dimanche 5 janvier 2025

To those worried about the climate

To those worried about the climate, and more precisely (because I am not talking about the micro-climate or the regional climate, but about the global "climate" in the sense given to it by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) to those who think that:

1. the earth is warming, and that

2. this warming is due to the greenhouse effect, and that

3. carbon dioxide is the cause of the greenhouse effect, I ask:

Are you doing something, practically, to solve the problem that concerns you? If so, have you found a way to verify the effectiveness of your action? And if not, what is the practical consequence of your climate concern?

For example, here are some practical, easy actions taken from my personal experience, whose effectiveness is easily verifiable:

- to reduce air pollution in the city: Walk, cycle, use public transport, refuse electric vehicles - which pollute more because of their weight and tyre wear.

- to reduce soil pollution: Reduce electrical gadgets, keep your cell phone and computer longer (continue to use it even when the battery, after 6 or 7 years, no longer takes a charge), continue using old, lightweight and "offline" software, refuse electric bicycles,  scooters and cars, eat less meat, eat more organic products, avoid plastic bags...

- to reduce pollution in homes and fight against the epidemic of catastrophic fires: Eliminate plastics (including plywood and particle boards or "OSB" full of glue), PVC floorings, polyurethane foam sofas and beds (yes, 95% of IKEA is to be rejected), and even acrylic paints and "vitrification" of wooden floors and even certain "linseed oils" which contain chemical hardeners, and prefer lime paint and mustard or other natural oils, in short, make your house thinking of your baby crawling on the floor and putting everything, absolutely everything, in her mouth. It is not always easy, but very simple, and doable without asking "experts".

- to fight against desertification and the poisoning of water and soil: Refuse pesticides and "pest control", plant diverse and local species, preserve wetlands, use dry toilets.

- to fight against the increase in our economic vulnerability: Make bioclimatic homes, cities and factories, where natural light, natural ventilation and passive solar design ensure a comfortable climate without depending on machines (which humanity has done for 12,000 years until 1950-80, and continues to do in many regions of the world);

- to fight against world hunger: Refuse necrofuels and burn, in vehicles or for heating, exclusively fossil fuels (gas or petrol) or otherwise, agricultural waste that you produce yourself (pruning branches, dead leaves, etc.)

- to fight against the deterioration of the (micro) climate: Refuse artificialization of soils, plant trees (local and diverse);

- to respect our children and grandchildren: Refuse nuclear energy.

Etc. etc. Only simple, feasible things, easy to understand, explain, verify, prove. Nothing controversial, by the way.

Compare with the crazy or criminal, unverifiable "solutions" of the apostles of the "climate"...

What is "scientific"?

An action whose effects can be verified immediately and by our own means?

or complicated theories that do not lead to any concrete action with verifiable effects?

Unfortunately, late Bruno Latour, who argued that science is the product of scientific institutions and not the other way around, has successfully given theoretical foundations to contemporary political philosophy, that of Covid, Nuclear Power, Liberal Nazism, Democratic Genocide, Jihadism in Business Suit, and War abroad as a guarantee of "Peace" at home. 

Aux angoissés du climat

Aux angoissés du climat, et plus précisément (car je ne parle pas du micro-climat ou du climat régional, mais du "climat" global au sens que lui donne le Groupe d'Experts Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat, GIEC) à ceux qui pensent que 1. la terre se réchauffe, que 2. ce réchauffement est dû à l'effet de serre, et que 3. le gaz carbonique est la cause de l'effet de serre, je demande :


Faites-vous, en pratique, quelquechose pour résoudre le problème qui vous préoccupe ? Si oui, avez-vous trouvé le moyen de vérifier l'efficacité de votre action ? Et sinon, quelle est la conséquence pratique de votre souci climatique ?

Par exemple, voici tirés de mon expérience personnelle, quelques actions pratiques, faciles et dont l'efficacité est facilement vérifiable :

- pour réduire la pollution de l'air en ville : marcher, faire du vélo, utiliser les transports en commun, refuser les véhicules électriques -qui polluent plus à cause de leur poids et de l'usure des pneus.

- pour réduire la pollution des sols: réduire les gadgets électriques, faire durer son portable et son ordinateur (continuer à l'utiliser même quand la batterie, après 6 ou 7 ans, ne prend plus de charge), continuer d'utiliser les vieux logiciels, refuser le vélo ou le scooter ou la voiture électrique, manger moins de viande, manger plus de produits bio, ne plus utiliser de sacs en plastique...

