HE JUST CALLED OUT BILL GATES ** The Great SCANDAL Of The Century ** – WHO Pandemic
Video available on:
- WHO’s proposed treaty and IHR amendments threaten rights and democracy.
- WHO may enforce lockdowns, vaccination passports, and censor dissent.
- “Health passports” could lead to permanent civil liberties abuses.
- Suppression of alternative views labeled as “mis/disinformation.”
- Robust debate, parliamentary review, and public involvement needed.
In today’s article, I want to delve into a concerning development that has been gaining attention lately—the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). These changes have sparked debates and raised significant alarm about the potential implications for individual rights and democracy. So let’s take a closer look at what’s happening and why it matters.
To begin with, let’s discuss the criticism surrounding lockdowns and their consequences. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure who has been critical of lockdowns, argues that the conventional approach to emergencies should not involve locking down entire nations. Instead, he suggests quarantining the sick and vulnerable while keeping society moving. Kennedy believes that the catastrophic effects of shutting down society far outweigh the consequences of the virus itself.
Unfortunately, it seems that the lessons from the pandemic have not been heeded, as many believe that we are now granting excessive powers to the WHO in the context of future pandemics and related emergencies. A tweet by the WHO director explicitly mentions the use of health passports in future epidemics, conflicts, the climate crisis, and other emergency situations. This realization has turned what was once considered a conspiracy theory into a disconcerting reality.
A recent article from The Daily Sceptic highlights the concerns expressed by experts regarding the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and IHR amendments. Dr. David Bell, a former WHO scientific and medical officer, and Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds and Director of the WHO Collaborative Centre on Health Systems and Health Security, expressed their apprehensions during a meeting with U.K. lawmakers. They argued that these changes would fundamentally alter the relationship between the WHO and member states, jeopardizing vital health programs.
Dr. Bell explained that the current drafts of the two agreements grant the WHO the authority to order various measures, including significant financial contributions from individual states, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations, and mandatory vaccinations during public health emergencies. This increase in power and authority bestowed on one person—the Director-General—raises significant concerns about the potential economic and health-related harms such power can inflict.
The evolution of the WHO over the years is also a cause for worry. Established in 1946 to coordinate responses to major health issues and provide governments with advice, the organization has shifted its funding sources towards private donors. This change has made the WHO more centralized and influenced by private and corporate funders, shaping and directing its programs. Additionally, the definition of a health emergency has become incredibly broad, exacerbating concerns surrounding the IHR amendments and the proposed treaty.
Professor Brown, who has been advising the WHO on a pandemic preparedness plan, warns about the negative consequences of diverting resources from vital public health programs to focus on post-Covid pandemic preparedness. He emphasizes that nations need to address their individual public health needs and ensure that resources are allocated where they are most needed. Unfortunately, the shift towards pandemic preparedness has already impacted crucial programs addressing malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, reproductive health, and non-communicable diseases, resulting in decreased funding and compromised population health.
During the meeting with U.K. lawmakers, Conservative MP Esther McVey expressed the need for more scrutiny and debate regarding these plans, especially as the COVID-19 Inquiry begins to gather evidence. She raised concerns about the expansion of the WHO’s powers, encroachment on national sovereignty and individual rights, and the exorbitant costs involved. McVey believes that proportional, evidence-based pandemic plans formulated to prevent suffering and loss should be prioritized over the proposed treaty and IHR amendments.
Her sentiments were echoed by Labour MP Graham Stringer, who opposed the plans due to their potential to expand the WHO’s powers and negatively impact public health. Stringer highlighted the unaccountable and extreme influence of China on the WHO and criticized the organization’s unscientific decisions, such as the sudden endorsement of mask-wearing without strong evidence. He stressed the importance of robust debate, parliamentary review, and public involvement to prevent unelected bureaucrats from dictating damaging public health policies.
The potential enforcement of these powers by the WHO raises concerns about authoritarian measures similar to those experienced during the previous pandemic. The introduction of “health passports” is particularly alarming, as they would be utilized not only in future epidemics but also in conflicts, the climate crisis, and other emergencies. The prospect of foreign entities imposing permanent civil liberties abuses, akin to the COVID lockdowns, is deeply disconcerting.
Moreover, the issue of “mis/disinformation” plays a crucial role in this context. The labeling of dissenting views as “fake news” or the suppression of individual media accounts spreading alternative information is a troubling trend. This concept has been used as a Trojan Horse by tyrants to advance their authoritarian agendas, stifling free-flowing discussions and the exchange of ideas. The Enlightenment era recognized the importance of free speech, debate, and criticism in finding truth and progressing society.
Unfortunately, during the pandemic, reputable scientists and individuals were silenced and censored because their views did not align with the consensus or were considered controversial. However, time has shown that some of these views were, in fact, correct. Censorship under the guise of “mis/disinformation” hampers progress and deprives society of the free exchange of ideas necessary for societal advancement.
One example of this suppression was the blacklisting of Stanford anti-lockdown professor Jay Bhattacharya on Twitter. His warnings about the potential long-term harm caused by lockdowns were dismissed, revealing the unscientific and politically motivated decisions taken by both Twitter and certain governments.
In conclusion, the proposed pandemic treaty by the WHO and the amendments to the IHR raise legitimate concerns about the potential erosion of individual rights, democracy, and public health. Granting sweeping powers to an unelected body with questionable decision-making processes and a history of controversial actions is a cause for alarm. It is crucial that robust debates, transparent parliamentary reviews, and public involvement take place to ensure the protection of individual rights, the principles of democracy, and the pursuit of truth in society.