no testimony of personal profit per se.” J. Beckwith further refused to proffer my proposed jury instruction (after the objection of the AUSA), taken verbatim from the 1975 MORE SCt holding: “In order to find the defendant doctor guilty of violation of the CSA, you must determine that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he ad used his prescription-writing powers to engage in illicit drug trafficking as conventionally understood, for the profits to be gained therefrom, and had not acted as a physician at all.” After the testimony of the Huffmans, and after the testimony of some 14 former patients that they had considered me their trusted physician, J. Beckwith was well aware that my proposed jury instruction amounted to a directed verdict of acquittal.

My nationally recognized medical experts, Drs. Blatman, Tennant, and Bonnell, considered it their duty to testify in my defense at trial, for which they refused payment. They flatly contradicted every unsupported allegation of the three government “experts” who were well paid to come to the court and present false propaganda.  My experts testified under oath that my pain management practices complied with controlling state law, The Ohio Intractable Pain Treatment Act, and all federal requirements of the CSA.  Dr. Tennant, who largely created the recognized specialty o medical pain management in the 80s, testified that he used the same combinations of medications as I had used (as did Dr. Blatman, and even the government “expert” Severyn) impugned by the AUSA as the “deadly Portsmouth cocktail”. Dr. Tennant futher testified that management of chronic severe pain amounts to hospice comfort care of the terminally ill.  Hospice doctors are not tried for murder when their terminal patients expire!  In fact, in WASHINGTON V GLUCKSBERG (1997), the SCt held that pain relief of terminal patients was an Eighth Amendment Right, even when providing the strong medication required should “hasten the death of the patient” as long as the patient and his family had been apprised of this potentiality.”

The critical moment of my criminal case occurred at the outset of the pretrial DAUBERT hearing, mandated to allow the defendant to cross-examine the qualifications and proposed testimony of the government experts, to prevent damaging “junk science” from reaching the ears of the jury.  J. Beckwith announced that she would not permit my councel to cross-examine the government “experts”, denying me my basic constitutional right of confrontation, and ignoring the holdings of DAUBERT.  Had J. Beckwith fulfilled her mandated “gatekeeper” role, and appropriately excluded the false testimony of the three paid government “experts”, the case would have quickly ended with the charges dismissed.  As it was, I had no chance for a fair trial.

On the morning my trial was to begin, the government advance a plea deal: Upon pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to illegally distribute controlled substances, I would receive a 15 year sentence.  I rejected the plea, maintaining my innocence to all charges (as I do to this day!), went to trial, and received four consecutive life sentences.  Had I accepted the “deal”, as 97% of the accused do, I would be home already, as the 15 year sentence would have required 10 years behind bars.  The “deal” previously offered by the AUSA undermines his present characterization of me as a heatless, remorseless, menace to society.

At the trial, the government “experts” characterized the patient deaths as “multidrug overdose deaths”, despite the testimony of forensic pathologist and toxicologist Dr. Bonnell that the toxixicological results did not support the charge that ANY deaths “resulted from” the medications I had prescribed. In 2014, the SCt issued a “GVR” order, vacating the imposed life sentences, citing the 2013 BURRAGE case which required proof of “but for” causation of death to impose enhanced sentences for 841(b)(1)(c), obviously not provided by the government “expert” testimony. The 6th Circuit then reissued their original opinion without changing a word, and reimposed the four consecutive life sentences without the required resentencing hearing.

I have at this point served over 11 years, after my critically important confrontation rights were illegally denied, convicted of being a drug dealer absent evidence of “drugs for money”, and convicted of killing my patients with drug overdoses without a semblance of FACTS to substantiate the convictions.

The AUSA claims that:

  1. I am actually safer from COVID here than at home with my family.
  2. I am well taken care of here by the USP Tucson medical staff.

He then cites BOP statistics that show that only one or two inmates released to home confinement have died.  As to medical care here, I have urgent need to see a consultant cardiologist, but this has not been, and WILL NOT be scheduled, according to the provider. Just a week ago, I was taken by ambulance to Banner South Hospital for evaluation of chest pain.  As to my type 2 diabetes, my request for a self-carry glucometer, to allow me to appropriately and carefully monitor my serum blood sugar levels, has been denied. (“Once a year blood test for HgA1C is adequate monitoring.”) As to my multiple kidney stones and right hydronephrosis, no consultation with a urologist is scheduled.  The AUSA also asserts that, as USP Tucson is supposedly following “level 3 COVID protocols”, that daily COVID tests are administered.  When I arrived at USP Tucson in July 2021, I had 3 negative COVID tests during the standard one month stay in quarantine. Since then, in the following six months, I had exactly one COVID test about 2 weeks ago, and one more at Banner South ER, per their protocol for all patients.  Once released, I will certainly be able to obtain the requisite care for my multiple conditions, from reputable an conscientious physicians in the community.

