The Pandemic Preparedness Narrative Gets a Reality Check

 No, pandemics don't kill 2.5 million people each year, and no, the risk from infectious disease isn't increasing. The WHO's 'pandemic preparedness' ambitions need a reality check, and a new report does just that.

While much of the debate around pandemic preparedness takes place behind closed doors, RCR had the opportunity to take part in that conversation at Australia’s Parliament House in June.

In June, RCR’s Head of Legal, Katie Ashby-Koppens, joined international experts at Parliament House in Canberra for a series of briefings with Australian Senators and Members of Parliament at the invitation of Senator Alex Antic.

The briefings focused on one of the most significant international public policy changes currently underway: the World Health Organisation’s pandemic reforms and what they mean for Australia....<<<Read More>>>....

 

The International Court of Justice Climate Liability Ruling Sets a Worrying Precedent for Pandemics and Public Health

 Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US will dismantle the International Criminal Court and restore the rights of “sovereign states over globalism”. The think tank Policy Exchange, in a new report that contradicts much of its earlier approach to climate policy, warns that a 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling requires the UK to “arrest” the “trend of abuse of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction”.

Unfortunately, that ruling can easily be extrapolated to the domain of global health. Yet, resources devoted to flagship green causes and to pandemic preparedness alike would save more lives if redirected to basic health, nutrition and economic development.

In response to a 2023 UN General Assembly request, the court published its Advisory Opinion a year ago. It concluded that states have legally binding duties to prevent significant environmental harm. Failure to do so leaves a country exposed to claims for restitution from those who have been harmed.

In many countries the Covid response mimicked the climate change playbook. The catastrophism of both agendas was based on models. Claims of scientific authority and existential crisis escalated the agendas into moral crusades and people were asked to bear sacrifices for the good of the collective humanity and the planet.

State power expanded under that rubric to replace people’s and business’s freedom of choice with policy diktats. The same moralism and risks were used to launch personal attacks on critics and ridicule and censor dissenting opinions, even from experts in the field, by claiming a monopoly on truth and the best policies to manage the crises. The costs of the policies, risks of collateral harms and resulting need for policy trade-offs were dismissed....<<<Read More>>>...

African nations assert themselves and manage to postpone finalisation of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

 Finalisation of the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Agreement has been postponed again due to disagreements, particularly from a large bloc of African countries.

Although the main Agreement was adopted in May 2025, it cannot enter into force or be opened for signature until the contentious Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (“PABS”) annex is finalised. Until then, the treaty remains incomplete. Due to disagreements on PABS, instead of meeting the target deadline at the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026, the deadline for completion has been pushed to the 2027 World Health Assembly.

The African states have correctly identified that WHO is attempting to impose centralised control reminiscent of the colonial era.

WHO is prioritising the interests of its major financial sponsors, such as Bill Gates and pharmaceutical corporations, over the needs of low-income countries and populations. It has become a tool for wealthy donors and corporations, rather than a legitimate public health agency.

“The United States withdrawal from the WHO offers an opportunity, but it is the low-income countries on the receiving end of the WHO’s capture that need to drive change. The pushback on the Pandemic Agreement suggests that this may be happening,” David Bell writes...<<<Read More>>>....

Nipah Virus Triggers Another Bout of Hysteria in the Media

 A large outbreak of hysteria occurred in the media over the past week regarding a small Nipah virus outbreak in eastern India. ‘Hysteria’ is the correct word in terms of proportionality. It is not, unfortunately, the right word in terms of intent. Ten years ago this episode of Nipah virus disease would barely have rated a mention internationally, and certainly not stimulated airport screening and travel warnings – there have been many larger outbreaks of Nipah virus than this one which did not.

The change over recent years is not that people have lost their minds. It relates to the adoption of the fear-panic-profit model that has entrenched itself in international public health. Tens of billions in annual funding are on the table, and they depend – with the thousands of salaries and exorbitant Pharma profits tied to the pandemic industry – on the maintenance of a constant sense of imminent threat.

