Tuesday, June 3, 2025

World Health Organization About To Give Itself Unlimited Power


World Health Organization About To Give Itself Unlimited Power
ROBERT WILLIAMS



The World Health Organization (WHO) might finally be getting just what it wanted: Unlimited power and control. 

The deadline to opt out of the International Health Regulations is July 19 - less than two months from now. It is time to notify your lawmakers to take immediate action in their parliaments and say NO to these regulations. So far, no country has opted out, and due to lack of media coverage most people appear completely unaware that a problem even exists.

On June 1, 2024, the WHO's 194 member states agreed to sweeping amendments of the WHO International Health Regulations that give the organization's Director-General -- currently "Dr." Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is not a medical doctor and to all appearances is in China's pocket -- overwhelming authority to declare not only actual international public health emergencies, but also potential ones.

"Agreed" is hardly accurate: member states did not even vote on them, but "agreed" on them through what is known as a consensus process. If no country objected by the end of a deadline, the amendments were to be considered approved. The process may not even have been legal. 

The final text was apparently not circulated with sufficient advance notice, while the negotiations were largely held behind closed doors, meaning that there was no transparency. Did parliamentarians in WHO member states even know what their governments "agreed" to?

In addition to the International Health Regulations, the WHO member states, all 194 of them, agreed on a historic draft Pandemic Treaty in April 2025 and on May 20 they adopted the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the 78th session of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. It will have to be ratified by at least 60 states, however, before it can come into effect, which means that it is up to citizens to prevent that from happening. 

In addition, there are still outstanding "details" such as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) to facilitate the sharing of genetic data on potential pandemic pathogens that the treaty introduces, on which there is still a lack of consensus. With it, the WHO handed itself sweeping powers over how countries respond to future health emergencies.

Frank Gaffney, President of the Institute for the American Future, wrote on X shortly before the adoption of the treaty:

"In less than a month, world government will be imposed on us indirectly, if not directly, thanks to a new pandemic treaty the World Health Organization finalized yesterday and plans to adopt and make legally binding in mid-May - with profound implications for public health, personal freedoms and national sovereignty.

"If you liked how the COVID-19 crisis was handled - in large measure thanks to the incompetence and malfeasance of the WHO and the insidious influence of the perpetrator, the Chinese Communist Party, and the principal beneficiary, Big Pharma - you're going to love this new world order.

"Among its consequences will be: universal health IDs, vaccine mandates, obligatory censorship, technology transfers, open-ended financial costs and the proliferation of viruses with the potential to cause pandemics - all 'managed' by greatly empowered and unaccountable international bureaucrats."

Congratulating himself on the adoption of the treaty, "Dr." Tedros declared in a monstrously untruthful statement:

"The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19."

Following the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty, US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted the following statement to X, urging countries to exit the WHO:

"Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international power politics. While the United States has provided the lion's share of the organization's funding historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public. Global cooperation on health is still critically important to POTUS and myself, but it isn't working very well under the WHO as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. I urge the world's health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organization as a wake-up call."

No one on this planet voted for this treaty and, worse, no one will be allowed to criticize any of this in the future, if the UN has its way: The original Pandemic Treaty draft contained language against "misinformation" and "infodemics." The text agreed upon, after pushback, toned down the speech restrictions to "just" requiring member states to promote "timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information" to counter "misleading narratives" during pandemics. 



There is, however, another, newly acquired, instrument in the UN's toolbox, the "Digital Global Compact" (DGC) that seeks to make it impossible to criticize this new UN/WHO reign of terror.


The DGC is a new totalitarian tool of censorship meant to silence anyone who disagrees with the globalist agenda. Buried near the end of the DGC, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it:


"We must urgently counter and address... all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation... We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures... We commit by, 2030 to: Develop, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, effective methodologies to measure, monitor and counter all forms of violence and abuse in the digital space... call on social media platforms to establish safe, secure and accessible reporting mechanisms for users and their advocates to report potential policy violations."

The WHO is a specialized UN agency, the purpose of which is purportedly "to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable." WHO receives a large amount of its funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is jointly controlled by activist billionaire, climate crusader and globalist Bill Gates, and his ex-wife Melinsa. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has in some years been the second-largest donor to the WHO, after the United States -- before President Donald J. Trump, on his first day in office in 2025, mercifully withdrew the US from the organization.

"If a private foundation were to become WHO's highest donor, it would be transformational," Lawrence Gostin, faculty director for the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University and director of WHO's Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, said in 2020, adding that the idea that a private foundation could have such influence, "would have been unimaginable" at the time when the WHO was founded as an intergovernmental institution. "It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda," Gostin said, referring to Gates.