The AUSA has included my 2018 letter to “Doctorsofcourage.org” to demonstrate what he regards as my “lack of remorse, or acceptance of responsibility for the devastation I wrought upon my patients and my community.” None of these accusations are legitimate. I stand by the letter that the AUSA included, and I would today change nothing I said.

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of my petition for compassionate release.

Paul H. Volkman MD, PhD

‘Wonderful’ mother-of-two, 36, died from first dose of Covid Pfizer vaccine, inquest told

‘Wonderful’ mother-of-two, 36, died from first dose of Covid Pfizer vaccine, inquest told

https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/wonderful-mother-of-two-36-died-from-first-dose-of-covid-pfizer-vaccine-inquest-told

A family listened in shock today as a pathologist revealed his belief that a mother-of-two died of rare complications from the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination.

A post-mortem examination on the body of Dawn Wooldridge, 36, had previously proved inconclusive.

But today, an inquest heard that the unexpected death, which happened 11 days after Mrs Wooldridge’s first Covid jab, was likely caused as a result of the vaccination.

Mrs Wooldridge was found dead in her home by her brother in June last year, after she failed to collect her five-year-old son from school that day.

Dawn Wooldridge (right), 36, pictured with her husband Ashley. Mrs Wooldridge died on June 15 last year – 11 days after having her first Pfizer vaccine

The family, including her husband, her brother and sister-in-law, and her step-parents attended the inquest in Reading. 

In a statement, Mrs Wooldridge’s husband Ashley said: ‘We met on holiday in Turkey and we have been married for seven years this year. 

‘We had our son nearly six years ago and our daughter just two years ago.

‘When they are old enough, I want to have enough of an explanation about how their mum died. The only thing that happened when Dawn died, was that she had her Covid jab before her death.’

The hearing heard how Mrs Wooldridge’s final day had began completely normal. 

She had dropped her son off at school in the morning, visited a friend for coffee and had spoken to her mother over the phone in the afternoon.

The coroner said that Mrs Wooldridge’s medical records confirmed she received her first Covid-19 jab on June 4.

Mrs Wooldridge’s husband Ashley(pictured together)  said he wanted to give his two children an explanation of why their mother died

Dr Sukhvinder Ghataura stated that the postmortem showed showed Mrs Wooldridge had been healthy at the time of her death and the toxicology report had found no signs of alcohol or drugs in her system at the time.

The only points noted were inflammation of the heart, fluid in her lungs alongside a small clot on her lungs. These, alongside menstrual irregularity and complaints of pain in her jaw and arm in the days after the vaccine – the pathologist suggested, were linked to myocarditis.

He told the coroner: ‘On the balance of probabilities, she had vaccine-related problems. There is nothing else for me to hang my hat on. It is the most likely reason, in my conclusion. It is more than likely Dawn died in response to the Covid jab.’

Husband Ashley was visibly shocked in the coroner’s room by the change in the pathologist’s perspective. 

Speaking on his behalf, Dawn’s brother Stuart Lynch asked the pathologist: ‘Do you think she would still be alive if she hadn’t had the vaccine?’

Dr Ghataura responded: ‘It’s a difficult question but I would say yes. I wish to pass on my condolences to Dawn’s family.’

Concluding the inquest, assistant Coroner Alison McCormick said: ‘Dawn was a 36-year-old married lady. Her husband Ashley and her members of her family are here today as a testament to the woman she was.

‘She was a full-time mum. She had no significant medical history and was not on any medication when she died. She had her first Pfizer vaccine on June 4, 2021, and evidence after that shows her periods became irregular.

‘She also reported pains in her arm and her jaw. June 15, 2021, was a normal day for her. There is no evidence she was ill that day. 

‘She walked her son to school in the morning and went to get coffee with a friend. That afternoon she had a 15-20 minute phone call with her mum.

‘She didn’t however pick her son up from school. Her brother went to the house where he saw her face-down, collapsed on the floor. She had been on the toilet prior to her collapse.

‘With the help of a local builder he gained access to the house, and a defibrillator was used. Police and paramedics attended quickly, but despite their efforts no life-saving opportunities were available and she passed away at her home address on that day.

‘Subsequent to her death, a toxicology and post-mortem examination were undertaken and initially, Dr Ghataura said he was unable to provide a cause for Dawn’s death, stating the post-mortem findings were ‘unascertained.’

‘Today I heard from Dr Ghataura and during the course of the evidence he expressed a change of view that in the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not she died from acute myocarditis due to her recent Covid-19 immunisation.

‘I give the narrative conclusion that her death was caused by acute myocarditis, due to recent Covid-19 immunisation. Ashley, you will have something to say to your children to explain why their mother died so tragically.’

Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO

Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO

https://www.americaoutloud.com/biden-handing-over-u-s-sovereignty-to-who/

Please take seriously the severity of this existential threat to everything free people hold dear. Do everything in your power to pass this report on to others and to find ways to communicate with and to influence people to stop empowering WHO to take over our national sovereignty and freedom.

On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).

This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.1

These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations. 

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.2

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.

How It Became Official

On January 18, 2022, with no public awareness, officials from the Biden Administration sent the World Health Organization these extensive amendments to strengthen WHO’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations.4 The U.S. amendments cross out a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…”5 By eliminating that, and other clauses (see below), all the shackles will be removed from the Director-General of WHO, enabling him to declare health emergencies at will.

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.

Although sponsored by an American administration, WHO’s most significant use of this arbitrary authority to declare national emergencies will be used against the United States if our government ever again dares to take anti-globalist stands as it did under the Trump administration.

How Much Time Do We Have to Stop the Amendments?

The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022,6 leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote. As noted, the amendments are scheduled and almost certainly will be enacted May 22-28, 2022.

The existing WHO regulations then provide for an 18-month grace period during which a nation may withdraw its “yes” vote for amendments, but the current proposed amendments would reduce that opportunity to six months. If the U.S.-sponsored amendments are passed, a majority of the nations could, in the next six months, change their individual votes and reverse the approval. But this is a much more difficult proposition than stopping the whole process now.

We must act now to prevent the passage of the amendments, including putting sufficient pressure on the United States to withdraw them from consideration. If that fails, and the amendments are approved at the May meeting of the WHO governing body, we must then make the effort to influence a majority of the nations to change their votes to “no.”

Without Organized Resistance, the Amendments Will Definitely Pass

On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS.7 Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.

Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:

Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the  European Union (EU).

The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO’s global power. The EU includes the following 27 Western nations:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

That’s a total of 47 nations supporting the U.S.-authored amendments. All of them have endorsed empowering WHO to declare a possible or potential health emergency or crisis within any nation despite its objections and refusal to cooperate. To repeat, these amendments will pass unless American citizens, as well as citizens worldwide, mount a very strong opposition.

World Health Organization

Defining “Health” and WHO’s Domain of Authority

According to the Foreward to WHO’s regulations, there is no specific limit to what constitutes a health emergency, and it is certainly not limited to pandemics. WHO’s domain includes:8

a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission, but covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…

WHO’s powerful reach is also defined by the number of other organizations it is authorized to cooperate with once it has declared an emergency or health crisis: “other competent intergovernmental organizations or international bodies with which WHO is expected to cooperate and coordinate its activities, as appropriate, include the following: United Nations, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Air Transport Association, International Shipping Federation, and Office International des Epizooties.”9

The Preamble to the WHO Constitution (separate from the International Health Regulations) summarizes WHO’s concept of what is included under its mandate of improving, guiding, and organizing world health:10

WHO remains firmly committed to the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution

  • Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
  • The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
  • The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent on the fullest cooperation of individuals and States.
  • The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.
  • Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of diseases, especially communicable diseases, is a common danger.
  • Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.
  • The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological, and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.
  • Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.
  • Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

Given WHO’s assessment of the breadth of its health concerns, mandates, and goals — almost any kind of problematic situation that affects the people of a nation could be considered a health problem. Indeed, under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem. With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.

WHO’s Sweeping New Powers

The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party. Despite the fact that his role as the cover-up apologist for the Chinese Communists at the onset of COVID-19, this “dear friend of Anthony Fauci” was re-elected without opposition in 2022 to a second five-year term.11 His original election in 2017, followed by his re-election without opposition in 2022, is an ominous display of Chinese Communist influence over WHO,12 which makes further empowering the U.N. agency extremely dangerous.

Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action. This requirement is stricken by the U.S. amendments (Article 9.1). The amendments require a response in 24 hours from the identified nation, or WHO will identify it as “rejection” and act independently (Article 10.3). If the identified nation “does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall … immediately share with the other State Parties the information available to it…” (Article 10.4).

Indicating the breadth of WHO’s scope of power, the agency will be given the right to involve multiple other U.N. agencies, including those related to food and agriculture, animal health, environmental programs, “or other relevant entities” (Article 6.1). This, too will not require the permission of the identified nation. The targeted nation is also required to send to WHO any relevant genetic sequence data. And as we have seen, the Foreward to these regulations presents a much larger array of potential collaborating agencies.

Under the proposed regulations, WHO itself would develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…” (New article 5). Notice that the health-endangering event may be so nonspecific as to have “unknown causes or sources.” Thus, Tedros and any future Director-Generals of WHO will be given unrestricted powers to define and then implement their interventions.

The proposed regulations, in combination with existing ones, allow action to be taken by WHO, “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring…” (Article 12.2). That is, Tedros need only “consider” that a “potential or actual” risk is occurring.

