Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

WHO Denies Pandemic Treaty Will Reduce Sovereignty of States – But it’s Pure Propaganda

BY DR DAVID BELL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MAY 6, 2023

The Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) reassures us that the WHO’s ‘pandemic accord’ (or ‘treaty’) won’t reduce the sovereignty of Member States. The WHO trusts that these words will serve as a distraction from reality. Those driving the perpetual health emergency agenda are planning to give WHO more power, and states less. This will happen whenever WHO designates a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC), or considers we may be at risk of one.

The WHO’s proposed treaty, taken together with its ‘synergistic’ amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), aim to undo centuries of democratic reform that based sovereignty with individuals, and by extension their state. The discomfort of facing this truth and the complexities it raises is providing the cover needed to push these changes through. This is how democracy, and freedom, wither and die.

Why it’s hard to acknowledge reality

Our society in the West is built on trust and a feeling of superiority – we built the institutions that run the world and they, and we, are good. We consider ourselves humanitarians, the public health advocates, the unifiers, and anti-fascist freedom-lovers. We consider our system is better than the alternatives – we are ‘progressive’.

It takes quite a step for comfortable, middle-income, Left-leaning professionals to believe that the institutions and philanthropic organisations we have admired all our lives might now be pillaging us. Our society relies on having ‘trusted sources’, the WHO being one of them. Among others are our major media organisations. If our trusted sources told us we were being misled and pillaged, we would accept this. But they are telling us these claims are false, and that all is well. The WHO’s Director General himself assures us of this. Anyone who thinks rich corporate and private sponsors of WHO and other health institutions are self-interested, that they might mislead and exploit others for their own benefit, is a conspiracy theorist.

We are all capable of believing the rich and powerful of past ages would exploit the masses, but somehow this is hard to believe in the present. For proof of their benevolence, we rely on the word of their own publicity departments and the media they support. Somehow, malfeasance on a grand scale is always a figment of history, and now we are smarter and enlightened.

Over recent decades we have watched individuals accumulate wealth equivalent to medium-sized countries. They meet our elected leaders behind closed doors at Davos. We then applaud the largesse they bestow on the less fortunate, and pretend all this is fine. We watch as corporations expand across national borders, seemingly above the laws that apply to ordinary citizens. We allowed their ‘public-private partnerships’ to turn international institutions into purveyors of their commodities. We ignored this descent because their publicity departments told us to, becoming apologists for obvious authoritarians because we want to believe they are somehow doing a ‘greater good’.

Whilst a schoolchild might see through this facade to the conflicted greed beyond, it is much harder for those with years of political baggage, a peer network, reputation and career to admit they have been duped. The behavioural psychologists that our governments and institutions now employ understand this. Their job is to keep us believing the trusted sources they sponsor. Our challenge is to put reality above right-think.

The remaking of WHO

When the WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health issues, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralising power for a greater good. Those who considered themselves superior would run the world for those less worthy. The WHO once claimed to follow a different line.

Since the early 2000s WHO’s activities have been increasingly dictated by ‘specified funding’. Its funders, increasingly including private and corporate interest, tell it how to use the money they give. Private direction is fine for private organisations promoting their investors’ wares, but it is obviously a non-starter for an organisation seeking to mandate medicines, close borders and confine people. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and human nature will recognise this. But these powers are exactly what the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new treaty intend.

Rather than consider alternate approaches, WHO is seeking censorship of opinions not fitting its narrative, publicly denigrating and demeaning those who question its policies. These are not the actions of an organisation representing ‘we the people’, or confident in its ability to justify its actions. They are the trappings we have always associated with intellectual weakness and fascism.

WHO’s impact on population health

In its 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations, WHO stated that “not in any circumstances” should contact tracing, border closures, entry or exit screening or quarantine of exposed individuals be undertaken in an established pandemic. It wrote this because such measures would cause more harm than good, and disproportionately harm poorer people. In 2020, in conjunction with private and national sponsors, it supported the largest wealth shift in history from low to high income by promoting these same measures.