Apparently, however, anything is possible, including not only letting Gates and the pharmaceutical industry put the WHO with its member states into their pockets, but also giving them unlimited power.

Christine Anderson, a German Member of the European Parliament from the Alternative für Deutschland party, said this month:

"They realized something during COVID: as much as they wanted to impose even harsher restrictions, they were limited--because in a democracy, if a politician goes too far, they risk not being re-elected. So the workaround? Shift the authority to an unelected body like the WHO. That way, when harsh measures are imposed--lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or whatever else--they can say, 'Hey, it wasn't us. Our hands are tied. The WHO made the call.'"

The amended health regulations give the WHO such unprecedented power that former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman has warned:

"The WHO's proposed amendments to its international health regulations and its forthcoming pandemic treaty present the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation.

"Buried within these legal frameworks are proposals that would allow unelected WHO officials to declare public health emergencies and issue recommendations - including on lockdowns, border closures and vaccine requirements."

These demands include digital vaccine passports; the amended regulations encourage the use of digital tools for health documentation. Digital vaccine passports, not yet compulsory, could be made a requirement. Earlier drafts of the amendments, which were discarded after pushback, also had included proposals for mandatory digital health documents and provisions for approving vaccination certificates during emergencies, and even for vaccines in research phases.





Will We Betray Israel In The Name Of Peace? Israel's Red Line Is Unchanging And Imminent


Will We Betray Israel In The Name Of Peace?
PNW STAFF


Let's drop the illusions -- and face the moral reality.

Iran is not a misunderstood nation seeking peaceful energy. It is a radical, theocratic regime committed to global terror, regional dominance, and the destruction of Israel. Its leaders openly chant "Death to America" and promise to wipe the Jewish state off the map. And now, under the misguided banner of diplomacy, the United States is poised to hand Tehran the very tools it needs to fulfill that genocidal ambition.

Despite public reassurances from American officials, the latest nuclear proposal would allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil -- a stunning reversal of the red lines that once formed the backbone of U.S. policy. It's a deal built on wishful thinking and political expediency, not on historical reality or strategic sense.

This isn't diplomacy. It's capitulation. And it may be the most dangerous one we've ever offered.


Iran's Intentions Are Not a Mystery

Iran's leaders have never been coy about their endgame. "The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor that will be removed," declared Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Former President Ahmadinejad chillingly vowed that Israel should be "wiped off the map." These are not metaphors. They are mission statements.

When a regime preaches annihilation and then gets within striking distance of a nuclear bomb, any deal that helps them move closer -- even under civilian pretense -- is madness.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has built a network of proxy militias and terror groups designed to sow chaos across the region. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, Tehran is building a noose around Israel -- and a nuclear bomb would tighten that noose into an unbreakable grip.

Israel's Red Line Is Unchanging -- and Imminent

Israel, alone in the region, has no luxury of denial. Its survival depends on action, not theory. And its red line remains firm: Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said it with unwavering clarity: "We will do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves against this genocidal regime. We will not allow Iran to sneak into the nuclear club. Not by breakout, and not by deception."

And behind those words lies real preparation.

In recent months, Israel has dramatically ramped up military drills simulating long-range airstrikes on fortified nuclear sites. F-35 stealth jets have practiced precision strikes. The IDF has tested new bunker-busting munitions and drilled for multi-front retaliation. This is not saber-rattling. This is readiness.

Will America Stand with Israel -- or Stand in the Way?

The grim irony is this: the very nation that once championed peace through strength may now be the one tying Israel's hands behind its back.

There are already signs of growing tension. U.S. officials have reportedly warned Israel not to sabotage talks. But what happens if -- or when -- Israel concludes that diplomacy has failed and the only option left is a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure?

Will the United States support that decision? Will we share intelligence, supply airspace access, and back Israel on the global stage?

Or will we condemn our closest ally for doing what we refused to do -- standing between civilization and catastrophe?

Let's not forget: Israel struck Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. It destroyed Syria's covert reactor in 2007. And in both cases, the world later breathed a sigh of relief. But if Israel goes it alone against Iran, the cost could be staggering -- economically, diplomatically, even militarily.

Yet Israel may still choose to act -- because the cost of inaction is far worse.


How This Hits Home for America

For the average American, a nuclear Iran may feel like a distant problem. It's not.

The moment Iran crosses the threshold, oil prices will skyrocket. Terror proxies will grow bolder. Regional war could explode overnight, threatening global trade routes and American military assets across the Gulf. Every aircraft carrier and embassy becomes a target.

