Do you remember the politicians’ protestations from 2020? Everything would have been so new and surprising that one could not have known, one could not have guessed. In fact, there was and is an 85-page WHO emergency program for an influenza pandemic. The excuse of adhering to WHO guidelines does not apply once again – or these plans and guidelines can be arbitrarily changed on a daily basis.
The paper, into which many millions of taxes from all over the world have certainly flowed, is called “Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza”. Translated: “Non-pharmaceutical public health measures to reduce the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza”. The document can be downloaded here. Even if it is still denied by the beneficiaries of the pandemic, the claimed SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is nothing more than a stronger flu epidemic down to the last detail. The data for this is available and not just since yesterday.
The contents of the WHO recommendation are very good from a medical, factual and logical point of view – just like many specifications and processes were until the end of 2019. Well thought out, well thought out and proven. However, the question arises as to why one should strive for such a document on the basis of decades of worldwide medical experience if in the end nobody sticks to it anyway, to instead satisfy the power and financial interests of isolated billionaires.
The paper proves that governments and health professionals are guaranteed to have always known that most responses to a respiratory, influenza-like outbreak are utterly pointless, based on decades of knowledge and studies. The prescription of all these measures was therefore willful worldwide without evidence.
The most important cornerstones and recommendations of the program:
Active contact tracing is NOT recommended in general, because there is no obvious rationale for it in most Member States.
Active contact tracing is generally NOT recommended as there is no obvious justification for it in most Member States
WHO Dokumentpage 39.
Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is NOT recommended, because there is no obvious rationale for this measure and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.
Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is NOT recommended as there is no obvious justification for this measure and there would be significant difficulties in implementing it.
WHO Dokumentpage 47.
The EFFECT of reactive school closure in reducint influenza transmission varied but was generally LIMITED. In such cases, the adverse effects on the community should be fully considered (e.g. family burden and economic considerations), and the timing and duration should be limited to a period that is judged to be optimal.
The EFFECT of reactive school closures in reducing influenza transmission varied but was generally LIMITED. In such cases, the adverse impact on the community should be fully considered (e.g. family burden and economic considerations) and the timing and duration should be limited to what is considered optimal.
WHO Dokumentpages 50,52.
The strength of EVIDENCE on workplace closure is very LOW because the identified studies are all simulation studies.
The strength of the evidence on job closures is very LOW as the studies identified are all simulation studies.
WHO Dokumentpage 54.
Restrictions on forming large crowds
The EFFECT of measures to avoid crowding [“e.g. large meetings, religious pilgrimages, national events and transportation hub locations”] alone in reducing transmission is UNCERTAIN… the quality of evidence of its effectiveness is very low”].
The EFFECT of measures to avoid crowds [„z. B. große Versammlungen, religiöse Wallfahrten, nationale Veranstaltungen und Verkehrsknotenpunkte“] alone in reducing transmission is UNCERTAIN … the quality of evidence for their effectiveness is very low”].
WHO Dokumentpage 57.
Pandemic information for travelers
NO scientific EVIDENCE was identified for the effectiveness of travel advice against pandemic influenza; however, providing information to travellers is simple, feasible and acceptable.
NO scientific PROOF of the effectiveness of travel advice against an influenza pandemic has been found; However, providing information to travelers is easy, doable and acceptable.
WHO Dokumentpage 61.
Screening of travelers
Entry and exit screening of travellers [e.g., health declarations, visual inspections for symptoms and temperature checks] is “NOT recommended due to the overall ineffectiveness in reducing the introduction of infection and delaying local transmission.” “Involuntary screening may have ethical or legal implications.”
Entry and exit controls of travelers [z. B. Gesundheitserklärungen, Sichtprüfungen auf Symptome und Temperaturmessungen] are “NOT recommended due to overall ineffectiveness in reducing the introduction of infection and delaying local transmission.” “Involuntary screening may have ethical or legal implications.”
WHO Dokumentpage 64.
Overall, border closure is NOT recommended… This is due to the very low quality of evidence, economic consequences, resource implications and ethical implications.
Overall, border closure is NOT recommended… This is due to the very low quality of evidence, economic fallout, resource impact and ethical implications.
WHO Dokumentpage 69.
In summary, it can be said that virtually “the whole world” worked against the WHO’s previously laboriously developed catalog of recommendations – without there being any objection. It is another piece of the puzzle in the evidence that events took place here that had nothing to do with democracy or concern for the health of the population. Who gave these orders will certainly show the coming decades of coming to terms with the collective madness.