In abandoning its principles, WHO abandoned millions of girls to nightly rape through child marriage, increased teenage pregnancies and child mortality, reduced childhood education, and grew poverty and malnutrition. Despite most of these people being too young to be troubled by Covid and already having immunity, they promoted billions of dollars of mass vaccination whilst traditional priorities such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS deteriorate. Western media have met this with silence or empty rhetoric. Saving lives does not turn a profit, but selling commodities does. The WHO’s sponsors are doing what they need for their investors, whilst WHO is doing what it needs to keep their money flowing.

The new powers of WHO

The IHR amendments will reduce the sovereignty of any WHO Member State that fails to actively reject them, giving a single person (the Director General) direct influence over health policy and the freedom of its citizens is indisputable. It is what the document says. Countries are required to “undertake” to follow the WHO’s “recommendations”, which are no longer simply suggestions or advice. Whilst the WHO does not have a police force, the World Bank and IMF are on board, and control much of your money supply. The U.S. Congress passed a bill last year recognising that the U.S. Government should address countries that do not comply with the IHR. We are not witnessing toothless threats; most countries, and their people, will have little choice.

The real power of the WHO’s proposals is in their application for any health-related matter they proclaim to be a threat. The proposed amendments state this explicitly, whilst the ‘Treaty’ expands the scope to ‘One-Health‘, a hijacked public health concept that can mean anything perceived to be affecting human physical, mental or social well-being. Inclement weather, crop failures or the promulgation of ideas that cause people stress – everyday things that humans have always coped with, now become reasons to confine people and impose solutions dictated by others.

In essence, those sponsoring WHO are manufacturing crises of their own desiring, and are set to get wealthier from other’s misery, as they did during Covid. This under the guise of ‘keeping us safe’. As WHO implausibly insists, “no one is safe until all are safe”, so removal of human rights must be broad and prolonged. Behavioural psychology is there to ensure that we comply.

Facing the future

We are building a future in which compliance with authoritarian dictates will win the return of stolen freedoms, whilst censorship will suppress dissent. People who wish to see evidence, who remember history or insist on informed consent will be designated, in WHO parlance, far-Right mass killers. We have already entered this world. Public figures who claim otherwise are presumably not paying attention, or have other motivations.

We can meekly accept this new disease-obsessed world, some may even embrace the salaries and careers it bestows. Or we can join those fighting for the simple right of individuals to determine their own future. At the very least, we can acknowledge the reality around us.

Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.

May 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Global Pandemic Treaty Is A Threat To Us All

Corbett • 04/28/2023

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Today, James delivers a statement for the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada on the WHO, the global pandemic treaty, the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and the formation of the coming technocratic biosecurity control grid. [statement begins at 5:10]

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

TRANSCRIPT

Hello. I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report.

For those who don’t know, I’m a Canadian who’s been living and working in Japan for 19 years and founded The Corbett Report in 2007 as a source for news and information about politics, economics, science, philosophy and society, and in that regard I’ve been covering the corruption of the World Health Organization and warning about the dawning biosecurity state for over 15 years now.

So I would like to thank the inquiry for giving me the time to address the extremely important topic of the pending global pandemic treaty, but I know my time is limited today so I’d like to get straight into detailing the relevant background and context for understanding this story.

Firstly, the World Health Organization was established in 1948 to promote “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” It proposes to achieve this by acting as “the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work.”

Accordingly, the WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, adopted the International Sanitary Regulations in 1951 to consolidate the multiple, overlapping international agreements then governing quarantine procedures and other international health controls into a single convention.

In 1969, this was superseded by the International Health Regulations, which, as amended in 1973 and 1981, covered six diseases but focused on three: cholera, yellow fever and plague.

Worries about the “emergence, re-emergence and international spread of disease and other threats” concurrent with the surge in international travel in the 1990s gave rise to calls for a substantial revision of the treaty, and, in the wake of the 2003 SARS event and the 2004 avian influenza A epidemic (if you remember that one), a renewed sense of urgency led to the 2005 revision of the IHR.

This revision included the creation of a new category of declaration by the World Health Organization: the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which is appropriately enough abbreviated as PHEIC.

A PHEIC declaration grants the WHO the power to obtain and share information about any declared health crisis anywhere within the IHR territories with or without the consent of the individual governments involved. And, according to Stephen Morrison—the director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies—this potentially allows for “boots-on-the-ground” intervention by the US military or other NATO member countries to operate in these environments in terms of ground transport, supply chain, and distribution of commodities.