The World Health Organisation reports two cases from this Nipah outbreak, which is fewer than usual. As is common, they involve health service personnel, a group that is often infected by the virus before the diagnosis is clear in the patients they care for. Nipah virus infection historically has a high mortality rate among those infected, and each death is a tragedy, especially in those who are infected through caring for others. The deliberate hysteria and fearmongering these cases are being used to promote will kill lots more, because they divert resources from programmes aimed at far worse health problems. But using small recurrent outbreaks to promote fear is a business case that is too attractive to too many. This Nipah outbreak is simply its latest iteration....<<<Read More>>>...

The Pandemic Agreement gives WHO the power to commandeer resources from sovereign states

 WHO’s Pandemic Accords – the Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the IHR – are based on the flawed assumption that the risk of pandemics is rapidly growing, an assumption which are not supported by evidence.

Why are they, again, attempting to misinform and mislead the public?

Because the Accords will give WHO increased powers, allowing it to declare emergencies and commandeer resources from sovereign states. It also includes clauses on “misinformation” and “disinformation” which will allow for censorship of any dissenting voices, so the public won’t be given the chance to know that they’re lying about it.

The decades-old International Health Regulations, as amended last year, came into effect on 19 September. A new Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May, will be opened for signature after a pathogens access and benefits sharing deal that is expected to be reached next year. The WHO Pandemic Accords, as the two documents are known, are a good example of the type of global governance initiatives on which there is a consensus among technocratic elites, but against which there is a rising populist revolt. 

Two other examples that were mentioned by President Donald Trump in his UN address on 23 September are immigration and climate change. The speech was a wide-ranging defence of national sovereignty against globalism....<<<Read More>>>...

WHO’s Pandemic Agreement is adopted despite concerns about unelected institutions imposing global policies

Members of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) adopted a global pandemic accord on Tuesday, 20 May 2025; 124 countries voted in favour, no countries voted against, while 11 countries abstained and 46 countries were not present. The total votes cast don’t add up, but those are the numbers WHO has declared.

For the countries that abstained – of which, shamefully, the UK was not one – their concerns included loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.

Please note: The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

To ensure the Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the easiest possible route, WHO had determined that a vote need not take place, and instead it would be adopted by “consensus.”

Surprised that a “democratic institution” did not want to have a vote, Slovakia requested that a vote on the draft Pandemic Agreement take place, which Tedros the Terrorist attempted to stop hours before the vote was scheduled.

The vote was conducted by “a show of hands,” by “representatives” holding up their name plates, and then people counting the number of name plates raised. Which way countries voted was not recorded. It all sounds a bit dubious and fraught with error, with no way of checking whether an error, inadvertently or deliberately, has been made. A “show of hands” might be a good way to gauge how many bags of sweets to buy for a school outing, it certainly isn’t the way to vote on a global agreement.

To watch a video of the vote, go to WHO’s 78th World Health Assembly webpage, HERE, and select the ‘Committee A’ tab shown under the current video. Then from the list of ‘Committee A’ videos, select ‘WHA78 – Committee A, Second Committee A Meeting, 19/05/2025 – 18:50-21:40’. The “show of hands” voting begins at timestamp 02:47:20. The results were (see timestamp 03:08:08): 

Number of members entitled to vote, 181
Number of members absent, 46
Number of abstentions, 11
Number of members present and voting, 124
Number of votes in favour, 124
Number of votes against, 0
Number of votes required for the majority of two-thirds of members present and voting, 83

Yes, the Chair read out that the number of members present and voting was the same as the number of votes in favour; 124. In other words, the Chair claimed that all countries that had representatives present at the meeting voted in favour of the Pandemic Agreement. When no name plates were raised during the time allotted for votes against the Agreement, the so-called country representatives gave themselves a standing ovation....<<<Read More>>>...

