I have a Ph.D. in history. I am a
revisionist ("conspiracy") historian. I have been ever since 1958.
I have written fat books on historical events and historical
causation. I have even written a book on the conspiracy view of history. You
can download it here.
As a revisionist historian, I am on the fringe of the fringe of a
fringe. In 1958, I became a revisionist historian because of the assistance of
a lady who was part of a network of mostly female anti-Communist researchers in
southern California. She had a lot of files and conservative books. She
introduced me to The Freeman. She also introduced me to the revisionist
literature of the Pearl Harbor attack. I learned how to connect the dots at age
16.
I have continued to connect the dots in ways not considered
historiographically acceptable.
What I am about to tell you is "the story behind the
story," as Marvin "Robbie the Robot" Miller used to tell us
on his daily radio shows in the early 1950's.
The secret is knowing which questions to ask, and then using the
Web to connect the major dots. That will get you started.
Most people ask no questions. They don't care. Most of the others
ask the wrong questions. Then they are lured down rabbit trails by their
questions.
THE HISTORIAN'S SIX QUESTIONS
The historical questions are these, and in this sequence: what,
where, when, who, why, and how? Each successive question is more difficult to
answer.
What? The World Health Organization is part of the United Nations.
Where? Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland. But geography
is irrelevant. It is an international organization. It is under the
jurisdiction of UNESCO: the United Nations Educational and Social Organization.
That is located in the United Nations Building in New York City. Why New York
City? Because John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the land. It cost him $8.5 million for 18 acres. The city
spent another $5 million. The Rockefellers owned the apartment complex across the
street. The value of that property soared.
When? It has been around a long time. The Wikipedia entry
explains just how long it has been around.
The International Sanitary Conferences, originally held on 23 June
1851, were the first predecessors of the WHO. A series of 14 conferences that
lasted from 1851 to 1938, the International Sanitary Conferences worked to
combat many diseases, chief among them cholera, yellow fever, and the bubonic
plague. The conferences were largely ineffective until the seventh, in 1892;
when an International Sanitary Convention that dealt with cholera was passed.
Five years later, a
convention for the plague was signed. In part as a result of the successes of
the Conferences, the Pan-American Sanitary Bureau (1902), and the Office
International d'Hygiène Publique (1907) were soon founded. When the League of
Nations was formed in 1920, they established the Health Organization of the
League of Nations. After World War II, the United Nations absorbed all the
other health organizations, to form the WHO.
We also read this in the entry's introduction:
The WHO was established in 7 April 1948, which is commemorated as
World Health Day. The first meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the
agency's governing body, took place on 24 July 1948. The WHO incorporated the
assets, personnel, and duties of the League of Nations' Health Organisation and
the Office International d'Hygiène Publique, including the International
Classification of Diseases. Its work began in earnest in 1951 following a
significant infusion of financial and technical resources.
From the beginning, the organization was committed to the eradication of disease by means of vaccines.
1947: The WHO established an epidemiological information service via
telex, and by 1950 a mass tuberculosis inoculation drive using the BCG vaccine
was under way.
Who? This is where it gets interesting. We read in the section on
"Establishment":
The first meeting of the World Health Assembly finished on 24 July
1948, having secured a budget of US$5 million (then GB£1,250,000) for the 1949
year. Andrija Stampar was the Assembly's first president, and G. Brock Chisholm
was appointed Director-General of WHO, having served as Executive Secretary
during the planning stages.
G. Brock Chisolm was a high-level administrator in the post-World
War II New World Order. He was a Canadian. I first wrote about him in 1959 in a
high school term paper. He was one of the big promoters of the mental health
movement. In 1957, he became the president of the World Federation for Mental
Health. This was why I knew who he was when I wrote my term paper. Wikipedia summarizes:
The World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH) is an international,
multi-professional non-governmental organization (NGO), including citizen volunteers
and former patients. It was founded in 1948 in the same era as the United
Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO). . . .