The PHEIC was declared for the first time in 2009 during the so-called Swine Flu pandemic, which, as was later shown, was based on severely overestimated case numbers. In fact, the swine flu “pandemic” did not meet the WHO website’s own definition of “an enormous number of deaths and cases of the disease” and, when that was pointed out by a CNN reporter on May 4, 2009, that language was promptly removed.

At the time, Richard Schabas—the former chief medical officer for Canada’s Ontario Province—was quoted as saying: “Sometimes some of us think that WHO stands for World Hysteria Organization.”

Indeed, in 2010, a British Medical Journal investigation and an investigation by the Council of Europe both concluded that the key scientists who advised then-WHO Director Margaret Chan to declare the PHEIC for the swine flu scare “had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing” and excoriated the WHO for its complete lack of transparency about the process.

PHEICs were subsequently declared for the 2014 polio declaration, the 2013 outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa, the 2015 Zika virus “epidemic,” the 2018–2020 Kivu Ebola epidemic, and, of course, in 2020 for the so-called novel coronavirus pandemic and in 2022 for the monkeypox “pandemic”(?).

Each of these cases similarly resulted in massive paydays for pharmaceutical manufacturers and other beneficiaries of the growing biosecurity complex and massive increases in power for “health authorities” in each country and for the WHO in particular. In fact, we are told that the current WHO Director even ignored the decision of his “expert advisory council” to unilaterally declare last year’s Monkeypox outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

Incredibly, the WHO is not satisfied with the remarkable power that it already enjoys. It is currently engaged in a deliberately confusing process to simultaneously do two things:

  • Firstly, to once again amend the International Health Regulations to give the WHO even more powers of surveillance and control during any arbitrarily declared health crisis.
  • And secondly, to create a global pandemic treaty that would supersede the sovereignty of individual nation-states and cede even more authority to the WHO to monitor and control public health agencies in the name of preventing the next pandemic.

The process for these two separate negotiations are happening simultaneously, and although there is the fig leaf of public input in these processes, in reality only accredited organizations are given time to voice their opinion about the need for such a treaty and even then the WHO is under no obligation to even consider such input.

Instead, actual negotiations are taking place behind closed doors in off-camera sessions, and draft documents and meeting minutes are only occasionally dribbled out for public consumption.

Worse, as the WHO has already demonstrated, their procedure for adoption of these proposed amendments is at best a formality, and, at worst, pure theatrics.

That a completely unelected, unaccountable body that wields so much power over international affairs is meeting behind closed doors to decide the future of humanity under the pretense of the next declared emergency should be worrying enough. But the few details that have leaked out about these negotiations are even more frightening.

These include:

While these ideas may seem benign or even noble to those who do not know the history of the WHO or the erection of the biosecurity grid, to those of us who have lived through three years of unprecedented medical tyranny—from forced quarantines and lockdowns to the attempt to illegally mandate experimental medical interventions—stopping the WHO’s unprecedented power grab must be our greatest priority.

The World Health Organization currently consists of 194 member states, including Canada. In order to become a member of the WHO, a state must ratify the WHO Constitution, which grants the WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), the power to “adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization,” which, when ratified, obliges each member state to adopt those conventions or to notify the WHO’s Director-General of rejection or reservations to that adoption within 18 months.

As a WHO member state, Canada is obligated to abide by World Health Assembly decisions or to provide specific reasons for partial or incomplete compliance with WHA rules and agreements. Accordingly, the Public Health Agency of Canada provides regular “self-assessment reports” regarding its own International Health Regulations compliance.

At an absolute minimum, Canadians must exert whatever power they have in whatever way they are able to reassert Canada’s sovereignty over its public health by registering its reservations about the IHR and the pandemic treaty. That would of course not be a solution to the problem posed by the WHO, but it would be a start. A more thoroughgoing solution would be the withdrawal of Canada from the WHO altogether.

But, as someone who is not just deeply cynical about the ability of the public to influence such affairs, but actually believes the political process itself—with its inherent abrogation of individual sovereignty and thus, by extension, bodily autonomy—to be invalid and immoral, I would suggest that a more radical approach might be appropriate. That is, active and coordinated widescale civil disobedience of medical decrees and mandates, whether federal or provincial, that are not in the interest of individual health, including, if possible, the foundation of private medical organizations with doctors and others of like mind who are willing to disregard the dictates of the WHO, Public Health Canada, and any other self-declared health authority to provide health care regardless of vaccination status or any other unreasonable dictate.

