The World Health Organization suddenly changed its policy recommendations to being pro-lockdown.
The Brownstone Institute shared, “The World Health Organisation intends to make lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to curb viral spread part of official pandemic guidance.”
“The revelation comes in a report scheduled to go to the WHO’s World Health Assembly later this month,” the Brownstone Institute noted. “This is not part of new pandemic treaty and does not require the endorsement of member states. The report says the implementation is already underway.”
“Many have raised the alarm about a new WHO pandemic treaty,” the researchers add. “However, as I’ve noted previously (and as Michael Senger notes here), there isn’t a new pandemic treaty on the table. Rather, there are amendments to the existing treaty, the International Health Regulations 2005, plus other recommendations (131 in all) put forward in a report from the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.”
Becker News reported, “Most of these amendments and recommendations relate to the information and resource sharing and preparation for future pandemics; none of them directly interferes with state sovereignty in the sense of allowing the WHO to impose or lift measures. However, that doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous, as they endorse and codify the awful errors of the last two years, beginning with China’s Hubei lockdown on January 23rd, 2020.”
The U.S.’ Covid policy response includes quarantining, masks, and social distance, but they also include ‘’lockdowns,’’ but they didn’t give significant results against the C-19 spread. However, these lockdowns didn’t help, but they did harm the economy!
Johns Hopkins University analysis shared in January revealed that strict lockdowns didn’t reduce the C-19-related deaths.
“Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University,” the Washington Times reported. “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who states, ‘Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci testified before Congress, and he denied that the U.S. implemented ‘’lockdowns.’’
“There were restrictions, obviously, but there were not lockdowns,” Fauci added. “China is now going into a real lockdown. So I would disagree.”
Here are the damaging effects of lockdowns implemented in Shanghai.
Watch: Shanghai residents finally break free of their enforced quarantines and begin fighting back against the Chinese communists imprisoning them.
The starving prisoners have been held hostage by the CCP for over a month under brutal Covid lockdown measures. pic.twitter.com/7Ryi49C4xn
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 22, 2022
The Economist estimated that there would be 800K more global deaths in the upcoming 15 years due to the C-19 lockdowns.
The WHO now supports lockdowns even though they previously stated they are ineffective and economy-damaging.
by Addison Wilson
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post