The WFMH founding
document, "Mental Health and World Citizenship", understood
"world citizenship" in terms of a "common humanity"
respecting individual and cultural differences, and declared that "the
ultimate goal of mental health is to help [people] live with their fellows in
one world.Members include mental health service providers and service users. In
2009, the World Fellowship for Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders, an
international network of families of people with serious mental illness, merged
with the World Federation. The World Federation has close ties with the World
Health Organization. For many years after its founding, the WFMH was the only
NGO of its kind with a close working relationship with UN agencies,
particularly the WHO.
In my 1959 paper (which I saved), I quoted Dr. Chisholm. He wrote
"The Psychiatry of an Enduring Peace" in Psychiatry (Feb.
1946).
The responsibility of charting the necessary changes in human
behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists,
psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this
responsibility. It cannot be avoided (p. 5).
We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize
the unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt, and fear, commonly
known as sin, under which we have almost all labor and which produces so much
of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world (p. 7).
There is something to be
said for taking charge of our own destiny, for gently putting aside the
mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done
quietly, it may have to be done roughly or even violently -- that has happened
before (p. 18)
Five months after the article was published, he was appointed as
the head of the predecessor of the WHO, the WHO Interim Commission. Officially,
it was part of UNESCO, which at the time was run by the scientific world's most famous defender of eugenics,
Sir Julian Huxley.
The Canadian Encyclopedia offers this insight:
In the negotiations leading up to the WHO’s formation, Chisholm
stressed that the organization must be truly global in its scope. He insisted
that it serve the “world citizen” and see past divisions imposed by national
borders and histories.
In 2009, the University of British Columbia Press published a book
on Chisholm: Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the
Cold War. In a review of this book published on the website
of the academic Humanities and Social Science Online, we read this:
As deputy minister [of Canada's newly created Department of Public
Health and Welfare], Chisholm was not a retiring bureaucrat; rather, he
repeatedly drew unwanted attention to his department for ill-considered and
sometimes outrageous public comments. He treated his office as a pulpit from
which to preach Freudian-inspired ideas about proper parenting and the perversions
of religion and popular morality. Much of what he had to say concerned what he
saw to be the root causes of war. War, he argued, was a manifestation of
collective neurosis: the consequence of poor parenting and social institutions
that delivered humanity into a state of perpetual immaturity. He condemned the
central institutions of society -- family, school, and church -- for
propagating the dogmas that lay at the base of this collective neurosis.
Perhaps most famously, Chisholm lashed out against Santa Claus. In an address
to an Ottawa audience, he declared that parents crippled their children by
consistently lying to them: "Any man who tells his son that the sun goes
to bed at night is contributing directly to the next war.... Any child who believes
in Santa Claus has had his ability to think permanently destroyed" (p.
43).
The WHO has a page reviewing the book. We read this:
A postscript could perhaps have mentioned that those early
visionary ideas have turned out to be not that illusory after all. Chisholm’s
hope of universal health services now guides WHO’s Global Strategy for Health
for All; his advocacy of a peacekeeping force is now reality, albeit weak,
through the UN Blue Berets; his ideas on world federalism are partly translated
in the European Union; his anti-nuclear stand has seen the Pugwash Conferences
on Science and World Affairs receive the Nobel Peace Prize; and his
poverty–disease link is key to UN Millennium Development Goals.
It is a highly laudatory review, as we would expect.
What is also significant is the fact that he had no background in
epidemiology. He was a psychiatrist. He had been a political appointment in
Canada, and he was a political appointment with the WHO. He was the
director-general of the WHO in 1946, before it was established as a separate
organization. The WHO website says this:
The Canadian Government created the position of Deputy Minister of
Health in 1944, and Chisholm was first the person to occupy the post until
being elected as Executive Secretary of the WHO Interim Commission in July
1946.
Succeeding the League of Nations' Health Organization, the World
Health Organization was established in April of 1948, with Chisholm as its
Director-General.