- pour réduire la pollution des habitations et lutter contre l'épidémie d'incendies catastrophiques : éliminer les plastiques (y compris contre-plaqués et panneaux de particules ou "triply" bourrés de colles), les revêtements de sol en PVC, les sofas et lits en mousse de polyuréthane (oui, 95% d'IKEA est à refuser), et même les peintures acryliques et "vitrification" de parquets et même certaines "huiles de lin" qui comprennent des durcisseur chimiques, et préférer la peinture à la chaux, bref, faire sa maison en pensant à un bébé qui rampe par terre et met tout, absolument tout, à sa bouche. C'est pas toujours facile, mais très simple, et faisable sans demander à des "experts".

- pour lutter contre la désertification et l'empoisonnement de l'eau et des sols : refuser les pesticides, planter des espèces diverses et locales, préserver les zones humides, utiliser des toilettes sèches.

- pour lutter contre l'accroissement de notre vulnérabilité économique : faire des habitations, des villes et des usines bioclimatiques, où la lumière naturelle, la ventilation naturelle et le chauffage solaire passif assurent une ambiance confortable sans dépendre de machines (ce que l'humanité a fait depuis 12 mille ans jusqu'à 1950-80, et continue à faire dans beaucoup de régions du monde);

- pour lutter contre la faim dans le monde : refuser les nécrocarburants et ne brûler, dans les véhicules ou pour se chauffer, que des carburants fossiles (gaz ou pétrole) ou sinon, des déchets agricoles que l'on produit soi-même (branches d'élagage, feuilles mortes, etc.)

- pour lutter contre la détérioration du (micro) climat : refuser l'artificialisation des sols, planter des arbres (locaux et divers);

- pour respecter nos enfants et petits-enfants : refuser l'énergie nucléaire.

Etc. etc. Que des choses simples, faisables, faciles à comprendre, à expliquer, à vérifier, à prouver. Rien de controversé, d'ailleurs.

Comparez avec les "solutions" loufoques ou criminelles, invérifiables, des apôtres du "climat"...

Qu'est-ce qui est "scientifique" ? 

Une action dont les effets sont vérifiables immédiatement et par nos propres moyens ?

ou des théories compliquées qui ne débouchent sur aucune action concrète aux effets vérifiables ?

Malheureusement, Bruno Latour, qui dit que la science est le produit des institutions scientifiques et pas le contraire, a défini la philosophie politique contemporaine, celle du covid, du nucléaire, du nazisme libéral, du génocide démocratique, du jihadisme encravaté et de la guerre chez les autres comme garantie de la paix chez soi.

mercredi 11 décembre 2024

jeudi 19 septembre 2024

From Russian Duma to European Parliament

 🇷🇺💬🇪🇺 The European Parliament has called for allowing Ukraine to strike targets in the Russian territory, and the Chairman of the Russian State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin had something to say to them:


"For those who didn't understand the first time!

Today, the European Parliament called on the EU countries to lift restrictions on Kiev's long-range weapons strikes on our country's territory, to increase military support for Ukraine, and to announce a collection of funds from the population of Europe for the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

I'll repeat it again.

If something like this happens.
Russia will give a tough response using more powerful weapons.
No one should have any illusions about this.
The State Duma insists on this.

Questions for MEPs:
❓ did you consult with your constituents before making this decision
❓European citizens want war to come to their home

What the European Parliament is calling for is leading to a world war using nuclear weapons.

Before making such a decision, it was necessary to remember the lessons of World War II. Then, 27 million Soviet citizens died in the fight against fascism.

It was our country that liberated you and all of Europe.
Remember this. Don't forget.
Judging by the statement of the European Parliament, it seems you have forgotten.

The citizens of our country know what war is; it has passed through every family.
The victory over Nazism came at a high price.

The USA and England, who call themselves the victors today, lost less than 800,000 people in World War II.
Our losses in the Battle of Stalingrad alone were 1,130,000 people.

The only thing the European Parliament should do after such a statement is to dissolve itself.

For your information.
The Sarmat missile's flight time to Strasbourg is 3 minutes 20 seconds."


