Contents

Three Pandemic Treaty Misdirections

Last updated: March 18, 2024

Daniel Mališ
Daniel Mališ

Misdirection is a millennia-old technique in which the attention of the opponent or audience is intentionally diverted to something irrelevant or less important to shift focus away from the real issue.

Historically, misdirection was used mainly as a military strategy. As a form of entertainment, it’s employed to perform various types of magic, including the sleight of hand. In our “Digital Age,” misdirection is frequently involved in PR to manipulate public opinion.

With the “WHO Pandemic Treaty,” the questionable art of misdirection is creatively applied at several levels, allowing multiple ways to pull the final trick. Despite my 25 years of experience in medical law, it took me more than a month of analysis to disentangle the whole scheme. There were also a lot of documents to go through!

But first, what is the “WHO Pandemic Treaty?”

I will cover some details below, but in short, it’s an umbrella term for a global power grab that would give the WHO the authority to dictate what States should do whenever the WHO decides to declare the “public health emergency of international concern,” based on very loose criteria.

The Pandemic Treaty would also create massive financial incentives for anything related to pathogens and pandemic, which will by itself lead to an almost perpetual “public health emergencies”, whether caused by accidental or intentional lab leaks or simply by the desire to milk the pandemic system even more.

Let’s uncover the misdirections applied when pushing the Pandemic Treaty, grasping the big picture along the way.

Misdirection No. 1: It’s a Pandemic Combo

Everyone’s talking about a “Pandemic Treaty,” or sometimes a “Pandemic Accord,” but there are actually two equally significant legal instruments at play:

1. The WHO Pandemic Agreement – yes, that’s the current name of the newly negotiated treaty);

2. Pandemic-related Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations (abbreviated as “IHR”) – these are much less talked about but are potentially even more dangerous than the Pandemic Agreement. I call these changes altogether the “Pandemic Amendment,” although they are generally more often referred to as “Amendments to IHR.”

Talking just about the “Pandemic Treaty” conceals the fact that negotiating both legal instruments is essential for the final trick. That’s why I prefer to call them collectively the “WHO Pandemic Combo,” which emphasizes the fact that there are two related but separate legal units under negotiation – the Pandemic Agreement and the Pandemic Amendment.

What’s the difference between the two? We need to go to the WHO Constitution, the foundational treaty of the World Health Organization.

Article 19

According to Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, the Health Assembly has the authority to “adopt conventions or agreements” with respect to any matter within the competence of the WHO. The Health Assembly is the WHO’s highest governing body, composed of delegates representing all WHO Member States.

The Pandemic Agreement is to be adopted under Article 19, which is why it’s called the Pandemic Agreement – the other option given in Article 19 would be the Pandemic “Convention.”

Please note that according to Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “treaty” is a generic term covering all forms of written international agreements between States. The term “treaty” covers not only agreements or conventions but also pacts, charters, protocols, declarations, international regulations, etc. – you name it.

The adoption of an agreement under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, such as the Pandemic Agreement, requires at least a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly. In other words, a simple majority is not enough.

The adoption of an agreement, however, refers “only” to the consent of the delegates representing Member States at the Health Assembly. For any treaty under Article 19 to come into force for a Member State, such State has to accept such agreement “in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

This process, called ratification, typically means signing the international agreement by the Head of State (typically the President or the Monarch). In many countries, however, the Head of State needs prior approval of the legislative body (such as the Parliament) before ratifying an international agreement.

In the U.S., the President needs the consent of the Senate before he can ratify an international agreement. However, the Senate’s consent isn’t required for “executive agreements,” which are low-key international treaties.

The ratification process is finalized by depositing the instruments of ratification with the designated Depositary, which is typically the Secretary-General of the United Nations (currently Mr. António Guterres from Portugal).

For treaties adopted by bodies as huge as the Health Assembly, which comprises delegates representing 194 WHO Member States, it wouldn’t make sense if the treaty was binding only on a handful of States. Therefore, such treaties usually have a provision that they will only take effect after a certain number of signatories ratify it.

For example, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – the first and so far the only treaty adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution – says that it will enter into force on the 90th day after 40 States ratify the Convention (or otherwise consent to it).

