The Monster has only devised means to produce the illusion of deadly global pandemics. And that’s all he will ever be able to do.
Oct 18, 2023
Notes on the 2017 addition of “public health emergency” definitions to 42 CFR 70.1.
Incessant prattling of lobbyists for State-sponsored bioterrorism (code name “biodefense”) notwithstanding, there hasn’t ever been a deadly global pandemic, or a pathogen with the potential to circulate around the whole world and kill millions or billions of people.
So there can’t be another one, or a next one, or any other future one for which the lessons of Covid must be learned; new treaties and laws must be drafted, signed and enforced; new surveillance and control programs developed; and billions of preparatory dollars spent.
There was a first theatrical production of the illusion of a deadly global pandemic: the 1918 Spanish flu.
And now there has been a second theatrical production of the illusion of a deadly global pandemic: Covid-19.
There are going to be more attempts to produce the same illusion under different titles; the producers routinely announce and demand funding for their road shows.
Human men and women are the audience.
Individual human minds are the private theaters into which the shows are projected.
I’m not going to go into a lot of detail on the microbiology, immunology, epidemiology and actuarial evidence that supports the proposition that there has never been a deadly global pandemic, and there will never be one.
The short version is that — once the legal definitions, laws, governing institutions and methods of information distribution are set up properly — a very realistic impression of a deadly global pandemic can be formed in the minds of individual human beings, by combining the legal and informational scenery with several props:
- intentional, localized dispersal of synthetic, weaponized toxins (aerosols, food additives, medications, ‘vaccines’)
- background circulating vectors that contribute to the common human experience of mild, short-duration illnesses known as colds and flus
- social isolation policies
- masking and physical distancing customs
- mass false-positive-generating diagnostic testing programs
Other writers are far better equipped than I am to explain the biological mechanisms of action; tradeoffs between transmissibility and virulence that infectious disease vectors experience in their quest to propagate themselves without killing their hosts; the history of Rockefeller medicine; uses and limitations of PCR and lateral flow tests; how psychological pressure works on the human mind and in human social groups; and statistical data demonstrating that differences between pre-Covid mortality and “deadly global pandemic” mortality are fully attributable — not to any communicable disease — but to the intentional lethality of interventions (economic disruption and unemployment, social isolation, masks, and synthetic toxins) whose premeditated deployment was pseudo-authorized on grounds that a “public health emergency exists.”
Most Bailiwick readers are already up to speed those subjects and how they fit into the big puzzle that close observers of anomalies and inconsistencies have been piecing together since January 2020, day by day as events have unfolded.
I’m hoping to spend a lot of time the next few weeks on the Texas and Oklahoma v. HHS and Becerra case documents, because it’s a rich mine of information about elements of the giant lie variously known as one world health, global health security, pandemic preparedness, pathogens of pandemic potential, biodefense strategy and dozens of other non-sense, sub-rational phrases.
- 2016.08.15 HHS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 81 FR 54230 Communicable Disease Control Public Health Emergency
- 2017.01.19 HHS Federal Register Final Rule Communicable Disease Control Public Health Emergency 82 FR 6890
- 2022.07.18 Petition for Rulemaking Texas Oklahoma v. HHS
- 2022.10.31 HHS refuse Oklahoma petition for rulemaking Texas Oklahoma v. HHS
- 2023.01.18 Texas Oklahoma v HHS Becerra WHO PHE
- 2023.03.27 Texas Oklahoma v. HHS Defendants Brief MtD
- 2023.05.01 Texas Oklahoma v. HHS Plaintiffs Opposition to MtD
- 2023.05.15 Texas Oklahoma v. HHS Defendants Reply in further support MtD
- 2023.08.18 Texas Oklahoma v. HHS Order Dismissal Lack of Standing
When I read legal documents, I look for phrases and arguments that seem odd or off-tone.
Public health and emergency preparedness law documents are full of such phrases, embedded into contorted sentences and paragraphs to obscure or shade or corrupt their meanings.
Example terms and phrases include precommunicable, asymptomatic, qualifying stage of a disease, existing circumstance, predicate to action, independent decision, “desirability of encouraging,” “data, if available,” “not feasible,” and medical countermeasures.