🔴@DDGeopolitics

mercredi 11 septembre 2024

The US and Israel are using nuclear weapons against civilian populations since at least 2003

The US and Israel are using nuclear weapons against civilian populations since at least 2003.

https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is--israel--using-small-nuclear-weapons-in-gaza-and-south-le

Previous posts on this subject:

https://media-et-terrorisme.blogspot.com/2023/12/citizens-action-against-neutron-bombs.html

https://media-et-terrorisme.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-physics-of-911-synthesis.html

https://media-et-terrorisme.blogspot.com/2023/08/son-of-bitch-attitude.html


Some other sources on the use of atomic bombs after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings:



http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/11/was-syria-nuked/

http://www.johnkettler.com/nuclear-strikes-israel-hit-syria-thrice/

Of course, you will also find 2 recent articles on the Tianjin nuclear explosion in Veterans Today.

Press TV has also reported the news:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/04/23/407697/Yemen-Saudi-Arabia-Houthi-Aggression


An other source is the team working around Chris Busby:

http://www.llrc.org/

http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/fallujahair.pdf

They found that the uranium residues in Irak are NOT depleted uranium (which is supposed to be use as armour-penetrating weapons but slightly ENRICHED uranium, which should not be present on a battle field, EXCEPT if you are using atomic bombs.

We know that there are 3 types of small, "tactical" atomic bombs available: Neutron bombs, atomic bunker busters, and "Davy Crockett" bombs and their derivatives. "Davy Crockett" have a wide range of effects depending on what you put around them: iron dust or other things. It can have mostly an electromagnetic effect, or mostly a heat effect, or other things. These effects are extensively described in many articles of Veterans Today. It is likely that the bombs having destroyed the 3 towers of the WTC were derived from "Davy Crockett". All the effects are compatible with these bombs. But no other available explosive can explain all of the effects observed (particularly, the instant vaporisation of thousands of tons of massive steel girders).

People at Veterans Today in particular believe the the s-called "Fuel Air" bombs which the American claim to have used in Irak are more likely Neutron bombs and Atomic Bunker Busters. The effects that "fuel-air" bombs are supposed to have are so similar to these bombs (depending on the distance) that the best way to differentiate is to analyse radioactive residues, which Chris Busby and his team have precisely done in Irak.

It is also the radioactive residues present for months around the WTC after the 9/11 that are unexplained by non-nuclear bombs (or by the most unlikely theory of "collapse by fire".)

Veterans Today have also published several articles on the Beyrouth atomic bombing, which has nothing to do with fertiliser.

Mobile phones are very useful for identifying atomic explosions because their plastic lenses let the gamma rays reach the sensor, and create flicker on the image, particularly obvious in video mode. Lightning created by ionisation of the air are also indications of atomic explosions, but not visible in sunlight.

A (very) few French sources as well:

The veteran politician and former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, expressed publicly in 2012 that if the Iran war would start, it would be nuclear at the onset:

https://www.liberation.fr/france/2012/03/02/michel-rocard-on-est-dans-l-imbecillite-politique-collective_799992/

Nobody seemed to notice what he said. Of course it would have acknowledged that the only way Israel could destroy the underground nuclear facilities in Iran was with atomic bunker busters, because they have no plane that can carry conventional bunker busters, too heavy. And no one in France dares to talk about Israeli nukes.

The famous French political expert Pascal Boniface also warned of the growing risk of "tactical" use of atomic bombs against non-nuclear countries:

https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2012/07/09/les-vraies-questions-sur-l-arme-nucleaire_832161/

The sources are still very scarce, but more and more people dare to face reality.

vendredi 5 juillet 2024

Ne pas importer le conflit Israélo-Palestinien

Probablement une des expressions les plus viles de la politique Française.

Elle vise des jeunes, des adolescents qui refusent d'être complices.

Complices de l'export du trou noir génocidaire Européen en Palestine et dans le reste du monde.

Export du génocide par la négation de l'existence du génocide, export par le soutien sans réserves aux génocidaires sur tous les plans - politique, militaire, diplomatique et financier, export par la création de la vulnérabilité et de l'insécurité des génocidaires par le maintien permanent d'un état de génocide, de guerre ou de guerre larvée dans tous les pays qui les entourent.

Le premier pas pour ne plus être un génocidaire consiste à ne pas donner de leçons.

Ne pas avoir peur de la paix, même et surtout si on ne la contrôlera pas. Accepter que nous ne prendrons plus de décisions à la place des indigènes.

Accepter que nous devenions, humblement, des indigènes comme les autres.