The current proposal of the Pandemic Agreement also requires 40 ratifying or otherwise consenting States to trigger the counting of days towards the entry into force but shortens the 90-day countdown to 30 days only.

Either way, the involvement of legislative bodies means that the ratification process can take quite a long time. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was adopted by the Health Assembly on May 21, 2003, and entered into force on February 27, 2005.

That means (considering the 90-day delay) that it took the first 40 countries one and a half years to ratify the Convention, and that was considered fast. The remaining more than 100 signatories took longer, some of them much longer – the Czech Republic, for example, finalized the ratification process as late as June 1, 2012, nine years after the Convention was adopted.

Article 21

Knowing what Article 19 is about, you’ll understand better what Article 21 of the WHO Constitution has to offer. I deal with it here because the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (aka the Pandemic Amendment) are to be adopted under Article 21. Yes, that’s right, each unit of the Pandemic Combo is supposed to have a different legal regime. That’s part of the misdirection.

As you can tell from the whole text of Article 21, the regulations adopted under it are supposed to be more of a technical nature, setting certain requirements, nomenclatures and standards within WHO’s established functions rather than imposing new obligations like the treaties adopted under Article 19. However, there is no exact dividing line, as is often the case in international law.

This leaves Article 21 open for exploitation. What do I mean by that? The technical nature of regulations under Article 21 means they require merely a simple majority in the Health Assembly to be adopted, and, equally importantly, there is no ratification process.

Instead, the Member States have to actively opt out of the regulation (or amended regulation) within a time specified in the notification of adoption if they don’t want to be bound by it. No more waiting nine years for the Czech Republic or any other country to join in! After a certain notified time (e.g., 1 or 2 years), the regulation enters into force for all Member States, except for those who expressly rejected it in time.

The fact that only a simple majority is required to adopt the regulations follows from Article 60 of the WHO Constitution, where the regulations are not included among the “important questions” that require a two-thirds majority, like the adoption of conventions and agreements.

Now, back to the International Health Regulations, which are to be modified by the Pandemic Amendment. They were adopted under Article 21(a), which gives the Health Assembly authority to adopt regulations concerning “sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.”

Despite the plural in the name, the International Health Regulations are not a collection of separate regulations but a single legal instrument (itself a treaty) adopted by the Health Assembly on May 23, 2005.

By the way, try to download the IHR from the WHO official link. This is what I kept getting, regardless of the browser I used:

Is it just me who’s getting the 403 Forbidden status code, or is the WHO hiding something?

The International Health Regulations entered into force on June 15, 2007, in line with IHR’s Article 59, according to which the entry into force takes place 24 months after WHO’s Director-General notifies the States of the adoption of these Regulations (the deadline for rejecting the IHR was 18 months).

Original wording of Article 59 of the IHR

As you can see, Article 59 specifies, for the purposes of the IHR, the deadline for opting out from the adopted regulation, which is not specifically determined in Article 22 or the WHO Constitution, and the time of entry into force of such regulation, which logically cannot precede the deadline for opting out.

However, if you wanted to push the pandemic agenda through Amendments to International Health Regulations, 18 months for rejection and 24 months for entry into force seem like a long way of circumventing the ratification process. Why not make those timeframes significantly shorter?

Well, that’s exactly what happened! Initiated by the United States, on May 28, 2022, the Health Assembly adopted “technical amendments” to the IHR, which shortened the time for rejecting any amendments to the IHR from 18 to 10 months only while simultaneously reducing the period of automatic entry into force of such amendments from 24 to merely 12 months.

Amended wording of Article 59 of the IHR

Obviously, to opt out of the “technical amendments” to the IHR, Member States still had the original 18 months for rejection, but only a handful did, like – somewhat surprisingly – New Zealand, for example, although it indicated that this rejection might be withdrawn later on.

The vast majority of Member States remained passive, not even bothering to inform their citizens of the “technical amendments,” let alone conducting public consultations on this topic. This means that these States will only have 10 months to opt out of the Pandemic Amendment, if adopted, and they will be bound by it within 12 months of being notified of its adoption if they stay inactive again.