It was Chisholm who proposed the name "World Health Organization",
with the intent of emphasizing that the Organization would be truly global,
serving all nations. Chisholm’s vision of WHO was a determining factor in the
election for the post of Director-General. Parts of WHO’s constitution,
including the definition of health as "…a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity", were first heard in Chisholm’s speech to the final meeting of
WHO’s technical planning committee.
The WHO constitution also
declares health to be a fundamental right of every human being, and recognizes
that “the heath of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and
security.” Chisholm believed that the well-being of humanity is dependent on
the world’s emotional health.
The significant question is this: how did he get the two
appointments? That is the question that revisionist historians ask
whenever government economic intervention is involved. It is the question that
Murray Rothbard asked again and again in his histories of American
intervention. It is the question that is almost never raised by conventional
historians.
Why? The WHO has been at the forefront of vaccination from its
beginning. This has been at the top of its agenda. This historical account
appears on the website of the WHO. You can read it here. It was published in 2014.
The immunization programme that saved millions of lives
What started as an ambitious effort to tackle six vaccine-preventable
diseases has become one of the world’s most successful public health
programmes. This month the Expanded Programme on Immunization marks its 40
years. Michael Reid and Fiona Fleck report.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2014;92:314-315.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.020514
In the 1960s, smallpox was still circulating in Africa and Asia.
Within a decade of the launch of the World Health Organization’s (WHO)
Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme in 1967, the disease had been wiped
out globally.
Long before the last case of smallpox was reported in 1977, the
idea that a similar approach could be taken with other vaccine-preventable
diseases was gaining support.
Dr Donald A Henderson, who
joined WHO in 1967 to head the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme, was
struck by how much could be achieved with modest means. “We found very quickly
that in Africa the average vaccinator could reach 500 African children a day,”
he says. “We wondered ‘why aren’t we doing this with more vaccines?’”
The article offers historical details of the WHO's program of
vaccination.
While other donors joined them, it was the core EPI team at WHO
that established the foundation of this global initiative with its cold-chain
unit, led by John Lloyd and James Cheyne, “catalyzing a revolution in improved
cold-chain equipment and logistics,” Rafe Henderson says.
Few countries had immunization programmes and most were just
responding to outbreaks, according to Dr Ciro de Quadros, who became head of
EPI in the WHO Region of the Americas in 1976, His first step was to get
countries to appoint a national immunization manager.
“We brought together the country managers and everyone else from
the governments working in epidemiology, primary health care, and so on, and
listed the problems – how to improve coverage, do surveillance and organize the
cold chain – and analysed them. Then we worked on each problem and solution in
each country,” de Quadros says.
In the 1970s countries the
world over were keen to launch their own EPI but lacked important elements,
including sustainable funding, heat-stable vaccines (in tropical countries),
suitable transportation and a system to guarantee vaccine quality.
Of all of the agencies under the auspices of the United Nations,
the WHO has been most successful in pursuing its agenda.
For Dr Thomas Cherian, who coordinated WHO’s EPI from 2006 to
2012, the programme’s achievements far exceed the expectations raised by the
1974 resolution. “Virtually all countries have immunization programmes and most
of them have dedicated budgets and effective surveillance systems, which are
vital for detecting new cases and monitoring the extent to which a population
is protected,” he says.
Since the 1980s, the quality of vaccines has been assured, through
the prequalification system managed by WHO, so that these vaccines can be
recommended for bulk purchase by UNICEF, the GAVI Alliance (formerly known as
the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) and other funding agencies.
Thanks to prequalification and other regulatory systems, more than 90% of
vaccines used in national immunization programmes are of an assured quality.
Immunization in countries is no longer limited to the six classic
vaccines for children: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis
and tuberculosis.
Infants are vaccinated
routinely against rubella, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (a
leading cause of bacterial meningitis and pneumonia), rotavirus (a major cause
of diarrhoea) and Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria (a major cause of
pneumonia). In some countries human papillomavirus vaccine is included for
girls between nine and 12 years of age and routine immunization against
regionally important diseases such as epidemic meningococcal meningitis, yellow
fever and dengue is also offered.
