The World Health Organization Changes It’s Stance Yet Again To Advocate For Boosters.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Tuesday that it “highly endorses” the administration of COVID-19 booster doses, altering its earlier position that boosters were not required for fully vaccinated healthy persons.

“Current COVID-19 vaccinations for primary series and booster doses,” according to the WHO’s new vaccine warning, give “high levels of protection against severe disease and mortality,” even in the context of Omicron’s spread.

The WHO appeared to modify its prior position, in which it opposed the widespread use of booster injections and emphasized that it should be based on proof of individual and collective commitments to ensure global vaccination fairness.

Last year, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebereyesus proposed for a freeze on booster injections for healthy individuals until the end of 2021 to address “deep disparity” in global vaccine access.

“But for the time being, we don’t want to see widespread booster use for healthy people who are fully vaccinated,” Tedros stated in September of last year.

Tedros went after wealthy countries’ COVID-19 booster initiatives again in December, accusing them of prolonging the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Blanket booster initiatives are more likely to prolong the pandemic than to terminate it,” he stated in a news conference. “By diverting supply to nations that already have high levels of vaccination coverage, the virus will have more time to spread and evolve.”

Dr. Mike Ryan, WHO’s emergency director, previously stated that there is “no evidence” that increasing the population as a whole can provide “any more protection” for healthy people.

The new vaccine advise, on the other hand, now encourages “wide access” to booster doses, particularly for populations at risk of severe CCP (Chinese Communist Party) viral sickness, also known as the novel coronavirus.

“While the near- and medium-term supply of accessible vaccinations has significantly grown, vaccine equity remains a significant concern, and all efforts to resolve such imbalances are strongly supported,” the WHO said.

The World Health Organization said it will continue to evaluate and assess the public health consequences of Omicron on vaccination performance, particularly a subvariant of Omicron known as BA.2, which is thought to be more contagious.

“Given Omicron’s widespread global transmission, the likelihood of it continuing to evolve is significant, and a new variety may emerge before an updated vaccine can be created and distributed at scale,” it stated.

On Feb. 8, Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, told reporters that four different variants of the Omicron variation are being tracked around the world. The Omicron variant was initially described and named in November 2021.

“Because BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1, we expect to see more BA.2 detection around the world,” Van Kerkhove said at a WHO press conference, adding that there is no indication that the subvariant will produce a more severe sickness than the original.

If you hadn’t noticed yet, the polarization is manufactured. The people the world have come to a threshold in which they need to either choose to advocate for our God given rights, or choose to let a globalist dictatorship make decisions for us. It’s an easy life for those who choose to be led blindly, but inevitably it will come at a cost. As will our actions as an opposition to the globalization of America. Hosea 4:6 says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

No one man can make sense of this elaborate illusion cast over the common man of society, but collectively we can point out each limitation forced upon us and bring it forward as an injustice to the public. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We’re meant to go down preaching the gospel and guiding others to salvation. This could be considered the bravest task a man or woman of faith could undertake, but make no mistake it will bear fruit in the kingdom of heaven. Stay inquisitive in the word of God, and the world around you.

According to a series of emails obtained by Radio-Canada, Quebec’s former public health director was looking for scientific grounds to justify imposing a curfew just hours before the province declared it will be enforced on New Year’s Eve on Dec. 30, 2021.

It was Quebec’s second curfew since the outbreak began.

According to Radio-Canada, the assistant to Dr. Horacio Arruda sent an email to Quebec’s public health institute and Marie-France Raynault, a senior strategic medical adviser for the province’s public health, on Dec. 30, 2021, asking them to come up with a “argument” that could help the government justify the need for a second curfew provincewide at a press conference later that day.

Renée Levaque wrote, “Horacio would like you and your teams to give him with an argument in relation to the curfew in advance of inquiries from journalists during the 5 p.m. press conference this evening.”

“Dr. Arruda is interested in two things: 1) What studies have been conducted? 2) What is being done in other countries?”

She stated that he wanted everything “in a tight argument.”