So what is Misdirection No. 1?

People’s minds are directed toward the Pandemic Agreement, which the WHO portrays as the only way to “protect the world from future pandemic emergencies.” Those who know jolly well that this claim has the same truth value as “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccines, i.e. zero, naturally fight against the Pandemic Agreement.

However, most of them don’t realize the Pandemic Amendment is being cooked up at the same time – they’ve never heard of the International Health Regulations, let alone about something that is about to change those Regulations dramatically.

Obviously, since there are two units of the Pandemic Combo, the ideal scenario for the globalist controlling the WHO is to have both the Pandemic Agreement and the Pandemic Amendment adopted by the Health Assembly.

If that’s the case, the Amendments to the International Health Regulations will enter into force first, probably in June 2025 (12 months following the notification of its adoption at the upcoming 77th Health Assembly), while the Pandemic Agreement second, having to undergo the ratification process before taking effect.

However, since there are only two horses in the race, with the “Pandemic Agreement” horse getting all the attention and the “Pandemic Amendment” horse more likely to finish, the globalists will still get the desired trophy even if only the Pandemic Amendment makes it through the finish line. A nice but also a very dangerous trick!

Interlude: Focus on Content, Not Labels

To see through the misdirections, it is important to realize that both the Pandemic Agreement and the Amendments to the International Health Regulations are just labels for two shells. What matters is not the shell or its label but the content of the shell.

The content can almost freely be distributed and later transferred between the two shells as needed. Yes, the IHR are supposed to be more of a technical nature rather than imposing direct obligations, but who cares? After all, who cared about human rights during COVID lockdowns, vaccine mandates and the like?

As a matter of fact, the proposed Amendments to the IHR already contain enough provisions to create the desired new global health order,” making the Pandemic Agreement a useful but unnecessary complement. That’s part of Misdirection No. 1 because all the focus is on the proposed Pandemic Agreement, while the Pandemic Amendment is less visible, unnoticed by many.

For example, the Pandemic Amendment makes WHO’s “recommendations” legally binding on Member States. If adopted, national governments or parliaments will no longer have a say regarding the pandemic measures in their respective countries – as a matter of international law, they are bound by treaties they agreed to, which would include the amended International Health Regulations.

The proposed changes to the definition of WHO’s “recommendations” in Article 1 of the IHR make it clear that the recommendations are no longer non-binding only.
In case you have any doubts, the newly proposed Article 13A of the IHR makes sure that the WHO’s “recommendations” are binding, with States undertaking (= putting themselves under obligation) to follow them.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms? Strike them out; they didn’t apply during the COVID pandemic anyway! Instead, principles of “equity, inclusivity and coherence” will apply, whatever they mean.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms to be no longer important …

Someone questioning “safe and effective” vaccines aimed at solving the public health emergency of international concern declared by WHO? Or the effectiveness of never-ending lockdowns and mask-wearing? Countries will have to censor such “false and unreliable information,” of course. Since COVID-19, only WHO knows the truth, debates are considered harmful.

According to the newly proposed Article 44(1)(h) of the IHR, the States “shall collaborate and assist each other” in censoring any dissenting opinions.

A Member State authorizing the use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment instead of waiting for Big Pharma to develop super-expensive drugs and vaccines with unknown safety profiles? That State will receive a binding “recommendation” from the WHO to stop such health measures within two weeks. Only the measures mandated by WHO will be allowed.

New wording of Articles 43.4 and 43.6 of the IHR according to the Pandemic Amendment.

What is the shell scheme good for? If the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement is for any reason endangered (e.g., it becomes a PR liability for everybody involved), it will allow for moving the substantive content of the Pandemic Agreement into the shell labeled “Amendments to the IHR.”

This could be done at any time, even just a few days before the Health Assembly. For the higher good, WHO doesn’t bother to keep to its own procedural rules, which call for making any proposed amendments to IHR available at least four months before the Health Assembly.