How? This pro-vaccine agenda took money to implement. Its agenda
is based on a theory of epidemiology that is almost universally accepted by
both the scientific and medical communities. This theory offered a solution to
pandemics: a program of universal vaccination. This could only be implemented
by government funding and compulsion. This is why the WHO's agenda takes
political connections at the highest level. It takes tax money and political
power to implement the agenda.
Because the WHO is international, it has always relied on a
program calling for cooperation among national governments. This
internationalist vision has always been at the forefront of the creation of the
New World Order. That was the personal goal of Brock Chisholm from the very
beginning. He articulated this vision. The WHO has never deviated from this
vision.
Of all the United Nations agencies, none has been as successful as
the WHO in promoting international government cooperation. The public has never
called this into question.
THE GATES FOUNDATION
Bill Gates was born in 1955. He co-founded Microsoft in 1975. He
resigned as the CEO of Microsoft in January 2000. In that year, he and his wife
created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In 2015, he gave a TED talk on the next pandemic.
Earlier this year, Netflix posted a three-part documentary: Inside
Bill's Brain. It was produced in 2019. The interviewer asked Gates whether
any government agency paid any attention to his speech. He said that only one
small agency did. In short, his speech was ignored.
This is also worth noting, which the Daily Mail reported:
In the episode titled The Next Pandemic the documentary producers
go to a wet market in Lianghua, China, where animals are killed and the
resulting meat sold in the same place.
This, the documentary
explained, makes the wet markets a 'disease X factory' as the different animal
corpses are stacked on top of each other, blood and meat mixing, before being
passed from human to human.
The United States government paid no attention to any of this
until it was too late.
What we see from this should be obvious to anybody who is aware of
the historical background: Bill Gates until a month ago had no influence at all
with respect to the pandemic.
WHO's budget is about $4.2 billion a year. This has been true since 2008. In terms of
purchasing power, the budget is 22% less today than it was in 2008.
Of this, the United States government provides about 20%,
according to a recent Fox News report. The Gates Foundation is second.
It is expected to pay $531 million in voluntary donations this year. That is
13% of the budget.
There is no doubt that the Gates Foundation is an important
contributor to this program. But the idea that the Gates Foundation is somehow
the tail that wags the dog is ludicrous. The WHO has been the primary agency of
universal vaccines ever since its creation in 1948.
In 1999, the Gates Foundation donated $750 million to set up GAVI. GAVI is today
called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Previously, it was the GAVI Alliance, and
before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. In 2015, Gates
did an interview for GAVI. He said he regarded this as the most important money that his foundation has contributed
to.
There is no question that Bill
and Melinda Gates are both big proponents of universal vaccination in countries
that are facing major diseases. But this is standard operating procedure today.
This is what the United States government has been funding since 1948. This is
the official party line of the United States government and WHO. In the private
sector, Gates is no doubt today the most famous proponent of this worldview. But he has no power. The man who has power is Dr. Anthony Fauci.
THINGS TO FOLLOW
There are basic things that a conspiracy theorist or revisionist
must do. There are things he must follow. Here are the big ones:
Follow the money.
Follow the confession/ideology.
Follow the organizations.
Follow the media.
Follow the government appointments.
Follow the confession/ideology.
Follow the organizations.
Follow the media.
Follow the government appointments.
There are no anti-vaccine
organizations with any influence. Anti-vaccination organizations are tiny,
underfunded, fringe organizations that have no influence.
In contrast, the
pro-vaccination movement is universally dominant. This is where all of the
government money goes, not just in the United States but everywhere. This is
the message articulated by all of the proponents of world health movements. In
short, this is the Establishment. In the United States, it is represented at
the top by Fauci.
