Uncategorized
Dr. Malone: ‘Disease X’ is manufactured by the WHO to drive fear and public compliance
Building of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland
From LifeSiteNews
Don’t be fooled by Disease ‘X’ or ‘Y’ or ‘Z.’ These aren’t real diseases. They are being weaponized to acceptance of the transfer of both funding and authority to an unelected globalist non-governmental organization – the WHO.
I have been working in the public health sector for over 30 years. This includes a fellowship at Harvard and numerous other courses on bioethics. In all that time, there has been one clear message: for the emotional and physical wellbeing of the public, the government and public health must not incite fear without cause, and that to do so is unethical and immoral, akin to yelling “fire” or “active shooter” in a crowded movie theater. That public trust requires transparency and truth telling on the part of public health officials and government.
The CDC codifies this basic premise in their public health risk communication statement:
Be first, be right, be credible. That’s the mantra for crisis communication. Health communicators, whenever a crisis occurs, always be prepared to provide information to help people make the best possible decisions for their health and well-being. [Emphasis added]
READ: WHO’s Dr. Tedros says new global pandemic is matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ at 2024 Davos summit
In 2018, the World Health Organization came up with the idea of “Disease X,” which is a placeholder for a disease that could be a potential cause of a future major epidemic or a pandemic. The original idea being that planning for an (imaginary) “Disease X” would allow for scientists, public health officials, and physicians to design the best possible practices for a future epidemic or pandemic. They then formally added “Disease X” (an imaginary disease) to the top priority list of pathogens.
The idea behind Disease X was later weaponized to create a fog of fear in the public as well as governments. The weaponization started with COVID-19 communications. In a 2021 study, it was found that the “the only predictor of behavior change during COVID-19 was fear.” Despite their finding that such fear was related to a decrease in both emotional and physical wellbeing, the authors concluded that using fear to drive the public into compliance was the only path forward for public health. The authors write:
However, fear of COVID-19 was related to decreased physical and environmental wellbeing. Overall, these results suggest that ‘fear’ and anxiety at the current time have a functional role, and are related to increased compliance for improving public wellbeing.
‘Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead’
Without further questioning of the basic ethics behind using fear to drive compliance, this logic then became the consensus of public health officials and governments throughout the world. That being that the use of fear to get compliance for vaccines and vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, masking, lockdowns, social distancing, school closures, etc., was acceptable in the name of public health. That the decreased emotional and physical wellbeing of the general public by the promotion of fear tactics was an acceptable side effect.
Exit COVID-19… stage left. Enter ‘Disease X’… stage right
And just like that, “Disease X” has been substituted for COVID-19.
Without any qualms whatsoever, The World Health Organization (WHO) has gone from launching a global scientific process using Disease X as a model, to using “Disease X” as a propaganda driver to drive fear of an imaginary infectious disease. Then to use that fear to get public and governmental compliance for a new pandemic treaty, and more money for the WHO. Such weaponized fear (fearporn) also has been found to elicit more public compliance for public health measures, such as masking, social distancing, vaccines, and lockdowns.
The gradual shift was subtle. In April 2023, the WHO wrote:
Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease. The R&D Blueprint explicitly seeks to enable early cross-cutting R&D preparedness that is also relevant for an unknown ‘Disease X.’
In 2024, the WHO gave the general warning (without any data what-so-ever) that the imaginary Disease X could result in 20 times more fatalities than COVID-19.
Of course, there are some people who say this may create panic. It’s better to anticipate something that may happen because it has happened in our history many times, and prepare for it.
Bottom line is that Director-General Tedros now openly admits that the WHO is using fear to drive governments to open their pocket books and to drive compliance for the new pandemic treaty.
And the WHO’s fear mongering is working, the House recently introduced a new bill H.R.3832 – Disease X Act of 2023.
The bill reads:
This bill expands the priorities of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to specifically include viral threats that have the potential to cause a pandemic.