Given that the 77th Health Assembly is scheduled start on May 27, 2024, the final proposal of the Amendments to the IHR should have been made available to the Member States by January 27, 2024. We are well past this deadline, yet the latest version available is the compilation of the original proposals from February 6, 2023.

If you focus on the content, not just the labels, you soon realize that the Pandemic Amendment is equally (if not more) dangerous than the Pandemic Agreement. It’s certainly not enough to stop the Pandemic Agreement alone!

Misdirection No. 2: Pandemic Agreement Without Ratification

As explained above, the Pandemic Agreement is supposed to be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, which requires at least a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly and subsequent ratification. Politicians in various countries are pointing out this fact to pacify voters who are concerned. Don’t worry, it’s fully in our hands, the Pandemic Agreement will have to go through the ratification process – if we don’t like something, the Parliament or the Head of State won’t agree to it!

Well, that’s not necessarily true. Yes, all the focus is currently on Article 19, but from the very beginning, WHO has been quietly making space for adopting the Pandemic Agreement under Article 21, if needed, circumventing the need for ratification. You just need to closely follow the bread-crumb trail:

The Pandemic Agreement is being drafted and negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which was established at the Second special session of the Health Assembly in December 2021.

A quick note here: The Amendments to the IHR are drafted and negotiated by another body, called the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR). This group was established a bit later than INB, at the 75th Health Assembly in May 2022, by renaming the already existing Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.

But back to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body: It wasn’t set up to draft and negotiate a “Pandemic Agreement,” but instead generally a “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

The words “convention, agreement” refer to Article 19, which uses these two terms, but the expression “other international instrument” clearly relates to Article 21. To this end, the decision on establishing the INB expressly states that there’s a view of adoption under Article 19, but also “under other provisions of the WHO Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB.”

The International Negotiating Body made use of that mandate and decided at its second meeting in July 2022 that the Pandemic Agreement should be adopted under Article 19. However, this decision was expressly made “without prejudice to also considering, as work progresses, the suitability of Article 21.

Please take note of INB’s words that the final decision on whether to adopt the Pandemic Agreement under Article 19 or Article 21 of the WHO Constitution will be made by the Health Assembly.

While it sounds like paying respect to the Health Assembly’s ultimate decision-making authority, it also nicely allows for pulling the final trick (the Article 19/Article 21 switcheroo) at the last moment – during the 77th Health Assembly, which will only last a week. The public would be completely eliminated from objecting that national parliaments cannot be circumvented this way.

The Pandemic Agreement’s ambivalence as to its adoption under Article 19 or Article 21 is also reflected in the labels that ING has used for this legal instrument.

In its first official draft, called the Zero draft (dated February 1, 2023), the Pandemic Agreement was called “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” abbreviated as “WHO CA+”.

It took me some time to decipher what “CA+” stands for, but I finally got it: “CA” refers to “convention, agreement,” and the “+” sign to “other international instrument,” in other words, a regulation under Article 21.

The same ambivalent label was kept in the second official draft of the Pandemic Agreement, called the Bureau’s text, dated June 2, 2023. “Bureau” refers to the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, which consists of six people representing the six WHO regions. The INB Bureau’s role is to coordinate the negotiations of the Pandemic Agreement among all 194 WHO Member States.

By the way, the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations also has a Bureau – the WGIHR Bureau. Although separate bodies, both the INB and the WGIHR Bureaus closely cooperate and coordinate the INB’s and WGIHR’s steps, in line with the request of the 75th Health Assembly that established the WGIHR.

Given the references in the Zero draft and the Bureau’s text to “other international instruments,” symbolized by the “+” sign in the abbreviation “WHO CA+”, you can’t say that WHO didn’t give some indication that the Pandemic Agreement could be adopted under Article 21. At least to those who have the time to dig through dozens of documents and connect the dots, anyway.

However, as we’re talking about Misdirection No. 2, the focus is now on adopting the Pandemic Agreement under Article 19. The third official INB’s draft of October 30, 2023, called the Proposal for negotiating text, uses the current label “Pandemic Agreement” for the first time, and there’s no mention of Article 21 or “other international instruments.”

