Why Has COVID Spared Africa?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

 Fact Checked

January 12, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE There are clear contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives
regarding the need for COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground The WHO is still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab into at least 70% of their
populations, and warns that developing countries are at grave risk due to low jab rates.
Meanwhile, Africa, where less than 6% of the population is jabbed, has fared far better
than countries with high injection rates. A large-scale survey in Uganda also shows
COVID is no longer a clinical issue
 Variants have also gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, yet the WHO
warns that new variants may create “large waves of serious disease and death inpopulations with low vaccination coverage”
 The explanation for the disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s happening inAfrica can be explained when you look at the focus of the WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion
exercise. It focused on getting African leadership trained in following the pandemic
script. The WHO needs additional pandemics in order to justify its pandemic treaty, which
will give it sole power to dictate countermeasures, and it needs to eliminate the Africancontrol group, which shows the COVID “vaccines” do more harm than good The WHO also has every intention of implementing climate lockdowns once it has thepower to do so. To that aim, the WHO’s director of Environment and Health has suggested
combining health and climate issues into one

In the video above, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, compares thecontradictions between the World Health Organization's directives regarding the needfor COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.
As of December 12, 2022, the WHO was still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab
into at least 70% of their populations.1 Its original deadline for meeting this 70%
threshold was mid-2022, but by June 2022, only 58 of 194 member states had reachedthis target.2
According to the WHO, jab supplies, technical support and financial support werelacking during the early days of the injection campaign but, now, those obstacles havebeen resolved. As a result, all countries now have the ability to meet the global target of70%.

Low Jab Rates Threaten Low-Income Countries, WHO Claims
The "overarching challenge" right now is the administration of the shots, actually"getting shots into arms."3 To address that, the WHO suggests integrating COVID-19
injection services "with other immunization services and alongside other health andsocial interventions." This, they say, will maximize impact and "build long-term capacity."
The WHO also stresses that "As people's risk perception of the virus wanes, careful risk
communication and community engagement plans need to be adapted to enhancedemand for vaccination." To ensure low-income countries get onboard to meet the 70%
target, the WHO also launched The COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership in January2022.
This is an international effort "to intensify country readiness and delivery support" in 34
countries with low COVID jab uptake. Partners include UNICEF, Gavi and the World Bank.
According to the WHO:4"Despite incremental success since its launch in January 2022, low and lowermiddle income countries are facing difficulties to get a step change invaccination rates.

This represents a serious threat to the fragile economic recovery, including due
to the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death inpopulations with low vaccination coverage.
It also means accelerating the delivery of other COVID-19 tools and treatments
is a crucial priority to help the world build up multiple layers of protection
against the virus. Concerted and urgent action from countries, international
partners and agencies, along with G20 Finance Ministers is required to increasevaccination levels and expedite access."
In short, the WHO is really concerned that countries with low COVID jab rates will suffer
lest they meet or exceed the target goal of jabbing 70% of their populations. But what isthat concern based on? Certainly not the real world.

WHO's Statements Contradict Real-World Situations
The statements made by the WHO contradict a number of real-world situations. For
starters, while developed nations with high jab rates struggled with COVID-19
throughout much of 2021 and 2022, Africa avoided this fate, despite its single-digit jabrate.
Scientists are said to be "mystified" as to how Africa fared so well, completely ignoringdata showing that the more COVID shots you get, the higher your risk of contracting
COVID and ending up in the hospital.
Over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs appear to bedysregulating and actually destroying people's immune systems, leaving themvulnerable not only to COVID but also other infections.5 It stands to reason, then, thatAfrica with its low injection rate would not be burdened with COVID cases brought on bydysfunctional immune systems.
Secondly, variants have gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, albeit more
infectious (i.e., they spread easier). So why is the WHO worried about "the risk of new

variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low
vaccination coverage"? What is that "risk" based on?
And, since COVID infection keeps getting milder, and has had a lethality on par with orlower than influenza6,7,8,9,10 ever since mid-2020 at the latest, why is it still a "crucialpriority" to accelerate delivery of COVID treatments?
As a reminder, according to a September 2, 2020 study in Annals of Internal Medicine,the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID was a mere 0.26%.
Below 40 years of age, the infection fatality ratio was just 0.01%. Meanwhile, theestimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%.11

Report From Uganda
Campbell goes on to cite a large-scale survey by a community health partner in Uganda,
which surveyed doctors, nurses and medical officers across the country, and "basically,they don't see any COVID anymore," he says.
They're not getting the jab and they're not getting tested for COVID either. There's noneed, because no one is getting sick with COVID — at least not to the point they need
medical attention.
The Ugandan government has even stopped publishing COVID guidelines. From theirperspective, the pandemic is over. The same sentiment appears common in other
African countries as well. Given the situation on the ground, is it really a pressing needto jab 30 million people in Uganda against a disease they're not getting sick from?
What Uganda does need is malaria treatments, mosquito nets, clean drinking water andantibiotics. "That is what the priorities on the ground seem to be," Campbell says. So,
what's with the apparent disconnect between the WHO's priorities and what's actually
happening in areas with low COVID jab rates? The WHO's Catastrophic Contagion
exercise12,13 clues us in.

The Disconnect Reveals the WHO's True Intentions
October 23, 2022, the WHO, Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins cohosted a global challenge
exercise dubbed "Catastrophic Contagion,"14,15 involving the outbreak of a novel
pathogen called "severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025" (SEERS-25).
Tellingly, this tabletop exercise was focused on getting African leadership involved andtrained in following the pandemic script. Participants included 10 current and former
health ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria,
Angola and Liberia. (Representatives from Singapore, India and Germany, as well as
Gates himself, were also in attendance.)
African nations just so happened to go "off script" more often than others during theCOVID pandemic and didn't follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came topushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge
control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.16
They cannot reasonably explain how or why Africa ended up faring so better thandeveloped nations with high COVID jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections andrelated deaths.17“The WHO's pandemic treaty is the gateway to aglobal, top-down totalitarian regime. But to securethat power, they will need more pandemics.

”The WHO desperately needs to get rid of this control group, so they're enlisting andtraining African leaders how to push for widespread vaccination using the WHO's talking
points. This, I believe, is the only reason the WHO is still speaking about COVID-19 incatastrophic terms.

The WHO Needs Additional Pandemics to Secure Its Power GrabAt this point, it's quite clear that "biosecurity" is the chosen means by which the globalist
cabal intends to usher in its one world government. The WHO is working on securing
sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty
which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of member nations.
The WHO's pandemic treaty is basically the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarianregime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was
not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, andthey probably knew that from the start.
So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured
using fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, isbecause the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we needglobal biosecurity surveillance and a centralized response.
Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which theG20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That
digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker,
medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchaserecords, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).
Once all these pieces are fully connected, you'll be in a digital prison, and the rulingcabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total
control over your life from cradle to grave.
The WHO's pandemic treaty is what sets this chain of events off, as it will have thepower to implement vaccine passports globally once the treaty is signed. The WHO will
also have the power to mandate vaccines, standardize medical care and issue travelrestrictions.
This treaty will likely pass this year, which means the WHO will either need to ramp up
the COVID narrative again, or switch to another pandemic in order to justify these kindsof actions.

The Pandemic Treaty Is the Death Knell to Freedom Worldwide
It's important to realize that the WHO's pandemic treaty will radically alter the global
power structure and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms. It's adirect attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on yourbodily autonomy.
Once signed, all member nations will be subject to the WHO's dictates. If the WHO says
every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and digital identity toensure vaccination compliance, then that's what every country will be forced toimplement, even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic
processes.
There's also reason to suspect the WHO intends to extend its sovereign leadership into
the health care systems of every nation, eventually implementing a universal or"socialist-like" health care system as part of The Great Reset. WHO Director-General
Tedros has previously stated that his "central priority" as director-general of the WHO isto push the world toward universal health coverage.18

Prediction: Climate Lockdowns Are Next
Considering the WHO changed its definition of "pandemic" to "a worldwide epidemic of adisease,"19 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,20,21
just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion. This means that once
they're in power, they won't need to rely exclusively on pathogenic threats.
They could also declare a global pandemic for a noninfectious threat, like global
warming, for example. Such a declaration would then allow the WHO to circumvent lawsthat are in place to preserve our freedom, and allow for the implementation of tyrannicalmeasures such as lockdowns and travel restrictions.
Indeed, the notion of "climate lockdowns" has already been publicly flouted on multiple
occasions.22 As reported by The Pulse:23

"Climate lockdowns and other restrictions will be framed as saving the peopleof the world from themselves. Who would ever disagree with such measureswhen it is framed under the guise of good will?
Like we saw with COVID mandates, if climate mandates ever take place they will
be promoted as an extremely noble and necessary action. Those who disagree
and present evidence that such actions are not useful or impactful, and insteadcause more harm, will most likely be silenced, censored and ridiculed …
What would a climate lockdown look like? Well, if such an initiative were to takeplace, governments would limit or ban the consumption of many foods. They
would ban or limit private-vehicle use, or limit the distance one can travel in agas powered car or perhaps even by plane.
Working from home could eventually become the permanent norm if special
carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies,
limiting driving or air miles, and extend to individual employees … Schools,
especially those heavily influenced by teachers' unions, could impose
permanent online-only days."

Officials Around the World Have Suggested Climate Lockdowns
As noted by The Pulse, a number of officials around the world have voiced support forclimate lockdowns, completely ignoring the devastating effects the COVID lockdowns
have already had. This just goes to show lockdowns were never about public health andnever will be.
Among the climate lockdown enthusiasts we have Germany's health minister Karl
Lauterbach, who in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change would
require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to "flatten thecurve" of COVID.24
British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato is another advocate for climate
lockdowns, who in September 2020 warned that "In the near future, the world may needto resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency."25We also have the statements of Bill Gates26 and the Red Cross,27 both of which in 2020
claimed that climate change poses a greater threat to mankind than COVID, and must be
confronted with the same urgency and resolve. The World Economic Forum (WEF), theUnited Nations and the WHO have also published articles stating their intent to "fightclimate change" by shutting down society.28
Notably, in "How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution," published by theWEF29 and co-written by the director of WHO's Environment and Health Department, it'ssuggested that health and climate issues be combined into one. As noted in that article:"We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as
one — and foster support across all sectors of the economy … COVID-19 has
proven humanity's inbuilt ability to rise up and act to protect the health of ourmost vulnerable people. We need to do the same with air pollution."
Recall, as I mentioned above, if the WHO has sole power over global health, combining
health and climate issues will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to issue
climate lockdowns. Some claim climate lockdowns have already begun,30 with therandom shutting off of people's power even though there's no actual outage — sort ofslow-walking people into accepting that the lights won't always turn on.
That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns can also beseen in the WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19, which states:31"The 'lockdown' measures that have been necessary to control the spread ofCOVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also
given some glimpses of a possible brighter future.
In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people
have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have beenable to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in theirlives.

The use of digital technology has accelerated new ways of working andconnecting with each other, from reducing time spent commuting, to more
flexible ways of studying, to carrying out medical consultations remotely, tospending more time with our families.
Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect theenvironment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as
we recover …
Decisions made in the coming months can either "lock in" economic
development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to theecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely
taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world."
This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including
smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy
and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have acentralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.

What Can You Do?
Stopping the WHO pandemic treaty will be difficult, as the World Health Assembly may
or may not even accept public comment before making a decision. Your best bet rightnow is to sign up for the World Council for Health's (WCH) newsletter.
The last time the World Health Assembly met to discuss the treaty, the WCH issued links
and instructions on how to submit your comment. You can subscribe at the bottom of
this page, or on the WCH's home page. I and the CHD will also share details if they
become available, so subscribing to our newsletters can give you a heads-up as well.
In the absence of instructions, you could reach out to your respective delegation andrequest that they oppose the treaty. A list of U.S. delegates can be found in James
Roguski's Substack article, "Speaking Truth to Power."For contact information for other nations' delegates, I would suggest contacting theregional office and ask for a list (see "Regions" in the blue section at the bottom of theWorld Health Assembly's webpage).

Sources and References
1 WHO COVID-19 Vaccines
2, 3, 4 WHO Vaccine Equity
5 medRxiv May 6, 2021
6 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)
7, 11 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
8 Breitbart May 7, 2020
9 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
10 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
12, 14 Catastrophic Contagion
13, 15 Catastrophic Contagion Videos
16 First Post November 19, 2021
17 Yahoo News November 19, 2021
18 National Review June 14, 201719 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured September 2, 2009 (PDF)
20 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912
21 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured May 1, 2009 (PDF)
22 The Hill February 2, 2022
23 The Pulse November 25, 2022
24 Welt December 27, 2020
25 Project-syndicate.org September 22, 2020
26 Gates Notes August 4, 2020
27 Aljazeera November 17, 2020
28, 30 Center for the Preservation of Humanity September 8, 2022
29 WEF September 7, 2022
31 WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19