Alors il n'y aura plus de génocides.

lundi 1 juillet 2024

Législatives 2024 (2)

La semaine dernière j'ai voté François Asselineau parceque le candidat du Front Populaire, Franck Pajot :

1) déclarait "Européen convaincu, je m'engage à œuvrer pour une Europe puissante au service des citoyens et des travailleurs, et à défendre indéfectiblement la liberté et la souveraineté du peuple Ukrainien", ce qui signifie qu'il trouve que 1 million de morts ne sont pas suffisant et les Ukrainiens doivent continuer à mourir et détruire leur souveraineté entre le marteau de l'Union Européenne et l'enclume de la Russie, et 

2) était officiellement soutenu par Raphaël Glucksmann, qui réuni les 3 péchés politiques Européens de notre époque : Ouvertement Russophobe, ouvertement anti-Palestinien, ouvertement pour la vaccination obligatoire.

La France Insoumise n'ayant présenté aucun candidat dans la 11ème circonscription des Français de l'étrangler, s'étant retirée au profit de Pajot, j'ai donc voté François Asselineau.

Mais dans cette vidéo :

https://www.youtube.com/live/ZiNdIR1uxto

François Asselineau recommande à ses électeurs, de fait, de voter RN et laisser Jordan Bardella devenir Premier Ministre. C'est une trahison camouflée derrière une incohérence. En effet, Asselineau dit qu'il faut à tout prix voter contre Macron car, en dissolvant l'Assemblée Nationale,  "Macron casse tout", impliquant que Bardella premier ministre est l'équivalent de "tout casser", et je suis à peu près d'accord. Mais au lieu d'empêcher "la casse", M. Asselineau veut laisser M. Bardella accéder au pouvoir, et "voir ce qui va se passer".

Donc selon cette déclaration de M. Asselineau, si M. Macron est un casseur fou, M. Asselineau est un casseur pervers, bien plus dangereux !

François Asselineau est manifestement un traître aux idées qu'il prétend défendre. 

Je ferais tout ce que je peux pour empêcher le RN d'accéder au pouvoir, et cela inclu ne plus voter pour François Asselineau désormais. 

Au second tour je voterais pour Franck Pajot.

vendredi 28 juin 2024

Élections législatives 2024

François Asselineau, le seul candidat -hors extrême-droite- de la 11ème circonscription des Français de l'étranger qui n'aurait pas empoisonné ma fille en 2022. Il a mon vote.


En plus il est sympa :


dimanche 23 juin 2024

Steve Kirsch and Science



Steve Kirsch has been, from 2020, one of these voices of reason in a time of panic.

His presentation below is extremely important.

https://open.substack.com/pub/stevekirsch/p/what-the-data-tells-us-presentation

Steve Kirsch's work is evidence that Bruno Latour was wrong. Science cannot be what scientific institutions produce. It is necessary that science is also produced outside of scientific institutions. Covid is an example of science escaping outside scientific institutions when they become too incompetent and corrupt. And we know that incompetence and corruption is a part of the life of any institution. Therefore Bruno Latour was wrong. Science defines what scientific institutions should do, not the other way round. Epistemology has bright days ahead!


dimanche 16 juin 2024

1933-2024

 

1933: Reichspräzident Hindenburg dissolves Parliament 


2024: Président Macron dissolves Parliament 

samedi 1 juin 2024

When did Vladimir Putin become a "Putinist"?

 

1999: Russia brutally invades Chechnya, destroying entire cities. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac liked Vladimir Putin very much, but I was upset at him. I even helped send a truck of food, medicine and relief material to Chechnya, ("Convoi syndical pour la Tchétchénie",  2000), which the Russian army let our truck driver and leader, Eric Aragon, distribute himself in the refugee camps, but the French media did not support us and observed a complete silence. I also donated some money to an outstanding team of Chechen performing artists in a fundraising tour in France, again in complete media silence.

(How I wish a single man was able to drive a relief truck 4,000km to Palestine, sleeping in the truck at night, without getting killed or robbed, without the food getting looted or destroyed, without the truck being bombed, to distribute the food and relief material himself with his own hands to families, and returning safely with his truck,  and redoing it again and again, year after year!)

Anyway... little could I have known that I was a "Putinist", already!

2001: The United States invades Afghanistan. Vladimir Putin officially supports the invasion.

Georges Bush liked Vladimir Putin a lot. I didn't.

2003: The US and the UK invade Iraq. Tony Blair, who fabricated fake intelligence and had the good fortune that his chief bioweapon engineer, Dr. David Kelly "suicided" in time to facilitate an invasion that would kill 1 million civilians, liked Vladimir Putin very much.

I didn't. 

