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.
Uncategorized
Kananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties

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.
Business
Beef is becoming a luxury item in Canada

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Sylvain Charlebois
Canadian beef prices have surged due to a shrinking cattle herd, high transportation costs, and potential market collusion
With summer weather settling in, Canadians are returning to a familiar ritual—ring up the barbecue. But as they approach the meat counter, many are faced with shockingly high prices. This year, the meat aisle has become a case study in supply-side economics and market dysfunction, leaving
consumers to wonder how this all came to be.
Since January, according to Statistics Canada, beef prices have surged dramatically. Striploin is up 34.2 per cent, top sirloin 33.7 per cent, and rib cuts nearly 12 per cent. Pork rib cuts and chicken breasts have each risen 5.9 per cent, while even meatless burger patties are 6.8 per cent more
expensive. Beef has led the way in these increases, and its dominance in the price hikes is striking. What’s particularly concerning is that it’s not just one cut of beef—virtually every option has seen a dramatic jump, putting pressure on Canadian consumers who were already grappling with rising food costs.
The cause behind these increases lies in Canada’s shrinking beef cow inventory, now at just 3.38 million head—the lowest since 1989. This represents a 1.2 per cent drop from last year, but it signals much more than a cyclical decline. Many cattle producers, facing an increasingly volatile market, are choosing to exit the industry while prices are favourable. Others are opting to reinvest in less risky sectors or even shift entirely to crop production, leaving the beef industry in a precarious state. In short, Canada’s beef industry is retreating, and with that retreat comes rising prices, fewer available cattle, and growing uncertainty.
South of the border, the U.S. is seeing a similar trend, but far less severe. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the
American beef cow herd declined by just 0.5 per cent to 27.9 million head. This relatively modest drop, coupled with less disruption in their production practices, has resulted in more stable prices.
Over the past year, U.S. boneless sirloin steak rose 5.7 per cent, compared to a staggering 22 per cent in Canada. Ground beef saw a 10.8 per cent increase in the U.S., but 23 per cent in Canada. The price difference between the two countries is stark, and Canadians are feeling the inflationary pressure much more acutely.
There are several factors contributing to the price hikes: Canada’s vast geography, high transportation costs, a limited number of federally licensed beef processors, carbon pricing, and higher labour costs. Carbon pricing, in particular, has added a burden to sectors like beef production, where transportation costs are high. Regulations and logistical inefficiencies add to the costs, driving up prices for retailers and, ultimately, consumers.
This combination of factors is having a compounding effect on the price of beef, making it increasingly out of reach for many.
But there’s another possibility we can’t ignore: potential collusion within the industry. In Canada, a small number of large processors control much of the beef supply, which gives them significant influence over prices. The U.S. government has taken strong action against price-fixing among major meat packers like JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef, leading to multimillion-dollar settlements. In Canada, however, the Competition Bureau has remained largely silent on similar concerns, allowing the possibility of price-fixing to persist unchecked. Perhaps it’s time for Canada to follow the U.S. lead and ensure the beef industry is held accountable for its actions.
The consequences of these rising costs are already evident. According to IBISWorld, Canadian per capita beef consumption fell by 7.1 per cent in 2023 and is expected to drop another 2.1 per cent in 2024. This isn’t merely a shift in dietary preferences—this is a structural change in consumer behaviour. Beef is becoming increasingly viewed as a luxury item, with many budget-conscious households turning to ground beef as a more affordable option. For many Canadians, beef is no longer a staple food but rather an occasional indulgence, reserved for special occasions or holiday meals.
This shift is unfortunate. Beef remains one of the most natural, sustainable sources of protein available to Canadians. Ranchers and processors have made significant strides in improving environmental stewardship, animal welfare, and food safety, often without recognition. Beef is not only nutritionally dense but also supports rural economies and provides a level of traceability few other protein sources can offer.
For many Canadian families, a summer steak on the grill is becoming more of a splurge than a staple. While Canadians will continue to enjoy beef, the frequency and volume of consumption will likely diminish.
Barbecue season hasn’t disappeared, but for many, it’s starting to look a little different: more sausages, more chicken, and fewer striploins. A shame, really, for a product that offers so much more than just taste.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
-
Automotive1 day ago
Electric vehicle sales are falling hard in BC, and it is time to recognize reality.
-
Automotive1 day ago
Power Struggle: Electric vehicles and reality
-
Alberta5 hours ago
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Business1 day ago
Trump on Canada tariff deadline: ‘We can do whatever we want’
-
Business7 hours ago
Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
FDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work
-
Crime7 hours ago
Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho
-
Energy1 day ago
China undermining American energy independence, report says