To enable the “adoption” of the Pandemic Treaty next week, WHO is making up the rules as it goes along

 WHO is now saying that if countries agree to “adopt” the Pandemic Agreement at the WHA, the Agreement will be deposited with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus for countries to sign. But, the signing of the Agreement will not be possible any time soon.

If it is “adopted,” countries need to notify Tedros on whether they intend to accept the Pandemic Agreement within 18 months of the WHA.  However, member states can only sign the Pandemic Agreement after an annexe for the much-contested PABS System has been adopted by a future WHA.

From the moment a member state signs the Pandemic Agreement, it will be expected not to undermine it.  Does this mean that they cannot speak against it or criticise it?  Is WHO using a top-down approach to censor governments, officials and advisors?  Is WHO also expecting governments that sign its agreement to ensure that their citizens do not undermine the Pandemic Agreement as well?  Censorship is the first sign that something bad is afoot.

After signing the Pandemic Agreement, the member states then need to take the appropriate action within their countries to ratify or adopt the agreement so it takes effect.  In the UK, for example, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] grants the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting, the power to adopt or give effect to such an agreement without reference to anyone else. To stop WHO’s nefarious pandemic agenda from being implemented in the UK, the section of the Act granting Streeting this power, section 45, needs to be repealed....<<<Read More>>>...

Pandemic Treaty is WHO’s attempt to control all aspects of any pandemic it declares

 Last Week, Brownstone Institute published a commentary on the draft Pandemic Agreement that will be put before next week’s 78th World Health Assembly for adoption.

Although most of the Pandemic Agreement is non-binding and steeped in language such as “may,” “where appropriate,” and “when mutually agreed,” there is one theme that comes through: the World Health Organisation is positioning itself to control all aspects of any pandemic it declares.

From research and development to declaring a pandemic and determining the response, to vaccines and global supply chains, the World Health Organisation is seeking to be in sole control of it all....<<<Read More>>>...

WHO: The criminal organisation that needs to be brought to an end

 In a couple of weeks, the World Health Organisation is hoping that its Pandemic Treaty will be adopted.

As Dr. David Martin said some time ago, we should not be debating the merits of a modified agreement for a criminal racketeering organisation. We should end the criminal organisation itself.

On 16 April, the World Health Assembly (“WHA”) reached a significant milestone on 23 April 2025, when countries finalised a draft global agreement aimed at improving how the world prepares for and responds to pandemics. This agreement, known as the Pandemic Accord, will be submitted to the 78th WHA for adoption, which is being held from 19 to 27 May 2025.

Note: The Pandemic Accord has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

Key elements of the proposed Accord are a “One Health” approach to pandemic prevention and, as it is claimed, it upholds national sovereignty. The United Nations (“UN”) regards the Accord as a breakthrough for “health equity” and says the Accord “emerges in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, which exposed critical vulnerabilities in global health systems and stark inequalities in access to diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.”

It’s unlikely that those who have followed The Exposé, or any other independent source, need reminding that the “One Health” and pandemic-vaccine agendas are nefarious. Not only has the so-called covid pandemic been shown to be false but the subsequent outbreaks of other diseases and suspected to be the buildup for another attempt to declare a pandemic, such as mpox (previously known as monkeypox), respiratory syncytial virus (“RSV”) and bird flu, have been shown to be following the same playbook.

But in the event you need reminding, it’s worth watching a recent interview with Dr. Meryl Nass about bird flu. “We’ve been lied to, and that is how we have been governed for a long time. And we have to learn to distrust what we’re told, and we have to get the evidence and find out for ourselves what’s really going on … The goal is to create covid-like situations where garbage products are injected into us,” she said....<<<Read More>>>...

