As time moves on, and the Covid event is seen in the rearview mirror, the arguments still trying to justify the draconian pandemic restrictions sound increasingly implausible. A prominent example is the argument for community masking. Despite the recently published Cochrane Review reaching the same conclusion as previous evidence evaluations – that face coverings do not achieve any appreciable reduction in viral transmission – seams of pro-mask rhetoric persist in the mainstream media. What is the engine room for these spreaders of misinformation? Is it those who seem committed to world government who are responsible?
According to a survey conducted in December 2022, 38% of the British public agree with the statement: “The world is controlled by a secretive elite.” Although the identities of this ‘elite’ vary according to who’s asked, it is reasonable to assume that, at least in the public health sphere, what is envisaged is some combination of: global financial and political institutions (such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum); inter-governmental agencies (the G7 and G20); powerful private interests (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Big Pharma) and recently developed health agencies devoted to vaccination and pandemic management (GAVI and CEPI). And there are plausible reasons (such as sources of funding) to perceive the World Health Organisation (WHO) as primarily functioning as a mouthpiece for these powerful groups, rather than acting as an independent body.
With this in mind, and my curiosity pricked, I decided to analyse a recent pro-mask article to investigate the extent to which globalist influences may have contributed to its production and publication. Not that this amounts to ‘world control’, of course. But it would illustrate the extent to which globalist organisations are clinging to pro-mask propaganda and pushing authoritarian agendas behind the scenes.
The Telegraph piece (critiqued here) draws on an interview with Professor David Halpern (a prominent behavioural scientist) where he talks about his strategic decision to show then serving Prime Minister Boris Johnson a series of images of other world leaders wearing masks, thereby deploying normative pressure to ‘nudge’ Johnson to do likewise.
The partisan article assumes that mass masking in community settings is desirable and the only relevant question is how to most effectively persuade the populace to comply. There is no recognition that the wearing of face coverings by healthy people is a highly contentious issue, with strong evidence to suggest that this practice is both ineffectual and associated with a range of physical, social and psychological harms.
So, who was responsible for compiling and disseminating this pro-mask propaganda? Is there any sign that globalist entities helped to shape its content?
In addition to Halpern, two other experts – Professor Yik-Ying Teo and Professor Laura Kwong – are quoted in the article, both stridently promoting mask wearing in the community. Teo is the Dean of the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at the University of Singapore. A mathematician by training, he previously worked as a Researcher for the Wellcome Trust and is currently a member of the Strasbourg-based Council of Scientists for the International Human Frontier Science Program.
Kwong is based at the School of Public Health in Berkeley, California, and works with the Global Environmental Health Equity Lab, a research group examining “health disparities as a consequence of the interactions between resource politics, economic disadvantages, uneven development, and biophysical changes in the environment”.
When seeking to identify the influencers of science publications it is informative to look at funding sources. At the end of the Telegraph article it is stated that the author, Ruth Dove, “was commissioned to research and write this piece by the Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute”. According to its website, the RGHI was founded in 2020 with the central aim of “improving access to information that will bridge epidemiology, public health, and behaviour change”. (The more sceptical among us might view this aspiration as synonymous with promoting doomsday computer-modelling prophesies, the restrict-and-jab approach to pandemic management, and top-down nudging to ensure we all ‘do the right thing’).
The two directors of RGHI, Simon Sinclair and David Wheeler, were both previously employed in multi-national pharmaceutical companies. But it is the globalist credentials of the six members of the RGHI’s “expert panel”, as detailed in their bios, that is most striking:
- Dr. Feng Cheng: An infectious disease epidemiologist, his roles include: Vice President of Chinese Consortium of Universities for Global Health; Co-chair of China-Africa Health Cooperation Roundtables; Co-Chair of Global Health Group at the Initiative for U.S.–China Dialogue on Global Issues; and Senior Adviser for Chinese Government on Global Health Cooperation Research and Policy. One of Cheng’s recent articles was titled, China’s Unique Role in the Field Of Global Health.
- Dr. Mohammad Ali Pate: A physician and former Minister of Health in Nigeria, he is the Julio Frenk Professor of Public Health Leadership at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health which, according to its website, “brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders”. He previously worked for the World Bank and is now a member of the Board for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He is also on the Steering Committee on Assessment of Impact of Polio Eradication on Routine Immunisation for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and is on the Advisory Board of Merck for Mothers, a “global initiative to help create a world where no woman has to die while giving life”. Dr. Ali Pate will imminently be appointed as the new Chief Executive of GAVI (a Gates-funded vaccine alliance).
- Dr. Albert Ko: An infectious disease physician and Programme Director for the NIH-supported Global Health Equity Scholars Program whose stated mission is “to create a new community of researchers, educators, and professionals prepared to address new and emerging global health challenges”. He also has roles at the WHO.
- Dr. Sally Davies: A previous U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Health (2011-2019). She has become a leading figure in global health, serving on the WHO Executive Board between 2014 and 2016 and as Co-Convener of the United Nations Inter-Agency Co-Ordination Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in 2019.
- Prof. Randeep Guleria: A physician and member of the WHO’s Scientific Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) concerned with immunisation and flu vaccination.
- Dr. Patricia Garcia: Professor at the School of Public Health at Cayetano Heredia University (UPCH) in Lima, Peru, and former Minister of Health of Peru. Dr. Garcia is also a Board Member of the Consortium of Universities in Global Health and Affiliate Professor of the Department of Global Health at University of Washington and of the School of Public Health at Tulane University.
- Prof. Michelle Williams: Currently the Dean of the Faculty at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. She is also the Angelopoulos Professor in Public Health and International Development.
Based on these bios, it is reasonable to conclude that a globalist organisation like the RGHI – which very few people will have heard of – is involved in shaping the pro-mask narrative here in the U.K. And its goals are much broader than mass masking. In December 2023 the RGHI (in collaboration with the World Bank and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) will host a Global Hygiene Summit in Singapore, with the aspiration to “create a forum for multi-level… discussions around hygiene science, behaviour, economics, and real-world experiences which can shape policy and drive better public health outcomes globally”.
Let us hope the conference focuses on the traditional cornerstones of public health – clean drinking water, improved sanitation and better working conditions for people across the world – rather than pushing blanket vaccination, social credit systems and zero-carbon agendas. But I’m not holding my breath.
Without doubt, obscure entities, independent of any of our democratic processes, are impacting national decisions on whether we cover our faces when engaged in day-to-day activities. It is important that more ordinary people are made aware of this reality.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign. He blogs at Coronababble.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.