In particular, the bill expands the scope of innovation grants and contracts that may be awarded by BARDA to specifically include those that support research and development of certain manufacturing technology for medical countermeasures against viruses, including respiratory viruses, with pandemic potential. It also expands BARDA’s authorized strategic initiatives to include advanced research, development, and procurement of countermeasures and products to address viruses with pandemic potential.
In order to understand the significance of this bill, it is important to understand what BARDA is:
(BARDA)’ is a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) office responsible for the procurement and development of medical countermeasures, principally against bioterrorism, including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as pandemic influenza and emerging diseases.
This bill is a sneaky backdoor to significantly expand the mission space of BARDA to include research into viruses. In the past, BARDA has been limited in their scope, so as to not compete with NIH. The expansion of yet another agency with very few limits on their scope is not in the public interest.
So, here is an easy ask. Contact your House representative and let them know how you feel about H.R.3832 – Disease X.
In the meantime, don’t be fooled by Disease “X” or “Y” or “Z.” These aren’t real diseases. They are made-up. They are being weaponized to gain compliance, drive fear, and to gain acceptance of the transfer of both funding and authority to an unelected globalist non-governmental organization – the WHO.
Yes, we have a problem with ongoing gain-of-function research and China is continuing on with its dangerous gain-of-function experiments. By all accounts, these are being conducted in poorly controlled laboratory environments. But such experiments aren’t limited to China; they are also happening in the USA. In 2023, Boston University School of Medicine scientists created a highly lethal SARS-CoV variant, which they then tested on mice.
Furthermore, the Biological Weapons Convention does not prohibit biological weapons, as an overlooked loophole allows for development, manufacture, and stockpiling of such for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes. The convention must be re-negotiated. The Biological Weapons Convention also does not adequately address gain-of-function research, which must to be banned worldwide.
These are concrete ongoing issues that the World Health Organization is not addressing. If the WHO’s motive is to stop future threat of infectious disease, why are they not working on these issues?
How far the WHO and public health has fallen…
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
As the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress move aggressively to roll back the climate alarm-driven energy policies of the Biden presidency, proponents of climate change theory have ramped up their scare tactics in hopes of shifting public opinion in their favor.
But CNN’s energetic polling analyst, the irrepressible Harry Enten, says those tactics aren’t working. Indeed, Enten points out the climate alarm messaging which has permeated every nook and cranny of American society for at least 25 years now has failed to move the public opinion needle even a smidgen since 2000.
Appearing on the cable channel’s “CNN News Central” program with host John Berman Thursday, Enten cited polling data showing that just 40% of U.S. citizens are “afraid” of climate change. That is the same percentage who gave a similar answer in 2000.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Enten’s own report is an example of this fealty. Saying the findings “kind of boggles the mind,” Enten emphasized the fact that, despite all the media hysteria that takes place in the wake of any weather disaster or wildfire, an even lower percentage of Americans are concerned such events might impact them personally.
“In 2006, it was 38%,” Enten says of the percentage who are even “sometimes worried” about being hit by a natural disaster, and adds, “Look at where we are now in 2025. It’s 32%, 38% to 32%. The number’s actually gone down.”
In terms of all adults who worry that a major disaster might hit their own hometown, Enten notes that just 17% admit to such a concern. Even among Democrats, whose party has been the major proponent of climate alarm theory in the U.S., the percentage is a paltry 27%.
While Enten and Berman both appear to be shocked by these findings, they really aren’t surprising. Enten himself notes that climate concerns have never been a driving issue in electoral politics in his conclusion, when Berman points out, “People might think it’s an issue, but clearly not a driving issue when people go to the polls.”
“That’s exactly right,” Enten says, adding, “They may worry about in the abstract, but when it comes to their own lives, they don’t worry.”
This reality of public opinion is a major reason why President Donald Trump and his key cabinet officials have felt free to mount their aggressive push to end any remaining notion that a government-subsidized ‘energy transition’ from oil, gas, and coal to renewables and electric vehicles is happening in the U.S. It is also a big reason why congressional Republicans included language in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to phase out subsidies for those alternative energy technologies.
