Published on the Pandemics Data & Analytics (PANDA) website, the thesis directly challenges WHO’s alleged authority as a leader in global public health. It reveals that almost nothing WHO does has anything to do with public health as pretty much all of it is politically driven.
“This review empowers you with key information to help you assess the WHO’s candidacy as an authoritative global public health organization,” PANDA said. “It provides background information on public health and pandemic management principles as previously agreed upon by this branch of the United Nations.”
“The PANDA analysis will allow you to evaluate the soundness of the WHO-recommended response to [Wuhan coronavirus] COVID-19 and monkeypox, and to determine how faithfully the WHO followed its own previously developed recommendations. It goes on to summarize the assumptions underlying their Covid-19 recommendations, followed by a summary of the final recommendations.”
The first principle, which deals with human dignity and personal freedoms, was pretty much a no-go as WHO supported lockdowns, business closures, masks and other forms of medical fascism. (Related: WHO has also been implicated in possibly building and releasing the coronavirus bioweapon.)
The second principle deals with health in a holistic way, addressing not only physical but also mental, spiritual and social wellbeing. Was any of this a consideration when WHO endorsed more than two years of absolute plandemic hell?
The third – and this one is really important – deals with the right to bodily autonomy. In essence, WHO is supposed to respect the right of every individual to choose his own path to health – meaning no mandates, period.
Fourthly, WHO is supposed to support only those health interventions that a person chooses individually. Building on the third principle, the fourth stresses once again that sovereignty and individual liberty is to be upheld at all costs.
“Health professionals must obtain informed and voluntary consent from individuals before any medical intervention,” reads the fifth point. “Inaccurate information, psychological manipulation and any form of coercion render consent invalid.”
The sixth deals with medical information remaining private. For instance, nobody else has any right to know your vaccination status because it is none of their business.
The last four principles deal with closely evaluating the needs of a community based on the alleged threat; looking at the long-term implications of any new health policy; utilizing the input of individuals and communities in forming those policies; and only forming policies based on truth rather than politics.
Did WHO follow any of these guidelines throughout the plandemic? The answer is no. And public health is no better off because of it....<<<Read More>>>....