On 26th June 2003, Putin and Blair sign an agreement on "Long-Term Energy Partnership", including a "North European Gas Pipeline", which became famous,
when it spectacularly vanished 19 years later.


Of course, Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was a price "worth it" for weakening the rule of Saddam Hussein, also liked Vladimir Putin very much. But her endorsement didn't change my poor opinion of Putin.

Neither did the high appreciation of war criminal and serial looser Henri Kissinger (Vietnam 1968, Cambodia 1970, Bangladesh 1971, Chili 1973) for Vladimir Putin change my mind.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy also liked Vladimir Putin a lot, especially after Russia didn't react when France bombed Libya after having extracted their signature at the U.N. on a "humanitarian intervention", but instead killed the Libyan President live on TV, along with more than 50,000 other Libyans, captured the Libyan gold, and finally installed religious fanatics at the new government.

My opinion about Vladimir Putin was at the lowest. He was a spineless client of the Western empire, like so many regional leaders before him, a non-descript character.

However, my bad opinion softened a bit in March 2012, when I received a online petition by Amnesty International-USA demanding my signature for:

"asking Russia to speak out against Syria atrocities".

It is still here, including some arguments in the comments section:

https://blog.amnestyusa.org/justice/19-reasons-why-russia-must-speak-out-against-syria-atrocities/#comments

This petition by "Amnesty International-USA" was the first public indication that this time, Russia maybe, maybe only, would not help the West commit yet another genocide. Russia had invaded Chechnya, approved the Western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, remained silent when Libya was destroyed, but here for the first time I had some hope that the country of Dostoyevski, Bulgakov, Soljenitsyne and Tarkovski may not go along so easily.

And the greatest fear of Amnesty International-USA, and my discreet hope, turned out to become true!

Finally, after 3 years of hesitation, a few days after a visit to Moscow by Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the vanquisher of the Western mercenaries called "islamic state", Russia decided to join forces with the Syrians and the Iranians, and to save Syria from the Western wolves, on 30 September 2015.

I remember this time. 

Just 3 months before, I had launched an online petition to ask the French President Hollande, to stop waging war against Syria. Only 20 people, probably "putinists" like me, signed it. I had no idea if Russia finally would take a stand.

But they did.

I realised that not only Serguei Lavrov, but probably Vladimir Putin himself, had also become a "Putinist", just like us!

After Putin became a "Putinist", I also changed. I started to respect him, and maybe even, to like him.



jeudi 30 mai 2024

Megan Ganz's concept of humanity

Megan Ganz had a concise description of Dan Harmon, when asked by a journalist what she thinks of him:

"He's a work-in-progress"

She adds:

"That’s how I think of myself, too".

When you have a concept that encompasses yourself and others, you have nothing short of a working definition of humanity.

Here, that's not theoretical philosophy. This statement by Megan Ganz came 6 years after Dan Harmon harassed her at the work place, and a few days after he publicly apologised, without naming her. She felt so safe after his apology that she publicly forgave him, thereby disclosing her name.

A crucial part of Dan Harmon’s apology is this: 

"I certainly wouldn’t have been able to do it if I had any respect for women on a fundamental level. I was thinking about them as different creatures. I was thinking about the ones that I liked as having some special role in my life, and I did it all by not thinking about it".

Dan Harmon describes his earlier perception of Megan Ganz as a perfect entity, as someone who is completely described by what she is, and not as someone imperfect, in the process of becoming what she wants to be, with her own personal, secret trajectory. And Dan Harmon understands that his earlier perception was faulty. It took 6 years to people as intelligent as Megan Ganz and Dan Harmon, for him to understand this, and for her to calmly express it publicly (but she understood immediately, not after 6 years, as we can see in the links below).

This is of enormous consequences. It holds the key to reverse the weaponisation of identities, a trap many, if not most, of even our most accomplished intellectuals fall in, today.

That we are all work-in-progress, and at the same time, all helping each-other, makes all of us, everyone of us, a teacher of humanity.

It is one thing to deliberate about concepts from the comfort of a settled life, another one to create the concept out of your direct encounter with the forces of life. What you create then, is a new reality, a new world, a new space and a new language, that enables human encounter to happen and in fact, life itself, of which humans are a part, to grow. Concepts, when born out of life and lived truly, are the most powerful things we can create, and have a power that extends far beyond our individual lives.

We can be grateful to Megan Ganz and Dan Harmon for treading this path, not theoretically but by their own courageous lives.