The phrase that jumped out at me in reading the Texas v. HHS documents is “inform the public.”
It’s not a strange phrase in itself.
It’s strange for how it’s used.
It’s used as a code word for cognitive and behavioral training.
In their original petition in July 2022, the attorneys general for Oklahoma, Texas and 13 other states asked HHS to revise 42 CFR 70.1 to remove three of the five definitions of “public health emergency” that authorize HHS officials to exercise and delegate federal police power to detain individuals suspected of carrying disease.
The AGs presented three arguments.
First, the petitioners argued that the WHO-based definitions of “public health emergency” promulgated in January 2017 “exceed HHS’s authority,” as granted by Congress.
Second, the petitioners argued that the listing of World Health Organization acts as predicates for “public health emergency” declarations is unlawful “because WHO is not a trustworthy agency for public health information.”
This argument was derived from the petitioners’ erroneous belief that Covid-19 was a deadly global pandemic, in response to which WHO officials provided poor global leadership.
In truth, Covid-19 was merely a theatrical production of a deadly global pandemic and WHO officials have been serving as producers and directors for the performance.
Third, they argued that since the HHS had conceded that “it does not intend to use” the WHO-predicates for public health emergency declarations, the three WHO predicates are unnecessary and could be removed without harm to the agency.
The petitioners wrote:
“In the Federal Register notice issuing the definition of public health emergency, HHS indicated that it would make independent decisions regarding public health emergencies. 82 Fed. Reg. 6890, 6906. Those independent decisions would continue to be cognizable under definitions (1) and (2) were this Petition granted. Accordingly, HHS would suffer no harm from granting the petition.”
The petitioners concluded:
“The only potential reason to retain unlawful rules that HHS does not believe it needs is to permit a future HHS to change its mind in later years…
By including the additional definitions deferring to the WHO, HHS is facilitating complete deferral to the WHO in the future even if it professes no intent to defer to WHO now…
[I]f we believe its protestations in the Federal Register, the existing HHS does not believe it needs definitions (3), (4), and (5) to manage public health emergencies, [so] it should repeal them as unnecessary even if it does not want to address the legality issues and WHO concerns raised…”
In October 2022, Marvin Figueroa, HHS Director of Intergovernmental and External Affairs, responded to the petitioners, denying their request to remove the “public health emergency” definitions predicated on the acts of WHO member nations and the WHO Director-General.
In addressing petitioners’ second argument, Figueroa cited the need to “inform the public” as driving the definitional rule-making.
Figueroa wrote, at p. 4:
“[A]lthough we acknowledge the concerns noted in the petition regarding purported political influence on WHO decision-making, they do not support removing references to that organization. Rather, HHS/CDC considers it important to include references to WHO in the definition of “public health emergency” to inform the public of the circumstances that HHS/CDC may consider when determining whether a public health emergency exists using its own independent judgment.
Furthermore, we are committed to strengthening WHO…to prepare for and respond to COVID-19 and the next pandemic. These efforts include strengthening the [International Health Regulations] (2005)…”
In his final paragraph on p. 6, he repeated the phrase:
“Lastly, your assertion that HHS/CDC would not be harmed by deleting definitions 3, 4, and 5 of “public health emergency” as used in 42 CFR 70.1, even if accurate, does not justify the expenditure of agency resources to amend the regulations.
Also, as explained in the 2017 Final Rule, HHS/CDC considered it important to include references to WHO in the definition of “public health emergency” to inform the public of the circumstances that HHS/CDC may consider when making such a determination using its own independent judgment.”
Petitioner states filed a federal complaint in January 2023, and the phrase “inform the public” shows up in each document as the two sides argued the point.
See Jan. 18, 2023 Complaint at p. 8; March 27, 2023 Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss at p. 10 and 19; May 1, 2023 Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at p. 4; May 15, 2023 Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at p. 2; and Aug. 18, 2023 Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at p. 4.
This odd HHS focus on “informing the public” is telling.