About four hours later, Éric Litvak, vice-president of scientific affairs at the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ), responded that it was not possible.

“On the INSPQ side, we don’t have an existing study that directly addresses the curfew, and we are regretfully unable to produce one today with such short notice,” he wrote, less than three hours before the press briefing.

Litvak, on the other hand, sent along certain research that he used to support his proposal for the first curfew, which was implemented on Jan. 9, 2021.

In a news release issued that same evening, the province’s health ministry shared four of those studies: two from France, one from Ontario, and another from Jordan, all of which looked at the consequences of curfew in respective places.

“The government’s decisions have been mostly based on expert assessments since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the news announcement stated.

Arruda resigned on January 10th, citing a “certain loss” in popular support for health-care reform.

In a letter, Arruda stated, “Recent criticisms concerning the integrity of our conclusions and our scientific rigor are surely causing a certain loss of public support.” “In such circumstances, I believe it is right to offer you the opportunity to succeed me before the conclusion of my tenure.”

According to Radio-Canada, the health ministry was also questioned in January under the “Act Respecting Access to Documents” about the studies it used to decide that a curfew was beneficial in halting the spread of COVID-19.

On February 7, the ministry responded that “doing scientific study or improving legal argument” is not their role.

The ministry stated that “the judgments adopted are based on evidence collected by numerous institutions, notably the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ) and the advice of specialists from other organizations.”

In response to a request from Thomas Gerbet of Radio-Canada for information on the effectiveness of Quebec’s vaccine passport and curfew, the INSPQ replied it has “no papers” to back up his claim.

“We do not have any documentation to this query,” the institute replied in a response posted on Twitter by Gerbet on Feb. 9.

Premier Francois Legault claimed the use of curfew was required since the COVID-19 situation in Quebec was serious during a press conference on Dec. 30, 2021.

“Because the circumstance is extreme, it’s an extreme measure to take,” he explained.

“We must act quickly because the situation is rapidly changing,” the premier stated. “As decision-makers, we must take action. We can wait for a slew of studies and additional information, but it’s preferable to act now and adapt afterwards.”

Another email exchange obtained by Radio-Canada a day before Legault’s declaration revealed that an ethical opinion was disseminated internally among government officials, but the two-page document was fully redacted.

Dr. Mylène Drouin, Montreal’s head of public health, made a formal request to Arruda for an ethical examination of the curfew, which she opposed owing to its impact on vulnerable people.

As the paper was being redacted, the media outlet stated that it was impossible to tell whether an actual evaluation was undertaken.

The health ministry said in an email statement to The Epoch Times on March 2 that “observational studies” suggest curfew can discourage gatherings, which “proved useful at a time when the number of cases among the general population remained high.”

“The curfew had a dissuasive effect on the population from going out beyond a particular hour when it was implemented,” spokesman Marjorie Larouche remarked.

She went on to say that the majority of public health decisions are made in consultation with provincial and regional officials. Different points of view are considered, but provincial officials have the final say.

“We believe the curfew is a serious step that should be used only after other transmission reduction measures have failed to produce the desired results, as was the situation at the start of January,” she said.

This blatant display of the tyrannical nature of the Canadian government will likely go on unchecked; Seeing as how the world can’t go five days without unprecedented events occurring globally. The world is now distracted by the crisis in Ukraine, and all too busy trying to recover from the effects of COVID legislature displacement. The bellicose “leadership” tactics seen in Canada are getting as little media attention as those who have experienced adverse effects from these experimental injections. Perhaps one day these individuals will be brought to justice for their crimes against humanity; Or perhaps not, this complex life we experience is in God’s hands & his hands alone.

No one man can make sense of this elaborate illusion cast over the common man of society, but collectively we can point out each limitation forced upon us and bring it forward as an injustice to the public. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We’re meant to go down preaching the gospel and guiding others to salvation. This could be considered the bravest task a man or woman of faith could undertake, but make no mistake it will bear fruit in the kingdom of heaven. Stay inquisitive in the word of God, and the world around you.