Fauci is the second
longest-serving bureaucrat to head a government agency since J. Edgar Hoover. Ronald Reagan appointed him the
head of the little-known agency, the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases. Until late February, almost nobody had ever heard of the
organization. Fauci is 79 years old. He has
run the agency for 36 years. He could've retired. He could've retired to become
a highly paid lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. But he didn't. He is a
true believer. He is a true believer in universal vaccination. He has made this
clear over the past six weeks. He has so much power and influence with the
public that Donald Trump is afraid to fire him. He has been Trump's front man
in all of this.
To imagine that Bill Gates is anything more than a very rich
advocate of "me, too" public health policies on the vaccination issue
is to fail to understand the basics of historical research.
And so, I offer you this piece of advice. Anyone who tells
you that Bill Gates is the power behind the throne of the WHO is not a serious
historian. He does not know the basics of historical research. He has not
followed the money, the confession, the organizations, the media, and the
government appointments with respect to vaccination as the only acceptable
solution to widespread diseases, including pandemics. He has also not asked the
six questions: "what, where, when, who, why, and how?"
I am a great believer in
revisionist history. Here is my other advice. If you want to do a revisionist
history of the WHO, ignore Bill Gates. Pay attention to G. Brock Chisholm. How
did he get the position as the first head of the WHO? Who was behind him? He
was a psychiatrist, not an epidemiologist.
The trouble is, newcomers to
conspiracy theories are not interested in doing serious revisionist research.
They really don't want to know the background of the WHO. They don't want to do
the painstaking research necessary to trace this background. They want to post
a sensational article on Facebook. The problem is, the sensational article was
written by somebody who doesn't know what is going on, and more importantly, what
has been going on since 1946.
I figured out who Brock
Chisholm was and what he was doing in 1959 when I was 17 years old. Is it too
much to expect conspiracy theorists of the WHO to pursue this line of
investigation? Yes, I suppose it is.
CONCLUSION
Today, the WHO is a bureaucracy with a minimal budget, half of it
raised by voluntary donations. There is no trace of its old humanist,
world-transforming vision of world reconstruction through systematically
applied coercion by the United Nations. That was Chisolm's vision. Today, the
UN is toothless. UNESCO is impotent.
WHO's employees are narrowly focused medical technicians who must
content themselves with trying to stop diseases that threaten to become
pandemics. Their solution is
always the same: a vaccine. But there is no vaccine for COVID-19. So, all that
the WHO can do is recommend that national governments put the world's
population under house arrest until someone, somewhere comes up with a vaccine.
They are narrowly focused specialists with a hammer -- a promised vaccine --
who see mankind's liberty as a nail.
Its policy recommendation has been adopted. Politicians have
unilaterally shut down the world's economy. Bailing out the economy through
massive government deficits and counterfeit central bank money is destroying
the few remaining traces of fiscal restraint in the West.
This is the bankrupt legacy of Chisholm, Huxley, and the
messianic New World Order of the immediate post-war era. They proclaimed a new
humanity through scientific central planning by the United Nations. Their heirs
are a cadre of specialized technicians with no political power. They have no
solution to COVID-19 except to ask politicians to put the world under house
arrest until some pharmaceutical firm comes up with a cure for an epidemic that
may well have receded before the magic bullet arrives . . . if it ever arrives.
Don't worry about Bill Gates. He has no power. Worry about your
governor, who has enormous power, and who has used it without a vote from the
legislature to shut down business all over your state. When is he going to stop
paying attention to Fauci? When is he going to cancel your state's system of
house arrest, which he unilaterally imposed on his own authority?
P.S.
This is a publicly posted
article. I would appreciate it if you would post a link to it if you read some
Facebook diatribe against Bill Gates and his supposed control of the WHO. Maybe
there is some dedicated person out there who will be willing to do the hard
work of finding out the people who have been behind the power of the WHO since
its inception in 1948. That would be worth investigating. Connecting the dots
back to Bill Gates is a rabbit trail. It deflects people from finding out who
really have been the powers behind the throne, and what their agendas have been.