And in the long term, what happens when Iran shares its nuclear knowledge with its terror allies? What happens when the doctrine of martyrdom meets the logic of mutually assured destruction?

We cannot afford to find out.


A Choice That Echoes Through History


There is a fork in the road ahead. Down one path lies cowardice disguised as diplomacy -- a paper deal that allows evil to fester and grow under the false promise of peace. Down the other lies courage -- the resolve to confront tyranny before it becomes unstoppable.

One choice may delay conflict. The other may prevent a nuclear holocaust.

But make no mistake: choosing delay is choosing conflict -- just not on our terms.

History will remember whether we stood by Israel when it mattered most -- or whether we enabled its enemies with ink and signatures while claiming peace was at hand.

The clock is ticking.

And this time, the cost of being wrong isn't just another failed deal. It's a second Holocaust -- carried out not with gas chambers, but with uranium.

Will we stop it?

Or will we shake hands with evil -- and call it diplomacy?





Train sabotage in Russia was Ukrainian ‘terrorist attack’ against civilians – Moscow


Train sabotage in Russia was Ukrainian ‘terrorist attack’ – Moscow
RT


The recent acts of railway sabotage in Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions were “terrorist attacks” planned by Ukraine to cause maximum civilian casualties, the Russian Investigative Committee has said.

The two incidents took place on Saturday evening and Sunday morning, respectively. In the first case, a bridge fell in front of a moving passenger train in Bryansk Region. The second incident took place in Kursk Region when a railway bridge collapsed under a moving freight train. In total, seven people died and 113 were injured.

In a statement on Tuesday, the Investigative Committee said that Moscow is treating both sabotage acts as “terrorist attacks.”

“It is clear that the terrorists, acting under the direction of the Kiev regime, planned the attacks with maximum precision to ensure that hundreds of civilians would be affected,” a spokeswoman said. The committee added that investigators had recovered explosive device fragments and other physical evidence from the scene and had questioned witnesses, injured passengers, and rail railroad employees.

Earlier, Russian business daily Kommersant reported that investigators believe the saboteurs were likely using a US-made C-4 explosive device. They reportedly came to this conclusion after retrieving a 10kg bomb that did not detonate.

Both attacks came shortly before the second round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul and amid a drastic increase in Kiev’s drone raids into Russia, which Moscow says are aimed at derailing the peace process.

The negotiations in Türkiye brought no breakthroughs, but the sides agreed to conduct the largest prisoner exchange to date and indicated that direct contact would continue. Moscow and Kiev have also exchanged memorandums containing drastically different visions for ending the conflict.

Russia insists, among other things, that Kiev withdraw all troops from the regions that have joined the country in public referendums, agree to bloc neutrality, disband nationalist armed groups, and limit its military capabilities. Ukraine, however, continues to oppose the neutrality principle, wants to have an opportunity to deploy foreign troops on its soil, and is against recognizing any territorial losses.


Will Russia’s Retaliation To Ukraine’s Strategic Drone Strikes Decisively End The Conflict?


Will Russia’s Retaliation To Ukraine’s Strategic Drone Strikes Decisively End The Conflict?
Andrew Korybko 


Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him every finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.

Seeing as how Trump is being left in the dark about the conflict by his closest advisors (not counting Witkoff) as proven by him misportraying Russia’s retaliatory strikes against Ukraine over the past week as unprovoked, he might react the same way to Russia’s inevitable retaliation. His ally Lindsay Graham already prepared legislation for imposing 500% tariffs on all Russian energy clients, which Trump might approve in response, and this could pair with ramping up armed aid to Ukraine in a major escalation.

Everything therefore depends on the form of Russia’s retaliation; the US’ response; and – if they’re not canceled as a result – the outcome of tomorrow’s talks in Istanbul. If the first two phases of this scenario sequence don’t spiral out of control, then it’ll all depend on whether Ukraine makes concessions to Russia after its retaliation; Russia makes concessions to Ukraine after the US’ response to Russia’s retaliation; or their talks are once again inconclusive. The first is by far the best outcome for Russia.

The second would suggest that Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes on Russia’s nuclear triad and the US’ response to its retaliation pressured Putin to compromise on his stated goals. These are Ukraine’s withdrawal from the entirety of the disputed regions, its demilitarization, denazification, and restoring its constitutional neutrality. Freezing the Line of Contact (LOC), even perhaps in exchange for some US sanctions relief and a resource-centric strategic partnership with it, could cede Russia’s strategic edge.