Dan Harmon’s apology (starts at 18'):

http://www.harmontown.com/2018/01/episode-dont-let-him-wipe-or-flush/

The full transcript:

https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/dan-harmon-apologizes-to-community-writer-megan-ganz-on-harmontown.html

Some introduction and context:

https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/it-took-me-years-to-believe-in-my-talents-again-read-this-twitter-exchange-between-megan-ganz-and-dan-harmon.html

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/dan-harmon-megan-ganz-apology-1201916560/


jeudi 16 mai 2024

Loyalty vs Obedience

We have to think of loyalty not necessarily to someone or something, but as an intransitive verb. Being loyal is an action springing from the depth of the I, on its own ground, and for this reason loyalty always finds a just way to be loyal to everyone and everything together, even enemies. Loyalty always takes full responsibility for its actions.

By contrast, obedience is always to someone or something. It is a sacrifice of one's own ground, a renunciation of responsibility, and it is exclusive: You can never obey two enemies together.

Loyalty strengthens the I, obedience weakens the I.

This has a strong relationship to algebra: Defining one's loyalty to apparently conflicting people or agendas, is the same as solving a system of multiple equations, for which the "x" is the I. Clarifying the equations and solving them in action build the I.

By contrast, obedience has no agency in posing equations, even less solving them, because the "x" is already given, and one has to shrink oneself to fit in.

Only a strong I can defend morality.

mardi 7 mai 2024

Swissair


Jean-Marc Reiser, l'Hebdo Hara-Kiri n°85, 14 septembre 1970

Pierre Fournier, l'Hebdo Hara-Kiri n°86, 21 septembre 1970

C'est pas facile de trouver des dessins gentils pour les Palestiniens dans la presse Française... en voilà deux autres!

Si vous en connaissez d'autres, envoyez-les moi ou mettez un lien en commentaire. Merci!

Quand les Palestiniens ont bousillé des avions, ils étaient vides et au sol

 

Jean-Marc Reiser, Charlie Hebdo n° 121 du 12 mars 1973

C'est pas facile de trouver des dessins gentils pour les Palestiniens dans la presse Française... en voilà un autre!

Notice of Liability delivered to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar

Notice of Liability delivered to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar

https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/the-notice-of-liability-delivered

Full text:

The Notice of Liability delivered to individuals at the W.H.O. this week

Addressing both corporate and personal liability in wrongdoing


Below you will find the text of the Notice of Liability delivered to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar this week. It was drafted with the help of specialist international lawyers and health scientists. Feel free to copy, paste and adapt for the purpose of notifying others of their liability in relation to the Covid-19 fraud.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: a man

dba: Director General World Health Organisation (WHO)

Office of the Director General

Avenue Appia 20

1202 Geneva - Switzerland       

6th day in the month of May in the year 2024

Dear Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (hereafter ‘you’),

Re: Notice upon Harm and to Cease and Desist

On behalf of living men, women and all their sons and daughters living right now and those yet to be born on Earth, we hereby place you: a man: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, doing business as the Director General of the World Health Organisation (hereafter W.H.O), on notice that:

  1. Your actions carried out in the capacity of Director General of the W.H.O during the Covid-19 chapter, principally consisting of falsely informing world governments of a so-called pandemic, thereby causing governments to declare non-existent medical emergencies, have been and are still an integral part of a chain of events that is resulting in mass loss of life, immense physical harm and untold psychological distress and trauma to the people on this planet;

  2. Said actions appear to have led to Governments deploying insufficiently tested SARS-CoV-2 genetically modified organisms (GMOs) falsely termed ‘vaccines’ being also gene therapies, mandating unscientific masking protocols, implementing inhumane and anti-scientific ‘social distancing’ measures, purchasing and deploying ineffective and fraudulent PCR tests subsequently used to create false ‘casedemics’ in order to justify unlawful ‘lockdowns’, business closures and house arrest;

  3. We demand that, with immediate effect, you cease and desist from taking further actions that would involve false and fraudulent communication to governments thereby causing or resulting in further instances of the kind of catastrophic outcomes outlined above.

Notice upon Personal Liability

We also put you on notice that failure to cease or desist from continued or repeated involvement or implication in the above harms shall render you liable both in your personal and corporate capacity. As a man, you shall be investigated for criminal conspiracy. As a corporate officer, you shall be investigated for gross negligence, serious misconduct in public office, corporate fraud and potentially even aiding and abetting corporate manslaughter.

