Further Exposing the Role of the WHO in the Trinity of Evil

In the recently concluded Your Loveworld Specials Season 11 Phase 2, the President of Loveworld Incorporated highlighted the role of the WHO in the trinity of evil (which comprises the WEF, the UN and the WHO). Now, he especially highlights that there are leaders who make the mistake of assuming the better of the functionality of the WHO and even the credibility of the Director General. Well, we ought to address this further, not only in light of the history of the WHO, but also in light of the agenda it has been driving since its inception and the first ever director general.
RECAPITULATION: THE DARK HISTORY OF THE W.H.O
And now onto our main discussion, and we ought to begin with a recapitulation of some crucial historical context. So, the WHO was set up after the Second World War as the health arm of the United Nations, to support efforts to improve population health globally. Based on the concept that health went beyond the physical (encompassing “physical, mental and social well-being”), its constitution was premised on the concept that all people were equal and born with basic inviolable rights. The world in 1946 was emerging from the brutality of colonialism and international fascism; the results of overly centralised authority and of regarding people to be fundamentally unequal. The WHO’s constitution is generally said to be intended to put populations in charge of health. However, in recent decades the WHO has proven this to be a disingenuous pronouncement of their constitution and functionality, especially because what we see instead is that its support base of core funding allocated by countries (based on GDP) has evolved into a model where most funding is directed to specified uses, and much is provided by private and corporate interests. And the priorities of the WHO have evolved accordingly, moving away from community-centred care to a more vertical, commodity-based approach. This has the inevitable and unfortunate outcome in which the funds follow the interests and self-interests of these funders, and not necessarily the needs of those who were supposed to be served. And yet, this is what was announced to the world at the inception of the WHO.
Looking at the history of the WHO, we must also look at the first director general of WHO, which was Canadian physician Brock Chisholm, who served from 1948 to 1953. Now, his importance to this discussion is that as the first DG, he obviously contributed significantly to the philosophy of the WHO, but also quite curiously – he was nicknamed the “prophet of disaster”, and it is not difficult to appreciate why. Dr Brock Chisholm very infamously advocated for “bacteriological warfare”! He (very infamously) told a meeting of teachers in Toronto in 1947, “that bacteriological warfare promotes any little group of people or any little nation to a degree of proficiency in offensive warfare which makes it a competitor of any of the greater nations.” he added that “It is obsolete now to gauge a nation’s war strength by its capacity to produce aluminium, guns, tanks and so on.” And so, as far as he was concerned, the ability to weaponise biology was the ultimate means of measuring the strength of an entity or nation.
It is important to note that Dr Chisholm made these remarks in 1947, which was before he was appointed as the first DG of the WHO in 1948 – and so clearly, his philosophy was seen as plausible to enshrine into the fabric of an organisation that would be responsible for world health. And by the way, it must not be missed that his philosophy was meant for global application because Dr Chishom was one of 16 international experts consulted in drafting the WHO’s first constitution. He even recommended the WHO’s name, with emphasis on the inclusion of the word “world”, which differentiated the WHO from the League of Nations’s Health Organization, which the WHO succeeded. And so, the history of the WHO reveals an entity that was founded on and influenced by a philosophy to ultimately weaponise biology across the globe, and not necessarily function for the health of many. But interesting about Dr Chisholm is his theories about children.
Once again, Santa Claus is an evil construction, and so I do not oppose children not being taught to believe in him. However, what was conveniently left out of this clip and hidden from many is that Dr Chisholms did not only oppose Santa. Instead, he drew much criticism from the Canadian public for his comments inspired by communist beliefs in the mid-1940s AND also his comments that children should not be taught the Bible or anything that he regarded as supernaturalism. At the core of these beliefs is challenging the dependent relationship children had with their parents (which is really support for the agenda of children of the state).
THE W.H.O IS A BUREAUCRACY INCLINED TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
But, having looked at this historical context, let’s proceed to look at the functionality of the WHO in the status quo. First, the WHO is not alone in the international health sphere. While certain organisations such as UNICEF, private foundations and non-government organisations have long partnered with the WHO, the past two decades have seen an increase in collaboration from multiple organisations, particularly ‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) growing in influence. Notable among these public-private partnerships are the Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance (focused specifically on vaccines) and CEPI, an organisation set up at the World Economic Forum meeting in 2017 to apparently manage pandemics; set up by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Norwegian Government. Gavi and CEPI, along with others such as Unitaid and the Global Fund, include corporate and private interests directly on their boards. The World Bank and G20 have also increased involvement in global health, and especially the so-called pandemic preparedness. But, when you follow the money, you see that this comes
In addition, the WHO is primarily a bureaucracy, not a body of experts. Recruitment is based on various factors, including technical competency but also country and other equity-related quotas. These quotas serve a purpose of reducing the power of specific countries to dominate the organisation with their own staff, but in doing so require the recruitment of staff who may have far lower experience or expertise. Recruitment is also heavily influenced by internal WHO personnel, and the usual personal influences that come with working and needing favours within countries. Furthermore, the DG and Regional Directors (RDs – of which there are six) are elected by member states in a process subject to heavy political and diplomatic manoeuvring – and the result is likely not plausible. For instance, the current DG is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian politician with a chequered past during the Ethiopian civil war and made headlines for allegedly blocking rebels in the conflict with Tigray rebels.