I think the state AG petitioners are correct that HHS wants to keep the WHO-based predicates for “public health emergency” declarations so that they can be used to create more illusions of “deadly global pandemics” in future.
I also think that the treaties and statutes are already written with enough interlacing between international and domestic law, that the WHO-HHS International Health Regulations Public Health Emergency of International Concern-Public Health Emergency automatic trigger system is already fully functional, even as the Monster works to make the treaties and statutes even more disordered in relation to natural and divine law.
But I think the “inform the public” rationale is mostly about manipulating individuals.
The globalist Monster has an intense desire to instill into human minds the fiction that the phrase “world health” corresponds to something in material, temporal reality; the Monster wants to justify the existence of a global organization to surveil and control, to coordinate field operations through subordinate organizations within member countries’ governments.
In truth, there is only individual human health, corresponding with things in both material, temporal reality and in spiritual, eternal reality.
Individual well-being is organized by God in co-operation with the human creatures to whom He gives bodily, material form at conception, within the temporal human societies we build and arrange so that we can love, live, work, raise children, and conform our souls to the will of God in the hope of eternal salvation for ourselves and our neighbors.
The Monster wants to substitute — inside human bodies, minds, and souls — the fiction of “world health” defined in secular, materialist terms as the ultimate end of human life and the ultimate purpose of human society, for the truth that God created mankind as material and spiritual beings.
The Monster wants to cut us off from the knowledge that we are beings for whom temporal existence is a brief opportunity to know, love and serve God: directly through prayer and worship, and indirectly by knowing, loving and serving our neighbors as ourselves, in our human societies, vocations and stations in life.
Above all else, the Monster wants to cut us off from the knowledge that we are beings for whom spiritual existence is eternal: eternal happiness with God in heaven or eternal torment separated from God, in hell.
That’s why it was so important, in 2016 and 2017, for the Monster to add the last few legal props ahead of the sequel to Spanish flu, the theatrical performance “Deadly Global Pandemic: Covid-19.”
It was to further build up the cognitive and behaviorally-compliant connection between the phrases public health emergency and World Health Organization, and from there, to HHS authority to use police power to arrest, detain, torture and murder anyone, anywhere, at any time, on suspicion of carrying communicable disease.
One reason why the Texas federal judge dismissed the petitioner states’ case against Xavier Becerra and the Department of Health and Human Services is that the judge didn’t think the states presented any evidence of actual harm, concrete injury or threatened imminent injury to the people living in the states.
HHS argued, and the judge agreed, that the harm from the WHO-based definitions of “public health emergency” were speculative, hypothetical, conjectural, and therefore the states lacked standing.
Soon, the next “deadly global pandemic” performance will begin.
If and when state AGs file new cases to protect state residents from “public health emergency”-predicated arrest, detention, torture and murder, it will be very important that they incorporate the information that has so painfully been brought into the light these last few years.
They must lay out the evidence that “deadly global pandemic” stories are fiction.
They must incorporate the facts about the injuries and deaths caused in each state by use of products known as “Covid-19 vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization status: the actual harms and concrete injuries.
They must lay out how deployment of EUA products, as covert biochemical weapons, is directly connected to HHS declarations that a “public health emergency exists.”
And they must lay out how HHS declarations that a “public health emergency exists” are directly connected to all five of the legal definitions inserted into American regulatory law through the January 19, 2017 edition of the Federal Register, and connected to the whole system of treaties and laws built to enable State-sponsored mass murder, which grows more ripe for dismantling with every passing day.
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
- Feb. 2, 2022 – January 19, 2017 Federal Register. US Health and Human Services final rulemaking, WHO International Health Regulations, and human liberty.
- May 11, 2022 – On the relationship between the World Health Organization and the US government.
- Oct. 17, 2023 – Texas and Oklahoma v. US Department of Health and Human Services and Xavier Becerra: case documents
Saint Francis Embracing Christ on the Cross. Painting by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo.
Subscribe to Bailiwick News
By Katherine Watt · Hundreds of paid subscribers
Gen-X Catholic writing about Covid-times law, geopolitics, philosophy and theology.”
Leave a Reply