Further to the above Notices, and in order to clarify our position, may we take this opportunity respectfully to remind you of your own position and legal responsibilities.

WHO Constitutional Obligation

The objective of the World Health Organization (WHO), according to Article 1 of the WHO Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.1 Thus, in your role as WHO Director-General, you are obliged to consult with a diversity of experts, including those who disagree with your recommendations on health, to ensure that best practice is ethically and objectively promoted to uphold the best interests of the public.

As early as 2021, international experts were cautioning against the novel Covid strategies recommended by the WHO Covid team, especially but not limited to the experimental modRNA medical technologies developed at ‘warp speed’ to function purportedly as vaccines.

The WHO Constitution states in Article 67 that members of the WHO may enjoy ‘such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.” Such privileges and immunity, whilst patently unfair, inequitable and dangerous, only apply when fulfilling the Article 1 objective.

By your unilateral recommendation of harmful Covid strategies, The People, represented by the World Council for Health, do not believe that you acted in accordance with your constitutional obligations in Article 1. If your actions are found to be in contravention of Article 1, you will not be covered by Article 67 of the WHO Constitution that provides for the stated protection and immunity. In other words, you may be personally liable for the millions of deaths and immense suffering caused on account of your role in the unlawful authorisation of these harmful recommendations. Moreover, given the blatant conflicts of interest evident in the WHO’s activities, closely connected to commercial interests, immunity is not guaranteed when acting at the behest of those interests.

Consequences of your WHO Covid Policies, Recommendations, Advice and Omissions

1. Immeasurable suffering and death

In the past four years, billions of people who trusted and complied with WHO-based country government advice have experienced ongoing physical and mental suffering, illness, disability, loss of income, poverty, child abuse, other violence, and even death as a result.

2. Human rights violations

Country governments worldwide implemented severe emergency measures directly based on WHO recommendations that consequently resulted in widespread violations of fundamental human rights. Boys, girls and babies were masked and injected. Living men and women expressing, or wishing to express their right to free speech, travel, bodily autonomy, and to choose, were threatened, intimidated, coerced, neglected, abused and in some cases assaulted, imprisoned or killed. The WHO did nothing to address the harm it caused.

3. Failure to recommend inexpensive, safe and effective treatments and remedies for Covid-19

Covid-19 can be effectively treated with safe and established multi-purpose generic medicines, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, and other immune-boosting, health-promoting and anti-coagulant treatments. Failure to disclose and raise awareness of these, and failure to recommend ivermectin widely in combination with zinc for early use, meant that millions of people suffered and many died as a result of not being offered effective early and late treatments.

By recommending ivermectin only in the context of clinical trials and omitting sound and practical advice on how to attain the highest level of health during the Covid-19 scare, ivermectin and other effective treatments were withheld in many countries in favour of expensive GMO drugs, emergency-authorized patented pharmaceutical drugs without safety records. Thus, in your personal capacity, the world’s people may hold you responsible for the consequences of serious omissions related to safe, effective treatments for Covid-19, in preference for undisclosed GMOs.

4. Dangerous GMO gene therapies deployed in the guise of vaccines

You may also be personally liable for death, loss and suffering in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 ‘vaccines’ as you have not advised people of the following:

  1. The long-term material risks of these ‘vaccines’ are unknown. The LNP-modRNA platform fulfils EU, UK, South African, Australian, and US legal definitions for being properly deemed a genetically modified organism (GMO), and a gene therapy, where material risks are identified over a period up to 15 years and perhaps into offspring. People were not advised as required by law that the so-called ‘vaccines’ are, in fact, GMOs.

  2. Pfizer used one process to manufacture the products that they submitted for approval but a different process to manufacture the product supplied for injection into the world’s people. The latter product was manufactured using E.coli bacteria and plasmid DNA which has resulted in excessive synthetic DNA contamination confirmed as able to integrate with the human genome. Moderna’s use of plasmid DNA in manufacture has also led to excessive synthetic DNA contamination.

  3. Pfizer products includes a SV40 virus-derived enhancer gene sequence. This gene sequence is known to facilitate the transport of the synthetic DNA into cell nuclei, posing a real risk of chromosomal integration. This threatens permanent genetic modification of inoculated people without their knowledge or consent and can only be harmful.

