RFK JR CALLS OUT THE WEF: * NEW PANDEMIC PLANS * – WEF Pandemic
Video available on:
- WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty raises concerns about increased powers.
- Treaty grants WHO authority to declare pandemics, impose lockdowns, and mandate vaccinations.
- Relationship between WHO and member states at risk.
- Concentration of power in hands of WHO Director-General under scrutiny.
- Potential diversion of resources from existing public health programs.
In recent times, the world has been grappling with the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the immediate crisis may be subsiding, the lessons learned and decisions made during this global emergency are shaping the trajectory of future events. One prominent figure who has been critical of the conventional approach is RFK Jr., who advocates for an alternative strategy of quarantining the sick and vulnerable while keeping society moving. However, it appears that the pandemic’s aftermath is witnessing the consolidation of power within the World Health Organization (WHO) and raising concerns about its potential implications. In this article, we will delve into the details and shed light on the contentious topic of the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The recent tweet citing the WHO director’s explicit mention of the new health passports to be employed in future crises, such as epidemics, conflicts, and the climate crisis, has sparked a flurry of discussions. What was once considered a “conspiracy theory” is now becoming a reality. This tweet serves as a catalyst, urging us to explore a video featuring the WHO director outlining this new technology and the potential utilization of “health passports” in the next crisis or pandemic.
According to an article from The Daily Sceptic, leading experts speaking before U.K. lawmakers at a meeting of the Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) have raised concerns about the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and IHR amendments. Dr. David Bell, a former WHO scientific and medical officer, along with 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, caution that these changes could fundamentally alter the relationship between the WHO and member states, putting vital health programs at risk.
Dr. Bell emphasizes that the current draft of the agreements grants the WHO the authority to impose measures ranging from significant financial contributions by individual states to censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations, and mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency of its own declaration. The WHO, established in 1946 with the noble intention of coordinating responses to major health issues, has undergone significant changes over the years. Funding streams from private donors have transformed it into a more centralized and externally-directed body, where private and corporate funders shape and direct programs. Dr. Bell expresses concern about the broad definition of a health emergency, which raises a worrisome backdrop against which the IHR amendments and the Treaty are being negotiated.
Professor Brown, an advisor to the WHO on pandemic preparedness, raises another critical point. He warns that the shift towards post-COVID pandemic preparedness has already resulted in the suffering of vital public health programs globally. The emergence of pandemic preparedness as a highly lucrative agenda has triggered a scramble among various institutions, potentially diverting resources from where they are most needed. This diversion could have profound effects on addressing individual public health needs, thereby undermining population health and resilience. The consequences of resource shifting during the pandemic were evident in the decreased funding for basic health, nutrition, and the impact on various diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, and non-communicable diseases.
Political Scrutiny and Public Concern: Esther McVey, Conservative MP and former Government minister, emphasizes the need for increased parliamentary scrutiny and debate on these matters. As the COVID-19 Inquiry begins, it becomes crucial to carefully consider how we prepare for future pandemics. Concerns about the WHO’s expanding powers, encroachments on national sovereignty and individual rights, and the exorbitant costs of the plans have been voiced by many. The abandonment of evidence-based pandemic plans in early 2020 despite foreknowledge of potential outcomes further fuels skepticism.
McVey questions the wisdom of granting an unelected and largely privately-funded supranational body such immense authority without adequate oversight. She highlights the WHO’s track record during pandemics, citing their departure from founding principles towards blunt instruments like lockdowns and a one-size-fits-all approach, leading to catastrophic consequences. Graham Stringer, Labour MP and APPG Co-Chair, adds his opposition to these plans, citing concerns about the WHO’s increasing commercial interests and unscientific decision-making processes witnessed during the pandemic.