It is key to understand that the administration’s reprioritization of energy and climate policies goes well beyond just rolling back the Biden policies. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is working on plans to revoke the 2010 endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases which served as the foundation for most of the Obama climate agenda as well.
If that plan can survive the inevitable court challenges, then Trump’s ambitions will only accelerate. Last year’s elimination of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court increases the chances of that happening. Ultimately, by the end of 2028, it will be almost as if the Obama and Biden presidencies never happened.
The reality here is that, with such a low percentage of voters expressing concerns about any of this, Trump and congressional Republicans will pay little or no political price for moving in this direction. Thus, unless the polls change radically, the policy direction will remain the same.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Energy security, resilience and affordability have long been protected by a continentally integrated energy sector.
The G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, offers a key platform to reassert how North American energy cooperation has made the U.S. and Canada stronger, according to a joint statement from The Heritage Foundation, the foremost American conservative think tank, and MEI, a pan-Canadian research and educational policy organization.
“Energy cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the United States is vital for the Western World’s energy security,” says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and one of America’s most prominent energy experts. “Both President Trump and Prime Minister Carney share energy as a key priority for their respective administrations.
She added, “The G7 should embrace energy abundance by cooperating and committing to a rapid expansion of energy infrastructure. Members should commit to streamlined permitting, including a one-stop shop permitting and environmental review process, to unleash the capital investment necessary to make energy abundance a reality.”
North America’s energy industry is continentally integrated, benefitting from a blend of U.S. light crude oil and Mexican and Canadian heavy crude oil that keeps the continent’s refineries running smoothly.
Each day, Canada exports 2.8 million barrels of oil to the United States.
These get refined into gasoline, diesel and other higher value-added products that furnish the U.S. market with reliable and affordable energy, as well as exported to other countries, including some 780,000 barrels per day of finished products that get exported to Canada and 1.08 million barrels per day to Mexico.
A similar situation occurs with natural gas, where Canada ships 8.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the United States through a continental network of pipelines.
This gets consumed by U.S. households, as well as transformed into liquefied natural gas products, of which the United States exports 11.5 billion cubic feet per day, mostly from ports in Louisiana, Texas and Maryland.
“The abundance and complementarity of Canada and the United States’ energy resources have made both nations more prosperous and more secure in their supply,” says Daniel Dufort, president and CEO of the MEI. “Both countries stand to reduce dependence on Chinese and Russian energy by expanding their pipeline networks – the United States to the East and Canada to the West – to supply their European and Asian allies in an increasingly turbulent world.”
Under this scenario, Europe would buy more high-value light oil from the U.S., whose domestic needs would be back-stopped by lower-priced heavy oil imports from Canada, whereas Asia would consume more LNG from Canada, diminishing China and Russia’s economic and strategic leverage over it.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
As the nation’s largest, most broadly supported conservative research and educational institution, The Heritage Foundation has been leading the American conservative movement since our founding in 1973. The Heritage Foundation reaches more than 10 million members, advocates, and concerned Americans every day with information on critical issues facing America.
Premier Smiths “must-see” video describing destructive federal energy policies and pointing to solutions
A Murder That Says So Much About U.S.
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric
Trump confronts mainstream media with Chicago’s bloody receipts
-
Crime2 days agoAlleged Killer Of Charlie Kirk Caught
-
Crime2 days agoConservative speaker and celebrity Charlie Kirk shot during Q & A event at Utah Valley University
-
Opinion2 days agoThe Charlie Kirk I Knew
-
Crime2 days ago‘Dark Moment For America’: Trump Addresses Nation After Kirk Assassination
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoKirk’s Killing: Which Side Can Count on the Military’s Loyalty Now?
-
Crime1 day agoFormer FBI Agent Says Charlie Kirk Assassination May Have Been ‘A Professional Hit’
-
Crime2 days agoCharlie Kirk ASSASSINATED
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta deserves a police force that actually reflects its values