The same is the case with the fourth official INB’s draft dated 13 March 2024, called the Revised draft of the negotiating text (so far the last). For the final trick to work, hinting at the Pandemic Agreement being adopted under Article 21 is no longer a good idea.

Will the Pandemic Agreement eventually be adopted under Article 21, avoiding the need for a two-thirds majority and subsequent ratification process?

It very much depends on the situation in May 2024, just before or during the 77th Health Assembly. If there’s significant resistance against the Pandemic Agreement and the qualified majority looks impossible to reach, those behind the curtains could pull the switcheroo indeed.

Misdirection No. 3: Doublespeak

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, distorts or reverses the meaning of words. The term is derived from two concepts in George Orwell’s famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four – “doublethink,” belief in contradictory ideas simultaneously, and “Newspeak,” a controlled language created as a tool to limit freedom of thought.

Doublespeak can take various forms, such as euphemisms, technical jargon, inflated or intentionally ambiguous language. The most extreme, yet increasingly frequent form is using outright opposites – calling things the opposite of what they truly are.

In all its forms, doublespeak diverts the perception of people from the real meaning. For example, horrible or outright evil things are presented as noble, philanthropic or benign, while natural and beneficial matters are belittled, denigrated or ostracized. As such, doublespeak is an integral part of today’s political and corporate PR. It’s everywhere.

It should come as no surprise that the Pandemic Combo is loaded with doublespeak, as doublespeak is an ideal tool for misdirecting the focus from the unpleasant and often dreadful realities that will await us if the “Pandemic Treaty” is adopted.

We’ve already covered some examples related to the Pandemic Amendment, such as “recommendations” being actually legally binding or anything opposed to the WHO’s official views being censored as “false and unreliable information,” even if objectively spot-on (as was almost invariably the case during the COVID pandemic).

Here are a few additional examples related to the Pandemic Agreement, the other part of the Pandemic Combo:

Article 3(2) of the Pandemic Agreement puts forward the principle of sovereignty, pointing out “the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and to implement legislation within their jurisdiction.” However, under the Pandemic Combo, the States will be obliged to follow WHO’s binding “recommendations,” so their ability to legislate on the national level will be severely restricted.

So it’s like the WHO telling the States, “You have the sovereign right to legislate anything you want so long as it’s in line with what we say.” That’s not sovereignty, but ceding power to the WHO, despite all official claims to the contrary.

Article 3(2) of the Pandemic Agreement creates the illusion of State sovereignty. It just forgets to mention that it will be the WHO that will dictate the health policies through its binding “recommendations.”

Another sweet-sounding principle is equity, described in Article 3(3) of the Pandemic Agreement. It’s presented as the “absence of unfair differences among groups of people.” Who would object?

In reality, though, the principle of “equity” will mainly serve as a way for Big Pharma to push their poorly tested vaccines onto people in developing countries as well – and have the other countries and international financial institutions pay for it.

Sounds far-fetched? The previous (third) official draft of the Pandemic Agreement was pretty clear that equity is all about “access to safe and effective pandemic-related products.” In other words, more revenue for vaccine manufacturers at everyone else’s expense! The current wording has just been toned down to make it less obvious.

Previous description of “equity” in the Pandemic Agreement. Regardless of the wording, “equity” would likely end up as equitable sharing of vaccine injuries.

The term “One Health approach” in Article 1(e) of the Pandemic Agreement also sounds inspiring, almost like the holistic Gaia theory that suggests that Earth functions as a single, self-regulating living organism.

In practice, however, the concept of “One Health” is a ruse that will allow WHO to connect human health to almost anything on Earth, including animal health and climate change, and declare “public health emergencies of international concern” for practically any arbitrary reason.

Again, the previous draft of the Pandemic Agreement was more blunt about it. Its passage providing more details about the “One Health approach” was removed from the current draft, but that doesn’t change the nature of this treacherous concept. Check out the previous version:

The “One Health approach” would allow the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern due to climate change as well.

By now, it shouldn’t surprise you that another term, “Regulatory systems strengthening,” as covered in Article 14, means primarily making it easier for vaccine manufacturers to get their “safe and effective” products approved under emergency use authorizations.

