This becomes self-evident when you review the proposed amendments1 to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and the new pandemic treaty, which Nass and Corbett review in the featured video.
I also provided details about the treaty in “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty.” Below, I will primarily focus on the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
In a December 16, 2022, Substack article,2 James Roguski also reviewed how a temporary crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) — which, by the way, is long since over — is being used by the WHO to seize permanent power.
Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:3,4,5
Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms —The first principle in Article 3 of the original IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now, health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only.
What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick, or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things.
Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best” for the collective.
Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed.
Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of individual rights and freedoms.
Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO — The director-general will have sole power to declare the beginning and end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures and vaccine requirements), and the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what drugs are to be manufactured and used.
These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws within member states, including the U.S. Constitution.
The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as “legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.
Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all other laws and Constitutional rights.
Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data, “where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts.
Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words, censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what “truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must enforce compliance.
Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of “health certificates,”6i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport, in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social credit score.
In short, it will usher in a surveillance and forced compliance system. The G20 also recently declared that digital vaccine passports standardized by the WHO will be part of international pandemic prevention and response moving forward.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary International.
Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget10 — that Politico in 2017 wrote a highly-critical article11 about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:
“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”12 “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.
We like the letter to oppose all reputed in said Article; Some of us can summarize our own letters, doubtful those in Senate/Congress needing to read all material laid out, will bother reading if letter is too lengthy? If they did read, many amendments never would had passed IMO! That said, trust me it takes a lot to try to get another's mind wrapped around what it is we are asking.
Myself, too many times have written long comments to explain thought processes about subject presented, yet perhaps this does lose the main objective at times in doing so?
Bottom-line, too much power handed to someone in question regardless of how many billions they invest to reap profits back, power should NOT be given with this person whose track record is the main concern, agreed!! Our laws oppose this too, enforce laws is paramount!! Awesome Article, informative and getting folks
involved, great job!! It's a wonderful start, thank-you!
Post a Comment