I know that such a movement will not take place without a sea change in public perception, and such a change would have to be predicated on a sea change in public awareness and understanding. That is why I participate in inquiries like this and do the work that I do to help raise awareness of these issues.

I hope you can appreciate that there is much, much more to be said about this problem and its solution than can possibly be done justice in a short presentation like this. If you’re interested in hearing more about this topic, I suggest you follow the hyperlinked transcript of this statement that is available at corbettreport.com/pandemictreaty, as well as check The Corbett Report archives for my previous work on the WHO and the biosecurity state and follow my monthly conversations with Dr. Meryl Nass on Children’s Health Defense as we document the progress of the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty toward their proposed ratification at the 77th World Health Assembly in May of next year.

But in closing, let me just say this: The WHO was established in 1948 to coordinate international efforts to promote public health. But what is health?

That may seem like a trivial question, but as we’ve seen over the last few years, the answer to that question can affect every aspect of our lives, from what medical interventions we are obligated to take to whether or not we are permitted to leave our house.

We cannot afford to let government appointees and unelected technocrats at the WHO answer this incredibly important question for us. It is up to us to answer that question for ourselves and to decide what health precautions we are willing to take and under what circumstances we are willing to take them.

Any treaty, health regulation or other document that would seek to undermine our bodily autonomy is null and void and should be treated as if it never existed.

Thank you for your time.

May 3, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 2 Comments

‘Huge Grab of Power’: MP Andrew Bridgen Warns Against WHO Pandemic Treaty, IHR Amendments

Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement, 17 Apr 2023
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 26, 2023

Andrew Bridgen, a U.K. member of Parliament this month warned his fellow parliamentarians that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed new pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) represents “a huge grab of power” by “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”

The WHO is promoting a pandemic treaty and IHR amendments to its existing members to increase the global health organization’s power during health emergencies.

In Bridgen’s 18-minute speech — since viewed by almost 100,000 people — delivered April 17 during a parliamentary debate, Bridgen called for a referendum, or public vote, on the WHO’s proposals.

People in the U.K. “do not want to be ruled” by an unelected group of people, Bridgen said. “We should have a referendum, because sovereignty belongs to the people. It’s not ours to give away.”

The debate was triggered after 156,086 U.K. constituents signed a petition calling for the U.K. government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum.”

Bridgen pointed out that WHO employees are exempt from taxes and have diplomatic immunity — meaning they are protected from prosecution.

He said the WHO pandemic treaty and its IHR amendments seek to take “huge powers” away from “this Parliament and every other Parliament around the world.”

“These two instruments would fundamentally reset the relationship between citizens and sovereign state — not only in this country but also around the whole world,” he added.

The proposals would empower “unelected, unaccountable, top-down, supernational” officials to “impose sweeping, legally binding” orders on member states — including forcing companies to manufacture and export certain medical treatments or shutting companies down “regardless of what the local people think,” Bridgen said.

Bridgen said the WHO’s proposals are skewed toward aggregating power in the hands of WHO officials — rather than the hands of democratic governments — because they would grant the WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Ph.D., the power to decide “when the pandemic or the emergency is over and when he’ll possibly give us the power back.”

Bridgen said he had “grave” concerns about who is “actually running and controlling” the WHO and its current initiatives.

The WHO consists of its 192 member states — “basically the whole of the U.N. membership, excluding Liechtenstein and the Holy See” — but it now receives 86% of its funding from non-member states, Bridgen said.

The WHO’s second-largest donor is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the fifth-largest donor is Gavi.

“You have to think: Why are they doing this?” Bridgen said, adding:

“They [the Gates Foundation and Gavi] are also the biggest donors — or biggest investors — in pharmaceuticals and the experimental mRNA technology which was so profitable for those who produced it during the last pandemic.”

Bridgen urged his fellow lawmakers to review the WHO proposals in great detail.

“They [the proposals] need to be considered very strongly. Sticking your head in the stand isn’t going to do it,” he said. “It won’t do for my constituents,” he added.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

April 28, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »