Why Did The WHO’s Special Envoy on Covid-19 Advocate Against Lockdowns? Circling Back To A Forgotten Moment

The Berlin Wall was taken down by a press release.


On Nov 9, 1989, German Democratic Republic (GDR) official Gunter Schabowski was asked at a press conference when exactly the “permanent relocations,” at border checkpoints along the Berlin Wall might commence. “As far as I know,” he famously replied, “it takes effect immediately.”

It doesn’t happen often, but history exploded in favor of the innocents that night, ending a Cold War lockdown and hostage crisis that had lasted 28 years. History was made by press release.

East Germans flocked to the Wall, passports in hands, telling the confused border guards that Schabowski had said they could pass through to West Berlin. It had even aired on two East German radio stations. Once the crowd got big enough (i.e. there were too many to shoot), Moscow shrugged, and the rest was ecstatic history.

Flash forward 31 years.

On Oct 9, 2020, David Nabarro, Imperial College of London and WHO’s Special Envoy on Covid-19, said something stunning that could have had “global implications.”

I didn’t hear it at the time, but happened upon it by accident recently, and thought I was hallucinating. Even Eric hadn’t heard of this.

In an interview with veteran British journalist Andrew Neil, on Neil’s “Spectator TV,” following a riff of Neil’s, citing the economically rooted anti-lockdown views of a previous guest, David Nabarro said:

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus.”

I shouted: “WHAT?!?!” Startling both of my sleeping cats.

He was emphatic and clear as a bell. It was not a mistake, not a nervous muttering; He even led into it with the words: “I want to say it again…”

Here’s the entirety of Nabarro’s quote:

“Really important point by professor Gupta, I want to say it again: We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it. Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry for example in the Caribbean, or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays, look what’s happened to small holderfarmers all over the world because their markets have got dented, look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, and poor families, are not able to afford it. This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe actually. And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other, but remember, lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle and that is: Making poor people an awful lot poorer. “

Here’s the clip:

Was he just diagnosed with terminal cancer, and decided to go out in a blaze of glory? Apparently not.

Was he unaware that this is PRECISELY WHAT LOCKDOWN opponents have beseeched the WHO to take into consideration since this nightmare on wheels began one year ago?

Was he unaware that to function as a Covid Party-Liner, no shade must ever be thrown on lockdown, lest people start to think anybody anywhere in global government grasps or cares what it feels like to be taken hostage, prevented from working, seeing, hearing, or touching other humans, and to know less about the duration of your sentence than even the most punished prisoners? Prescribed, tolerated Covid emotions are limited largely to those that spare the agenda, and even revere it. One is not supposed to dislike lockdown or invoke things like poverty. Despite it being run by the progressive Dem/Fauci/UN/Gates/WHO/Media crowd.

Did Nabarro forget the operative C-19 Heroica Mantras, the queasy soft-Maoist incantations about being in this together, the solidarity of uniting to fight the virus, uber alles, no measures too harsh, or all the virtue-babble about the blessings and silver linings of lockdown? What about the most obvious peril: Decrying lockdown as an economic catastrophe likely to set off an avalanche if irreversible global poverty, malnutrition, famine and death…well…that’s like…right wing…like Trump stuff. White supremacy… kind of. Now “terrorism.”

And sure enough: Trump Tweeted chest-thumpingly about Nabarro’s interview, about how he had been right, and all hell broke loose, a little, but was soon contained, in a flurry of fire-foam articles claiming Nabarro’s words had been (you guessed it) taken out of context. (No they were not.)

The way the Covid Cult has handled these outbreaks of truth is to follow a formula, which, while Trump was in office went like this:

All epidemiology, “science,” medicine—all of it—discarded. You don’t need it. All you need to know is that Trump is wrong about everything. Fauci is right about everything, including when he’s wrong, and especially when he changes his position entirely without explaining why.

I spent some time listening to Nabarro in various interviews and presentations and here is what strikes me: He is a normal, likable guy. He’s a person. He’s not what I call a “pod—” those insufferable “global health” and “public health” careerists who simply never say anything that sounds like they have an ounce of empathy for humanity. Everything is “fighting” this or that “virus,” this or that form of racism, discrimination, lack of “access” to drugs, and so on and so on. The more I listened, the more I began to feel Nabarro has something bordering on Fifth Column aspects to him. Like the clip where he tries to push Covid Propaganda Talking Points, but admits there is no “safe or effective” Covid vaccine, and even admitted people may not “decide” to take such a vaccine.



He’s been working in global health for decades, he was nominated to be the Director General of the WHO in 2016, and got 50 votes, but Tedros won by a landslide.

Here’s a clip that demonstrates my point, about his out of place normality.

He could be a beloved gym teacher, or the owner of a tea shop.

But here’s the point:

He said it. Backpeddling and damage control aside, he said it— for a reason.

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus.”

Is there a ray of hope here?

A YouTube commenter remarked:

“God I wish he was Director General.”

Leave a Comment