Sir Jeremy Farrar to Speak at the U of Zurich, Switzerland, 9 Feb. 2024, 6 p.m.
In case you'd like to hear his 'insights on global health' and perhaps ask him a question, this one is for you
Courtesy of my ongoing affiliation with the U of Zurich, Switzerland, the following ‘invitation’ landed in my inbox earlier today:
Public Lecture by Sir Jeremy Farrar, WHO Chief Scientist
The University of Zurich (UZH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) work closely together in various areas, with four WHO Collaborating Centers currently based at UZH. UZH researchers are involved in the strategic development of international programs of the WHO, and support their implementation at a national level.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, WHO Chief Scientist, will give a lecture at UZH about his insights on global health. The lecture is open to the public and everyone is welcome to attend.
9 February 2024, 18:00, Main lecture hall of the University of Zurich (KOL-G-201), Rämistrasse 71, 8006 Zurich
18:00—Welcome address by Prof. Dr. Michael Schaepman, President UZH
18:10—Public lecture by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, WHO Chief Scientist
19:00—Q&A with the Audience
19:30—End of the Event
In case you plan to attend, do note that pre-registration at the UZH Event Portal is required. You can register clicking here.
Oh, lest you ask yourself, this event is ‘free of charge’.
On the UZH-WHO Collaboration
Alert readers may have noticed this little phrase in the above invitation: UZH and WHO already ‘work closely together in various areas, with four WHO Collaborating Centers currently based at UZH’.
These are, of course, attached to the Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME) and cover the following issues:
In April 2009, the Institute of Biomedical Ethics (IBME), University of Zurich, was designated as WHO Collaborating Centre for Bioethics. In particular, the IBME is charged with the following tasks:Â
to assist WHO in developing materials for educational (or advocacy) purposes in biomedical and public health ethics
to collaborate with WHO and academic institutions, in particular in Eastern Europe, for training activities in bioethics/research ethics for both researchers and ethics review committee members. Within the context of this collaboration to create an exchange program for interns and PhD students from developing countries
to participate in WHO consultations and the preparation and review of relevant documents on emerging issues in bioethics
to contribute to networking with other collaborative centres, insitutitional [sic] partners and experts
to collaborate in research projects in the field of biomedical and public health ethics
There are three more topics the UZH-WHO collaboration encompass
A Forum for Global Ethics with the expectable BS (check out their link, it’s too silly; I’ve only reproduce a screenshot to show it here):
Then there’s a whole section on ‘Proportionality: A Guiding Principle in Public Health Law, Ethics and Policy in Times of Crisis’
To prevent disease and death from COVID-19, many States have resorted to protective measures involving restrictions of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights unimaginable before the pandemic, e.g., curfews, travel bans, restrictions to private gatherings and public events, school and business closures. Political decisions had to be taken in a situation of emergency, characterised by high degrees of uncertainty, urgency, and conflicting policy interests.Â
In this context of large-scale restrictions of individual liberties and rights for the sake of public health, proportionality is a crucial issue. A thorough understanding of the principle of proportionality is thus essential for an ethical and legal appraisal of public health policy measures taken in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond the pandemic, it can also help in addressing policy responses to other major threats to public health, e.g., climate change, narcotic dependence, or multidrug-resistant bacteria [emphases mine].
I’m sure the volume they are preparing since summer 2022 is going to be a blast, esp. in light of the third topic covered, ‘Ethical and Legal Aspects of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in the WHO Europe Region’ (no kidding):
The Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine of the University of Zurich, a WHO Collaborating Centre for Bioethics, is conducting a study with the support of the WHO Country Office in Kazakhstan on ethical and legal aspects of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the WHO Europe region. For this purpose, we aim to collect information on the approaches of different States of the WHO Europe region to vaccine mandates and the epidemiological and political contexts in which these approaches were adopted and implemented. On this basis, we seek to elaborate policy recommendations regarding legal, political, and ethical considerations to be taken into account when developing and implementing policies on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
Detailed information will follow shortly.
The page was ‘crawled’ by the Internet Archive three times (21 May, 18 June, 1 Oct. 2022), and for whatever reason, nothing has changed since then.
I suggest we shouldn’t hold our breaths for very hot research on Covid-19 vaccine mandates coming out of this incestuous partnership between UZH and WHO.
Dr. Peter McCullough's Speech at the European Parliament, September 13, 2023
America Out Loud, posted September 15, 2023
https://rumble.com/v3hwcgm-dr.-mcculloughs-speech-at-the-european-parliament.html
Dr. McCullough's website is https://www.petermcculloughmd.com/
TRANSCRIPT - EXCERPT
1:37
There have been two waves of injury to the world. The first has been the SARS-CoV-2 infection, which preyed upon the frail and the elderly. And then the second wave of injury now has been the Covid-19 vaccines.
The role of the WHO[3] appears to be adverse in both of the these. The role of the WHO appears to be operating within a biopharmaceutical complex, a syndicate, a complicated syndicate that has formed over time. It includes the WHO, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Gavi, CEPI the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation that Gates Foundation and the WEF formed largely. The Department of State in the United States, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, the FDA, the MHRA in the UK, TGA in Australia, SAHPRA in South Africa, the EMA here in Europe. This grouping of nongovernmental organizations, with governmental public health agencies, is operating as a unit. They're carefully coordinated. And the impact has been adverse.
At the outset of the pandemic there was an investigation by the WHO on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. That's when the beginning of the coverup began.
3:20
Rear Admiral Brett Giroir[4] in the United States nominated three independent scientists to go to Wuhan and figure out what was going on.
We knew at that time, and this has all come out in, in, in Congressional hearings, that Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, Jeremy Farrar who was at the Wellcome Trust who's now the Chief Scientist at the WHO, Kristian Andersen at Scripps, Edwin Holmes in Sydney, Peter Daszak at the EcoHealth Alliance,[5] they all conspired in January of 2020 to cover up what they knew, that the virus was engineered in a joint US-Chinese collaboration in the lab in Wuhan, China.
And they deceived the world with 12 subsequent fraudulent papers in the peer-reviewed literature. These were quarterbacked by Jeremy Farrar, who is the Chief Scientist at the WHO. This is all in the series of reports in the House Select Committee in the United States by the US Congress led by Representative Brad Wenstrup.[6]
Full transcript and notes
https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/103165.html
Sad news: swedish Arbetsdomstolen (special court for work and workplace-related issues) decided yesterday - with prejudice - that private employers who locked out employees unwilling to take the mRNA-vaccines were in the right.
To not take the vaccines was decreed to be a case of "the employee not making him/herself available for work" and was made equivalent to refusing to give a urine sample during mandatory checking for illegal substances.
The three nurses in question have not yet decided if they wish to push on to the EU-level, challenging the verdict.
Extra sad is that the court's decision is in contravention of swedish foundational/constitutional law, which explicitly bans such things as mandatory vaccinations or indeed any mandatory medication unless the patient is non compos mentis and a danger to itself, and the medication is of direct life-or-death necessity.
Furthermore, the court has previously decided that public health care providers may /not/ demand vaccination or make employment contingent on vaccination. Yesterday's verdict therefore creates a two-tier discrepancy of civil rights between private and public employees, a very dangerous precedent.