It even obliges the States to “encourage” manufacturers of pandemic-related products (vaccines) to “pursue” such approvals!

In other words, “regulatory strengthening” strengthens Big Pharma’s position by making sure all regulatory frameworks for smooth emergency use authorizations of their newly cooked-up vaccines will be in place, beating even Operation Warp Speed!

The previous version of Article 14 of the Pandemic Agreement, called “Regulatory strengthening” at that time, was again even more straightforward:

Does it require a further comment?

But you can bet that the regulatory authorities will be very tough on cheap and repurposed drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine! Why? Because not much money can be made on them.

I could go on, but I’ll give just one more example: “Communication and public awareness” in Article 18 of the Pandemic Agreement is unsurprisingly nothing but the good old censorship. It’s just sugar-coated as preventing “misinformation and disinformation” and as working on “factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures.”

And, of course, “trust in science and public health institutions” is also protected. “Trust the science,” remember? Or was it actually “Trust the $cience”? Either way, States will be obliged to censor anyone who would dare to question it.

Conclusion

If the Amendment to the IHR or the Pandemic Agreement get adopted, they will, without exaggeration, lay a solid foundation to international pandemic martial law that will supersede human rights and national laws, all in the name of “fighting the pandemic” and “making sure everybody is safe.” It will be like the COVID-19 measures on steroids.

The huge incentives created by the Pandemic Combo – the concentration of global power and generation of enormous financial profits – will inevitably lead to almost perpetual “public health emergencies.” People will repeatedly serve as passive recipients of the WHO-mandated “pandemic-related products,” mainly experimental vaccines and other poorly tested and ineffective pharmaceuticals.

If you don’t like the idea, please try to do something about it. Share this article or information from it on social media. Tell your friends about the risks presented by both the Pandemic Agreement and the Amendments to IHR. Sign a petition against their adoption by the WHO delegates of your home country. Be creative and come up with something new as well.

Further Reading

I will publish more articles about the Pandemic Combo, but there are also other (and excellent) sources of non-mainstream information on this topic. Trying not to overload you, so I’ve selected the following few:

Meryl Nass’ Substack – Meryll is an experienced physician and researcher who lost her medical license for prescribing the “wrong” (= cheap and effective) COVID medications and for spreading “misinformation” that COVID vaccines not being safe and effective. She publishes daily articles about the Pandemic Agreement, Amendments to IHR and other COVID-related issues.

Door to Freedom – A non-profit organization founded by Meryl Nass and a website containing great collection of documents, articles and media files regarding the Pandemic Combo.

James Roguski’s Substack – James is an avid fighter for freedom and truth. His daily articles now focus almost exclusively on the Pandemic Combo, providing up-to-date information, including unofficial leaked versions of both the Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to IHR.

How We Can Stop The WHO’s Horrific Pandemic Treaty – A Midwestern Doctor (a pen name) is a physician who writes excellent in-depth articles on various medical topics. This one is about the Pandemic Combo and the dangerous reasons behind pushing it forward so vigorously.

And now, I’d like to hear from you! Did you like the article? What was the biggest eye-opener for you? What would you like me to cover more? Anything else you want to share?

Subscribe to my weekly newsletter

Every Tuesday, I’ll let you know of my brand-new article (and some more!)

Share

Support

Want to make a difference by supporting RCMprinciples.com? Please click below!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to my weekly newsletter

Every Tuesday, I’ll let you know of my brand-new article (and some more!)

Share

Support

Want to make a difference by supporting RCMprinciples.com? Please click below!

Related articles

12 Root Cause Medicine Principles

12 Root Cause Medicine Principles

There are many methods, procedures and protocols in various systems of medicine, but only a limited number of core principles…
How Not To Tackle Obesity - Wegovy, Ozempic, Zepbound, Mounjaro, Etc.

How Not To Tackle Obesity...

To get rid of obesity, we need to deal with what causes obesity. “Weight management” medication works in the short…
12 Root Cause Medicine Attitudes

12 Root Cause Medicine Attitudes

While working on the 12 Root Cause Medicine Principles, I realized that just learning these principles is not enough. Why?…