Lessons Unlearned and the Imperative for Robust Debate: The potential consequences of the WHO’s expanded powers are cause for alarm. Stringer emphasizes that unelected bureaucrats dictating damaging public health policies erode democracy, civil liberties, and individual rights. Drawing from past experiences with swine flu and COVID-19, he warns against the ease with which such decisions can be made and their detrimental effects. The urgency to engage in robust debate, both in Parliament and in public, is underscored by the need to avoid repeating mistakes made during the pandemic. Sweden’s independent decision-making process serves as an example for all nations, allowing them to manage public health threats based on their unique circumstances.
The proposed Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the IHR have generated intense discussions surrounding the future of global health governance. The concerns raised by experts and lawmakers highlight the potential consequences of ceding power to the WHO and the need for meticulous scrutiny. As we navigate the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial to evaluate the lessons learned and chart a path forward that prioritizes public health, individual rights, and the resilience of nations.
Of particular concern are the amendments to the IHR that consolidate power and authority within the hands of one person, the Director-General of the WHO. Driven by the influence of private and corporate funders, this individual would have the ability to proclaim health emergencies, real or potential, on any health-related matter they consider a threat. The WHO would possess the power to issue legally binding directions to member states and their citizens. Given the catastrophic consequences of the WHO’s policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, which some argue exceeded the impact of the virus itself, the potential economic and health-related harms associated with such power cannot be overstated. Dr. Bell warns that a vast pandemic industry awaits the activation of these powers, making it imperative for policymakers to reject the WHO’s pandemic proposals.
Professor Brown, who has been involved in advising the WHO on pandemic preparedness and response, raises concerns about the misguided shift towards post-COVID pandemic preparedness. This shift has resulted in the diversion of resources from vital public health programs, impacting global efforts to combat diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, and non-communicable diseases. Overseas Development Aid has seen significant funding decreases for basic health and nutrition in developing countries, highlighting the detrimental effects of prioritizing pandemic preparedness over existing health needs. Professor Brown questions the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed $31.1 billion per year plan, particularly the burden it places on low- and middle-income countries, potentially diverting resources from essential public health initiatives.
Esther McVey, Conservative MP and former Government minister, stresses the importance of robust parliamentary scrutiny and debate regarding the WHO’s expanded powers. As the COVID-19 Inquiry begins, careful consideration must be given to how we prepare for future pandemics. McVey highlights concerns about the encroachment on national sovereignty, individual rights, and the sheer cost of the proposed plans. She questions the wisdom of granting an unelected and privately-funded supranational body such immense authority without adequate oversight. Graham Stringer, Labour MP and APPG Co-Chair, echoes these concerns, emphasizing the potential for the WHO to exert extreme influence and pressure countries into compliance. He points to the unscientific decision-making during the pandemic and the need to safeguard free speech, democracy, and individual rights.
The suppression of dissenting opinions and the labeling of information as “mis/disinformation” during the pandemic raises concerns about the erosion of free speech and the stifling of societal progress. History has shown that progress is achieved through open debate, criticism, and the exploration of diverse ideas. The Enlightenment era recognized the necessity of challenging prevailing views and engaging in robust discourse to discover truth and advance society. However, the rise of “mis/disinformation” as a justification for censorship threatens these foundational principles.
During the pandemic, numerous reputable scientists and scholars who offered alternative perspectives were silenced and censored, only to be proven correct later on. The case of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford anti-lockdown professor, highlights how dissenting voices were suppressed. Twitter’s alleged blacklisting of accounts, predominantly conservative and far-right users, further raises concerns about the manipulation of information. The suppression of diverse viewpoints impedes progress and the pursuit of truth.
The WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the IHR have sparked intense debates regarding the organization’s expanding powers and their potential consequences. Critics argue that these reforms threaten individual rights, free speech, and the autonomy of member states. Robust parliamentary scrutiny, open review, and public debate are necessary to ensure that decisions regarding public health emergencies are made transparently and with due consideration for the principles of democracy and individual liberties. As we navigate the complexities of future pandemics, it is crucial to strike a balance that prioritizes public health without compromising the fundamental rights and freedoms upon which our societies are built.