Not only might Ukraine rearm and reposition ahead of reinitiating hostilities on comparatively better terms, but uniformed Western troops might also flood into Ukraine, where they could then function as tripwires for manipulating Trump into “escalating to de-escalate” if they’re attacked by Russia. As for the third possibility, inconclusive talks, Trump might soon lose patience with Russia and thus “escalate to de-escalate” anyhow. He could always just walk away, however, but his recent posts suggest that he won’t.

Overall, Ukraine’s unprecedented provocation will escalate the conflict, but it’s unclear what will follow Russia’s inevitable retaliation. Russia will either coerce the concessions from Ukraine that Putin demands for peace; the US’ response to its retaliation will coerce concessions from Russia to Ukraine instead; or both will remain manageable and tomorrow’s talks will be inconclusive, thus likely only delaying the US’ seemingly inevitable escalated involvement. Tonight will therefore be fateful for the conflict’s future.






Playing With Fire


Playing With Fire


It seems that every time a road to peace in Ukraine looks open, something happens, leading to a deeper escalation.

The Sunday strikes by Ukraine on Russia’s ‘nuclear triad,’ i.e., intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and intercontinental bombers, are a serious escalation. Ukraine claims that it would have destroyed one-third of Russia’s strategic bombers. This assertion is likely to be a gross overstatement, but the actual numbers are irrelevant.

The strike, once again, targeted Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which can serve only two aims:

  1. Ukrainian leadership is desperately trying to fully commit NATO to the war in Ukraine, or

  2. Strikes are preparation for NATO's nuclear strikes on Russia.

We listed these in our May 30, 2024, warning on the possibility of a nuclear strike in Europe, after Ukraine had struck Russia’s early-warning (over-the-horizon) radars. The strikes on the over-the-horizon radars were already a dangerous provocation, which had zero relevance to the war in Ukraine (radars look for launches of intercontinental and medium-range ballistic missiles at high altitudes). Sunday, however, was a provocation at an entirely different level.

  • Firstly, this was (again) a strike to Russia’s nuclear forces, which enables (essentially demands) a response with nuclear weapons according to Russia’s nuclear doctrine. This is why we issued an updated warning of a nuclear strike in Europe yesterday.

  • Secondly, START mandates the outside storage of strategic (intercontinental) bombers. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requires bombers to be stored outside so that they can be tracked with satellites. Essentially, this now means that also the U.S. strategic fleet can be attacked by anyone with access to drones and explosives. The path to nuclear sabotage at a whole other level has been opened (to note, if the U.S. strategic fleet had been hit, missiles would probably already be flying). What happens to START is very unclear now. Russia suspended its participation in February 2023 but did not withdraw from it fully.

  • Thirdly, according to Axios, the administration of President Trump would not have been informed about the strikes. This implies that the regime of President Zelenskyy is now fully at the service of the ‘war-triad’ consisting of the U.S./NATO Deep State, the military-industrial complex, and the ‘group-over-groups.’ This indicates that President Trump is losing his ability to steer the conflict. The repercussions of this are hard to quantify as of yet, but nothing good can come of a rogue state attacking a nuclear power.


    Most importantly, we need to understand that this was not about Ukraine vs. Russia nor NATO vs. Russia. An effort to unleash a nuclear war is a threat against all humankind. I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous and reckless such a “game” is.

    It’s my current thinking that Russia’s response will take some time coming, but it’s likely to be devastating when it comes (Russia may also declare war on Ukraine, albeit I still doubt it). The Kremlin probably wanted to play the charade of peace negotiations in Istanbul first. The peace negotiations are a charade because neither side is currently seeking genuine peace. Russia does not trust the Zelenskyy administration nor European leaders, and President Zelenskyy cannot seek peace because it would probably have him killed. Remember also that if Russia strikes Ukraine with nuclear weapons, it is unlikely to be met by NATO except maybe through sanctions.


    On January 11, based on our Peak Escalation hypothesis, we warned that

    1. There will be attempts to postpone or completely derail the peace process in Ukraine during H1 2025.

    2. If this (peace in Ukraine) comes to be, as we suspect it eventually will, another front with Russia will be opened somewhere in the axis of Poland/Belarus, Baltics or the Nordics, shortly after.

    We, most unfortunately, have been following this to the letter. Ukrainian strikes on the eve of the second round of negotiations in Istanbul made sure that we are set to follow this through. Alas, war drums beat loudly over Europe, yet again.

    Remember also that all major European conflicts have started between 22 June and 1 September. Let’s see how “hot” this summer becomes.