The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Consolidates the Pandemic Preparedness Scam

 One way to determine whether a suggestion is worth following is to look at the evidence presented to support it. If the evidence makes sense and smells real, then perhaps the programme you are asked to sign up for is worthy of consideration. However, if the whole scheme is sold on fallacies that a child could poke a stick through, and its chief proponents cannot possibly believe their own rhetoric, then only a fool would go much further. This is obvious – you don’t buy a used car on a salesman’s insistence that there is no other way to get from your kitchen to your bathroom.

Delegates at the coming World Health Assembly in Geneva are faced with such a choice. In this case, the car salesman is the World Health Organisation (WHO), an organisation still commanding considerable global respect based on a legacy of sane and solid work some decades ago. It also benefits from a persistent misunderstanding that large international organisations would not intentionally lie (they increasingly do, as noted below). The delegates will be voting on the recently completed text of the Pandemic Agreement, part of a broad effort to extract large profits and salaries from an intrinsic human fear of rare causes of death. Fear and confusion distract human minds from rational behaviour....<<<Read More>>>...

WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is not binding but to stop it happening in the UK, a section of the Public Health Act must be repealed

Last week, the World Health Assembly reached an agreement on a draft Pandemic Agreement. It will be put forward for adoption next month. However, the London Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation says that international agreements are not binding on the UK.

The problem for British citizens is that a section included in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting, to adopt or give effect to “any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.”

To stop WHO’s nefarious pandemic agenda being implemented in the UK, this section, section 45 of the Public Health Act, needs to be repealed....<<<Read More>>>....

WHO conducts a 2-day pandemic simulation called ‘Exercise Polaris’ – bringing together 350 predatory health groups worldwide

 In a world still reeling from the aftermath of the COVID-19 scandal and a barrage of unlawful mandates, the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again taken center stage with a two-day pandemic simulation, Exercise Polaris. This latest drill, involving over 15 countries and 20 regional health agencies, has reignited debates about the true intentions behind such exercises. Health freedom advocates point out that these simulations are not merely about preparedness but are part of a broader agenda to exert control over global health narratives and policies. The same planning took place in 2019, right before the release of COVID-19.

Exercise Polaris, held last week, was designed to test the WHO’s Global Health Emergency Corps (GHEC), a framework aimed at strengthening countries’ emergency workforce, coordinating the deployment of surge teams and experts, and enhancing collaboration between nations. According to the WHO, the exercise involved more than 350 health emergency groups connected worldwide, simulating an outbreak of a fictional virus that spread across the globe.

Participating countries included Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Iraq, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, Uganda, and Ukraine. Participating regional and international health agencies included the Africa CDC, European CDC, IFRC, IOM, UNICEF, the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, the Emergency Medical Teams initiative, Stand-by partners, and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, emphasized the importance of global cooperation, stating, "Exercise Polaris shows that global cooperation is not only possible—it is essential." However, this rhetoric of unity and preparedness is met with skepticism by those who see the WHO as a global terrorist organization, particularly in light of the COVID-19 scandal. The obfuscation of the virus's origins and the push for gain-of-function research and predatory vaccine programs have raised serious ethical concerns...<<<Read More>>>...

Is WHO’s Pandemic Treaty in its death throes?

 The World Health Organisation (“WHO”) Pandemic Treaty negotiations made no significant progress at the end of 2024. Several countries, including the US, have expressed opposition to the treaty.

Developing countries are concerned that the treaty would impose surveillance and obligations under the guise of pandemic prevention and Donald Trump has said he plans to withdraw the US from the WHO on day one of assuming office.

The Treaty’s future is uncertain, with some doubting whether an agreement will be reached by the May 2025 deadline.

Note: The Pandemic Treaty has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”)....<<<Read More>>>...

Australia: The plan for future pandemics is not large-scale lockdowns but targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines and mandates

 Due to the infrastructure being implemented under the digital ID framework in Australia, the next pandemic will not likely result in long-term large-scale lockdowns, but rather targeted surveillance, lockdowns and compliance orders.

