Special to WorldTribune.com
Last week we reported on the globalist health “experts” tied to Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates who are wielding vast influence over America’s coronavirus policy.
Gates is the founder and funder of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. Dominant media outlets have heavily promoted IHME as an authoritative voice on when Americans may possibly be allowed to leave their homes as government-mandated lockdowns are eased or ended.
Many local and federal government officials have apparently accepted IHME’s usurpation of this role with nary a shrug.
Julio Frenk is the Board Chair for IHME. As we reported, Frenk is “President of the University of Miami and former president of the Carso Health Institute in Mexico…. Carso is heavily financed by Mexican billionaire and New York Times owner Carlos Slim, much to the delight of the World Health Organization.”
In 2008 Frenk “received the Clinton Global Citizen Award for changing ‘the way practitioners and policy makers across the world think about health.’ ”
We decided to dig deeper into the background of this top Gates adviser, and what we have found is simply astonishing. Julio Frenk is an unabashed enthusiast for one-world government and is admittedly using the issue of health in increasingly globalized societies to further this goal.
In 1997 Frenk co-wrote a paper with the actual title, “The New World Order and International Health.” Yes, the article is that clear as to its aims.
“Nations no longer represent truly independent, sovereign countries,” Frenk and his co-authors state. “New global forces have eroded national borders, facilitating the transfer of goods, services, people, values, and lifestyles from one country to another. Countries are increasingly dependent on international trade. Transnational corporations control a large portion of the world’s capital. Currencies leap from one financial market to the next, often defying national regulation.”
Frenk longs for the erosion of unique national cultures. “As humanity enters the 21st century, its crucial challenge is to build a global civilization based on respect for multiculturalism,” the article proclaims.
Sociological “rights” are interlaced with health concerns in this internationalist model:
“National governments can no longer deal on their own with the determinants of health that arise from interactions at the global level. The technologies to satisfy health needs are being produced and traded through global processes that often transcend the regulatory capacity of individual governments. The right to quality health care is incorporated into the global movement for human rights, and governments are facing increased demands for better services.”
Frenk and his colleagues discuss what they call the emerging spectrum of thought on world global health. “At one end of the spectrum is the ‘essentialist’ point of view, which seeks to identify the core functions for which international organizations have a comparative advantage over national entities,” they write.
And then there is the other view:
“At the other end of the spectrum is a view that assigns a much more expansive role to international health organizations. Based on arguments of social justice and the transferability of experiences, this view identifies several functions in addition to the essential core. These include redistribution of resources from rich to poor countries, political advocacy in favor of certain national health policies, direct regulation of transnational corporations, and intervention in planning or implementing national health projects.”
Rather than dismissing this second view as shockingly radical, Frenk and cohorts merely stress that the two sides of the spectrum must reconcile in order to build the proper world health model. “Building a consensus about the functions of international health organizations is a prerequisite for designing the structural reforms that will best allow those organizations to fulfill their mandates,” the writers conclude.
Frenk has not departed from this anti-nation ideology over the years. In a 2014 article for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet titled “From Sovereignty to Solidarity: A Renewed Concept of Global Health for an Era of Complex Interdependence,” Frenk reiterated his core message. “Traditionally, the nation state has been responsible for the protection of the health of its population. But increased interdependence has eroded the capacity of states to do so,” he wrote.
“The challenge is that in a world of sovereign states, there is no hierarchical authority or world government to ﬁll in the gaps. Rather, there is only a relatively weak system of multilateral institutions built on the shaky foundations of the consent of sovereign states.”
Frenk uses his assessment to flat-out call for one-world government:
“But generation of the political will within states to share their sovereignty in this manner will require a far more fundamental transformation in the long term — the gradual construction of a global society. The idea of a global society is based on the principles of human rights and the logic of health interdependence. It implies that individuals and the various organisations that they form (whether governmental agencies, CSOs, ﬁrms, foundations, or other stakeholders) accept to share the risks, rights, and duties related to protection and promotion of the health of every member of this society.”
A piece Frenk co-authored in 2002, shortly after the September 11 attacks, titled “Globalization and The Challenge to Health Systems,” again underscores the crucial point that Frenk and his fellow “experts” are saying health policy should be used as a tool to help usher in a new fully globalized world:
“In the long run, the challenge is to build a world order characterized by peace in the midst of diversity. Instead of asserting one’s identity by rejecting or destroying what is different, we must try to soften collisions, balance claims, and reach compromises…. Health may contribute to this pursuit because it involves domains that unite all human beings. It is in birth, in sickness, in recovery, and ultimately in death that we can all find our common humanity. At critical moments for the world, health has consistently remained one of the few truly universal aspirations.”
Frenk swims with the very elite of the globalist powers. He has cozy ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and sits on the board of Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation. Frenk was co-author of a 2018 report for the virulently globalist Trilateral Commission (founded by David Rockefeller) titled “Global Health Challenges: A Report to the Trilateral Commission.”
In 2014 he co-edited a book titled “To Save Humanity: What Matters Most for a Healthy Future.” According to the description of the book at Amazon.com, ” ‘To Save Humanity’ is a collection of short, honest essays on what single issue matters most for the future of global health. Authored by the world’s leading voices from science, politics, and social advocacy, this collection is both a primer on the major issues of our time and a potential blueprint for post-2015 health and development.”
In the book Michelle Bachelet, former socialist president of Chile from 2006-2010 and 2014-2018, wrote this:
“The question is, then: what type of global and national governance and leadership is critical to understand and address the health challenges of the next 50 years?
“I believe that in order to address all of these challenges, global governance will need to transcend national and sectoral boundaries. As determinants of well-being shift beyond the control of individual countries, global policies will need to align and integrate to support global social, environmental, and health development challenges. Resource scarcities will need to be globally managed, and equality and solidarity must be systematically embedded in global governance.”
Bachelet went on to be appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights after leaving office in 2018.
A question for freedom-loving Americans as you stay bunkered in your homes or don your cattle-strap face masks in order to be able to buy some groceries and maybe (if you’re lucky) even toilet paper:
How exactly is it a conspiracy theory if they explicitly told you what they were going to do all along?