THE W.H.O’S WAR ON THE HEALTH OF THE YOUTH IN PARTICULAR
We have noted a vaccination agenda from the WHO which takes place alongside the weaponisation of viruses towards the agenda of bacteriological warfare; well it is important to note that this vaccination agenda disproportionately affects children – really, the youth in general.  Primarily, this is in light of two crucial reasons: first, governments and big pharma use school enrollment at nearly all levels of education as a key mechanism to push the ever-growing vaccine agenda. More specifically, if you are a college student today, the number of childhood vaccines you would have been required to receive may be 2 to 3 times the number your parents received. If you have a younger sibling who is below 10 years of age, the number may be even greater for them. Meanwhile there are also plans to increase the number of vaccines, especially with the bird flu and M-POX vaccines that have been developed.
However, as you may know, children’s health is significantly worse for this generation than it was for the previous ones, with dramatic increases in autism, allergies, and other chronic illnesses, among other problems. Autism in particular has increased alarmingly and in direct proportion to the increase in childhood vaccines. Meanwhile, governments and the medical establishment continue to push for more vaccines.
The second reason why the WHO’s vaccination agenda matters for students is that young people are at most risk to suffer the ramifications of the vaccination agenda. During Covid, millions of college students were mandated to get the experimental Covid injections to be allowed to attend school. Colleges mandated the shots despite the facts that: (a) these injections did not stop infection or transmission of the virus; and (b) healthy young people had essentially zero risk of serious illness and death from Covid. But as a result of this, since the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were given to the public, over 1.6 million adverse events and over 38,000 deaths related to these injections have been reported to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Among these toxicities, increased rates of myocarditis – sometimes fatal – in young people, especially boys, have been demonstrated in recipients of the mRNA injections.
That said, about 550 colleges in the US never required Covid vaccines for undergraduate students. However, some of those colleges would have mandated them if state law had not forbidden it, and still pressured their students to take the shots. A great many students in health care fields are still required to get these Covid injections to continue their studies. And according to the student advocacy group No College Mandates, 20 American colleges and universities still mandate the Covid shots for their undergraduates. Ultimately, there is zero legitimate medical indication for healthy children or young adults to get the Covid mRNA injections. None. Any institution insisting upon this, especially at this late date, demonstrates a total disregard for the physical health and well-being of its students. ANd this is not just a statement made on principled ground; there is evidence showing that children have been harmed as a result of the jabs. In fact recently, there are teenagers dying at home from vaccine-induced myocarditis.
THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED MINOR CONSENT FOR THE VACCINATION AGENDA
But, this issue is not exclusive to universities or colleges, as you would have observed. In fact, it is even more sinister when it comes to children in elementary, middle or high school because of the deceptively constructed minor consent doctrine in a number of states. At present, five US states (namely: California, New York, Maine, Connecticut, and West Virginia) allow no religious or conscience exemption from vaccination for children to attend public schools. In some of these states, significant pressure is put on physicians not to write medical exemptions either.
In addition, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.
Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child. And this is a serious concern because even when these children who are allegedly mature enough would require compensation for vaccine injuries, governments are making it difficult to get this relief, meanwhile, children do not even have legal standing in court.
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THAT ENABLES CHALLENGING VACCINE EFFICACY
Then, in addition to the deceptive argument on minor consent, there is also the weaponisation of laws to erode the rights of minors. As we recently discussed, the Vermont Supreme Court released a controversial decision in the case of Politella v. Windham, ruled that the government can vaccinate children without parental consent or legal recourse under some circumstances. As attorney John Klar explains: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act immunised school officials from “all state-law claims…as a matter of law.” The Court did not address state or federal constitutional privacy protections or bodily autonomy, merely swallowing these paramount individual rights in a perverse, all-entrusting servitude to federal preemption by an administrative state. Ironically, the Vermont Supreme Court immunised the federal government against children’s rights. But, ultimately, across all levels of education, governments are using school enrollment to push the ever-growing vaccine agenda.
But, this issue with leaders who serve the agenda of a WHO organisation that was never intent on acting in the best interest of global health is not exclusive to the Americas. We recently, as LN24 International, had the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Health in South Africa, and his perceptions of the WHO conveyed a defensive approach towards the functionality of the WHO and even the person of the Director General. And yet, the pandemic accord that the WHO tried to pass AND even the history of this organisation and Tedros Ghebreyasus reveal that the WHO is a liability to nations and the health of the people of the world. But kindly have a listen.
This is why we cannot be slothful in our work of praying for nations and their leaders. There are strongholds that we are breaking as we pray. And (indeed) we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.