  4. The contents of these genetic injections do not stay in the arm muscle.

  5. Spike proteins are produced for a prolonged and unknown period of time, possibly indefinitely.

  6. These spike proteins trigger extensive microvascular blood clotting as well as large vessel blood clots.

  7. Spike proteins are deposited in many tissues and organs including the heart, brain, testis, ovaries, liver and spleen, causing tissue degeneration and disease.

  8. The large quantity of spike proteins may overwhelm the immune system, causing immune system dysfunction and worsening risk of all infections and cancers.

  9. The spike protein is toxic in itself, but this foreign antigen also marks the victims’ own tissues as non-self, triggering autoimmune disease within these tissues.

  10. The antibodies generated are non-neutralizing and worsen Covid disease; this is “antibody dependent enhancement” of infection.

  11. Undeclared plasmid DNA in these products carries further dangers; especially in the case of Pfizer and the concealed SV40 enhancer and promotor sequences. This includes the disruption of tumour suppressor genes, and adds to the list of mechanisms by which these products increase cancer risk.

  12. The artificial modRNA in these products is hyper-persistent due to the substitution of N1-methylpsudouridine in place of uracil. This prolongs the production of the toxic spike proteins, but also causes ribosome frame shifting, such that a variety of unpredictable proteins and polypeptides are also generated. These pose serious risk for triggering a large spectrum of autoimmune diseases.

  13. Additionally the pegylated lipid nanoparticles, which deliver the genetic payload into the victims’ cells, are toxic in and of themselves.

5. Violation of informed consent

Based on your authority as the designated WHO Director General, the majority of people around the world trusted your words when you stated that Covid-19 GMOs and gene therapies were “safe and effective”. This claim cannot be substantiated and is further disproved by Covid-19 vaccine contracts. As such, the right to free and informed consent was violated for every human being who was injected with the experimental Covid-19 GMO gene therapy called ‘vaccines’.

In addition, it appears that at no point did you appraise people of the risks associated with these experimental GMO injections, nor have you shared the mounting vaccine injury reports with the public. Vigibase, the WHO pharmacovigilance collaboration with the University of Uppsala, holds the records of over five million people suspected of harm due to the Covid-19 genetic ‘vaccines’, yet you have failed to demand and ensure transparent, independent and timely analysis of these data.

This is in direct contravention of the Nuremberg Code, that was agreed to in 1948, to prevent non-consensual medical experimentation on human beings, following gross human rights violations during the Second World War.2 Your failure to advise on, recommend, promote and ensure free and informed consent for these Covid-19 GMO gene therapies can be prosecuted for both breach of your duty of care as well as for battery.

World Council for Health Invitation

It is our opinion that the health of the World’s People is much poorer for the actions that you have taken during the course of your work responsibilities at the World Health Organization. In the circumstances, we are morally obliged to invite you to defend your actions or apologise publicly with a plan for reparations. A World Council for Health Country Council General Assembly is scheduled to take place on May 21, 2024, to hear your response and to agree on further necessary actions.

In the interim and in future, we demand that you cease and desist from spreading disinformation about the Covid-19 GMO gene therapy products with immediate effect.

By the men and women named below:

World Council for Health Steering Committee

Shabnam Palesa Mohamed (WCH Africa), Fahrie Hassan (WCH Africa), Emma Sron (WCH N. America), Dr.Marivic Villa (WCH N. Americas), Dr. Mark Trozzi (WCH N. America), Izumi Kamijo (WCH Asia), Rev. Dr. Wai Ching Lee (WCH Asia), Dr. Gilbertha St Rose (WCH Caribbean), Christof Plothe DO (WCH Europe), Dr. Mazen Nasreddine (WCH Levant), Lucinda van Buuren (WCH Oceania), Dr. Anne O’Reilly (WCH Oceania), Prof. Héctor Carvallo (WCH Latin America), Marco Albertazzi (WCH Latin America), Dr. Tess Lawrie (WCH Chief Coordinator)

Notice to principals is notice to agents and vice versa

Swiss solicitor, Philipp Kruse, delivered the notice in person to the WHO headquarters around midday on Monday 6th, 2024. Here he is confirming delivery:

The WHO and its employees can no longer say they are ignorant of the issues and public concerns. Here is the signed receipt of the documents:

The World Council for Health Steering Committee is extremely grateful to lawyers Philipp Kruse, Julian Gillespie, David Adelman and the many, many others who informed, assisted and supported this international collaboration toward truth, justice and accountability.

Thank you for your support!

If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber of this Substack or the World Council for Health Substack, if you have not yet done so. All proceeds go towards the humanitarian work of the World Council for Health.