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.
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?
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.