A report funded by “philanthropic” foundations outlined the future pandemic responses in Australia, with recommendations for real-time data collection, setting up an Australian Centre for Disease Control and government decision-making through data usage. The aim is to have a well-coordinated response to future pandemics, with a focus on targeted surveillance, data sharing and compliance directives.

Additionally, Social Impact Investing through ESG scoring is shaping the narrative and agenda around how businesses deal with pandemics, with a focus on equity and inclusion.

All indications are that the future response to pandemics in Australia will involve targeted surveillance, rapid testing and compliance with vaccine mandates, all driven by technology such as digital IDs. The overall goal is to create a seamless, individualised approach to pandemic management, which could have implications for democracy and public pushback....<<<Read More>>>...

WHO wants money to implement its regional plan for its PHEIC (“fake”) declaration for mpox

 The World Health Organisation’s recent declaration of a mpox (aka monkeypox) public health emergency of international concern (“PHEIC”) allows for the extension of recommendations from the previously declared mpox PHEIC in 2022 and the issuance of new ones, along with facilitating the granting of emergency use listings for monkeypox vaccines.

To implement its mpox response plan for the affected region in Africa, WHO is, initially, asking for donors and funders to provide it with US$15 million. This is in addition to direct aid from countries. For example, the US has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, primarily for vaccines, to the DRC which is at the epicentre of the outbreak.

These developments come while there are ongoing discussions about a Pandemic Treaty, which WHO is hoping will pass shortly...<<<Read More>>>...

WHO Fails To Get Agreement On The Text Of The Pandemic Treaty But It Is Not Over Yet

 The ninth meeting of the International Negotiating Body (“INB9”) has failed to yield an agreement ahead of next week’s 77th World Health Assembly (“WHA”). However, delegates were still optimistic yesterday that an agreement on a Pandemic Accord would eventually be reached.

Although it seems we might have been given a temporary respite, the fight to defeat the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) pandemic plans is not yet over.

Besides the Pandemic Accord there is also WHO’s proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.

Dr. Meryl Nass shares a white paper explaining why developing countries should vote to defeat WHO’s proposals and why people of goodwill everywhere should be delighted if both of WHO’s proposals fail.

WHO was due to present two new texts for adoption at the WHA being held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 27 May to 1 June 2024:  Amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”); and, the Pandemic Accord, which has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

The International Negotiating Body (“INB”) was established in December 2021 to draft and negotiate what is now being referred to as a Pandemic Accord.  INB9 first met from 18 to 28 March to finalise the text of the Pandemic Accord but negotiations went so badly that INB9 had to resume from 29 April to 10 May.  Because an agreement again proved elusive, INB9 met for a third time from 20 to 24 May...<<<Read More>>>...

WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is dead and the amended IHR has been all but neutralised

 Nothing in WHO’s Pandemic Treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week. The treaty is done.

And of the amended International Health Regulations articles that were agreed upon and will be put forward for countries to vote on this week, the only one of any real concern relates to the surveillance of citizens to combat misinformation and disinformation.

However, as Dr. Meryl Nass points out, governments are already monitoring our speech, censoring and propagandising us. So, although it is a great concern, it is nothing new.

On Friday, as the International Negotiating Body were admitting that they were unable to reach an agreement on the text of the Pandemic Treaty, corporate media were trying to salvage whatever credibility the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) pandemic plans had left, if any.

Writing for The New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli’s article ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous, according to Dr. Mery Nass.

‘Countries Fail to Agree on Treaty to Prepare the World for the Next Pandemic’, The New York Times headed its article. Followed by the lede: “Negotiators plan to ask for more time. Among the sticking points are equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

WHO was hoping to present two pandemic instruments to the 77th World Health Assembly (“WHA77”) for adoption. One is the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Accord, and the other is the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).

“Negotiators had hoped to adopt the treaty this week,” The New York Times noted, “But cancelled meetings and fractious debates – sometimes over a single word – stalled agreement on key sections, including equitable access to vaccines.”