Global Supporters of WHO

WHO is not a global powerhouse by itself. Early in the pandemic, it acted as a front group for the international exploiters of humanity, whom we describe in our new book COVID-19 and the Global Predators. In particular, it made certain the Chinese Communists could hide the seriousness of the pandemic while spreading to the world on passenger airplanes from its major cities, including Wuhan itself. We have already noted and documented that the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping have enormous influence over WHO. 

Even after Donald Trump slashed the U.S. contribution to WHO in February 2020, the U.S. remained the largest donor to WHO. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. contribution was $115.8 million, followed by China at approximately one-half that amount, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Brazil.13

Then in early July 2020, Trump notified Congress and the U.N. that it was formally withdrawing from WHO. Bill Gates quickly announced he was increasing his contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to $250 million.14

After the Communist Chinese Party, Bill Gates probably has the most influence over WHO. In our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, we describe in Chapter 15 how Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and the giant medical foundation Wellcome Trust created CEPI — The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. This became the center of global predatory activities in preparation for the anticipated pandemic. It brought together key U.S. agencies, including the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, the U.N., WHO, giant pharmaceutical companies, banks, and multiple other sources of wealth and power.

In 2017, or earlier, CEPI made an agreement called a memorandum of understanding with WHO. CEPI then presented a PowerPoint presentation to WHO in July 2017, in effect dividing up the world between the Gates’ CEPI and WHO in the coming pandemic. Gates would handle the financing, supply, and distribution of the vaccines, and WHO would control and monitor the scientific and medical community. Among the stipulations of the PowerPoint, which the Gates-created foundation presented, was that the pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed for all direct and indirect costs by the government for developing their high-speed manufacturing platforms.

WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies. This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.  

Europeans Call for Additional Further Increases in WHO’s Power 

There is a growing debate over further increasing the power of WHO to punish uncooperative or dissident nations.15 Some “have sounded the alarm about giving the WHO too much power at the expense of national sovereignty.” Some have voiced concern about China’s influence on WHO: “Not only has it increased its payment to the WHO in recent years, but it also enjoys a special relationship with its leader.”

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, with President Xi Jinping.

But others are calling for increasing WHO’s ability to sanction non-compliant nations. Echoing recent plans publicized by the Biden administration, some nations are calling for “national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization that undermine public health.” German Health Minister Jens Spahn has proposed “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” Tedros has said, “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.”

Treaties with WHO: Another Enormous Threat to Sovereignty — With a Longer Timeline

Before we learned about this current and more immediate threat to U.S. sovereignty, we were focusing on WHO’s plans to begin making treaties with individual nations to take over their general healthcare structures, making WHO the guiding and central authority for the world’s healthcare. In addition to many radio, TV, and public appearances giving the details about this threat, we have written a column on America Out Loud, dated February 18, 2022, “Tedros Introduces Globalist Plan to Take Over World’s Health Systems.”16

If implemented, the treaties become an even greater threat than the amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, but we have more time to deal with the treaties than with the amendments.

We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion. Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty. 

Why Would the U.S. Government Surrender Its Sovereignty

Why would the U.S. give away its sovereignty to other nations? In reality, that process has been going on at least since President Wilson’s failed attempt to get the Senate to approve U.S. membership in the League of Nations. It has escalated since World War II, often under the umbrella and authority of the United Nations, with which many global predators are enamored and use as the cover story for their predations. As documented in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab have both worked out cooperative agreements for their versions of the New World Order with the U.N.

President Biden has recently told the Business Round Table — the presidents and CEOs of the wealthiest 200 corporations in America — that they must lead the growing New World Order:17

“And now is a time when things are shifting.  We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.  And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

John Kerry, the President’s climate czar, had announced that when Americans elected Biden, they voted for the Great Reset, whether they knew it or not.18

Discussion and Conclusions

The planning for these devastating U.S.-sponsored amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations has been so stealthy that it might have escaped attention except for the efforts of one individual, James Roguski. He was the first to recognize this threat, and on March 31, 2022, he published a report headlined, “WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution.”19 He also helped us by reviewing the material and this report with us. Fortunately, our courageous medical colleague Robert Yoho originally alerted us to Roguski’s work and its importance.20

We are facing an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignty by these legally-binding amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations that — without stiff opposition — will almost certainly be passed during the upcoming meeting of WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, May 22-28, 2022. As noted earlier, there is a six-month grace period following approval of amendments during which countries may withdraw their approval, but a majority doing so seems highly unlikely. Right now, we must focus on preventing the WHA from approving the amendments.   

We must immediately mount an international campaign, especially focused within America, to force the U.S. to withdraw these amendments before they come to a vote. Otherwise, America and the nations of the world will take a giant stride toward forfeiting national sovereignty to WHO and the U.N. In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the U.N. and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations. Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.