But regarding the IHR amendments, The New York Times only made one small mention: “The countries are also working on bolstering the WHO’s International Health Regulations, which were last revised in 2005 and set detailed rules for countries to follow in the event of an outbreak that may breach borders.”...<<<Read More>>>...

U.K. refuses to sign WHO Global Pandemic Treaty

 This will change when the other side of the same coin (Labour) win the 4th July election with a huge majority. They are the mad boys and girls assigned to finish the UK useless eaters off.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

The United Kingdom has declined to endorse the World Health Organization's (WHO) global pandemic treaty due to concerns over potential infringement of its sovereign rights.

The pandemic accord introduced in May 2021 appeals to all participating states to surrender a certain percentage of their supplies related to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic for international distribution. For London, the treaty mandates it to allocate 20 percent of its pandemic-related health products to other nations. In exchange, the global health body would get "real-time access" to 10 percent of these products for free and 10 percent "at affordable prices."

According to the document, each WHO member nation should "set aside a portion of its total procurement of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines on time for use in countries facing challenges … and avoid having national stockpiles of pandemic-related health products." Nations set out plans during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic to organize a legally binding document, which would force countries to tackle the next global health emergency in a united way.

But the U.K. refused to sign this treaty over concerns that it would undermine Britain's sovereignty. The British government has proposed conditions that any agreement must protect its national interests and national sovereignty, particularly where British-produced vaccines are concerned....<<<Read More>>>....

Stop the World Health Organization’s Tyrannical May 27 Power Grab

 Most countries have not initiated any mainstream critical public debate about how Covid-19 was addressed. The governments responsible for the outrageously botched response to the virus have not been held accountable. Communist China, despite having unleashed the virus on the world by deliberately lying about its human-to-human transmissibility, has not suffered a single negative consequence. 

Nothing has been done either about the duplicitous role played by World Health Organization (WHO), which parroted Chinese Communist Party propaganda about the virus, even after having been informed in writing early on by Taiwan that the virus was highly transmissible.

The WHO, still led by the reportedly corrupt (here and here) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, covered up for China, and repeatedly praised China for, in effect, having murdered more than seven million people worldwide, including more than one million just in the US....<<<Read More>>>...

Aligned Council of Australia holds a press conference about WHO’s Pandemic Treaty

Last week, the Aligned Council of Australia held an international press conference to discuss the World Health Organisation’s proposed pandemic instruments that are due to be voted on at the 77th World Health Assembly being held at the end of this month.

Briefing the press and the public were four panellists: Dr. David Bell, Professor Ramesh Thakur, Professor Augusto Zimmerman and Professor Ian Brighthope.

Prof. Thakur has two major concerns about WHO’s pandemic plans: they are a major power grab and national sovereignty is at risk.

Dr. Bell said WHO’s two proposed pandemic documents are clearly unready and unfit for purpose. The rational approach would be for countries to not adopt either and push for a deferment. Council of Australia held an international press conference to discuss the World Health Organisation’s proposed pandemic instruments that are due to be voted on at the 77th World Health Assembly being held at the end of this month.

The Aligned Council of Australia (“ACA”) is a group of over 37 Australian organisations with over a million members “and growing,” It began in February 2024 following a large number of groups coming together to call for a full analysis and accountability of the public health response since 2020 through a Covid-19 Royal Commission.

The press conference was structured in a question-and-answer format where the moderator put questions to each of the panellists followed by questions from the press and the public.

Katie Ashby-Coppens, moderator and member of the ACA steering committee, kicked off the press conference by giving an update on the status of the negotiations of the texts of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty, and the recent US and UK government reactions to them.

During the first 56 minutes, Ashby-Coppens posed questions to Professor Ramesh Thakur and Dr. David Bell. During the following 30 minutes, Ashby-Coppens questioned Professor Augusto Zimmerman and Professor Ian Brighthope. The conference ended with panellists taking questions from the press and public...<<<Read More>>>...