THE LIES about Pandemic Treaty (NEW) Tucker Carlson vs. Bill Gates
Video available on:
- Concerns about authoritarian measures and infringement of rights arise with the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.
- “Health passports” raise alarm for increased control and surveillance.
- WHO’s involvement in the treaty development sparks questions on foreign powers’ authority.
- Key facts: binding WHO guidance, removal of dignity protection, Director-General’s power.
- Suppression of dissent and free speech hinders societal progress.
In a powerful display of unity, a group of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and a newly formed European Citizens Initiative gathered in the European Parliament to defend their countries’ national sovereignty and voice their opposition to the looming Pandemic Treaty proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). This citizens initiative, named “Trust and Freedom,” comprises representatives from seven EU countries and aims to challenge not only the Pandemic Treaty but also the WHO’s International Health Recommendations, which pose a threat to the independent policy decision-making of individual nations.
The meeting, held on Tuesday, July 4th, in Brussels, was led by dissenting MEPs Christine Anderson from Germany, Cristian Terhes from Romania, Mislav Kolakusic from Croatia, Virginie Jordon from France, and Ivan Vilibor Sincic from Croatia. They were joined by a coalition of politicians, activists, and international lawyers who shared the anti-WHO sentiment. One of the primary concerns raised was that the proposed treaty would grant the WHO de facto governmental authority over EU member states’ public health policies without consulting national governments or their electorates, effectively stripping away national decision-making and policy authority.
Under the WHO’s power-grab, governments would be compelled to surrender their sovereignty, enabling the WHO to declare pandemics worldwide, dictate bio-surveillance measures and travel restrictions, regulate free speech, and promote experimental vaccines and pharmaceutical products, some of which have proven to be neither safe nor effective. This authoritarian shift would mark a grave setback for European states already grappling with diminishing national sovereignty, as well as economic and foreign policy decision-making through supranational institutions like the European Union and NATO.
MEP Milslav Kolakusic of Croatia warned that the WHO’s domination over public health policymaking in member states would perpetuate endless “cycles of pandemics” and impose undetermined quantities of experimental vaccines, including mandatory injections for newborn infants. Other political representatives echoed these concerns.
A citizens initiative called “Trust and Freedom” has gained momentum in challenging the Pandemic Treaty proposed by the WHO. This initiative has garnered support from representatives in seven European countries and has brought together international speakers who stand against the encroaching power of unelected bureaucratic bodies. Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse emphasized the need for public debate on an international level to bring the issue to national parliaments, where it can be thoroughly discussed and addressed. British MP Andrew Bridgen expressed his support, emphasizing the importance of cooperation among like-minded individuals in stopping the WHO’s power grab.
The concerns surrounding the WHO’s growing authority were further substantiated by a tweet revealing that the WHO director explicitly stated the future use of health passports in “epidemics, conflicts, the climate crisis, and other emergency situations.” This revelation turned yet another “conspiracy theory” into a disconcerting reality.
Experts testifying before the Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) in the UK shed light on the potential consequences of the proposed Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). 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, highlighted 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 agreements would empower the WHO to order measures such as significant financial contributions, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations, and mandatory vaccinations during public health emergencies. He emphasized how the WHO, originally established with good intentions, had shifted over the years due to increased private funding, making it more centralized and externally directed. The proposed pandemic instruments were founded on flawed assumptions about the frequency and impact of pandemics, which, if ratified, would grant dangerous levels of power to the WHO and negatively impact national governments and citizens.
Professor Garrett Wallace Brown expressed concern about the burgeoning pandemic industry and its financial impact on vital public health programs globally. He warned that the substantial funds allocated to pandemic preparedness could divert resources from addressing pressing health needs, resulting in adverse effects on population health. The evidence also indicated that established preventive public health programs for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, reproductive health, and non-communicable diseases had already suffered due to the shift in policy focus towards pandemic preparedness.
Members of the APPG stressed the need for thorough parliamentary scrutiny and public debate on these proposals. They questioned the wisdom of granting unelected and privately-funded supranational bodies like the WHO unchecked power over sovereignty, individual rights, and public health decisions. The APPG also expressed concerns about the WHO’s track record during past pandemics, highlighting the lack of scientific basis for some decisions and the significant collateral damage caused by the implemented measures.
The fight for national sovereignty and democratic decision-making in Europe has reached a critical juncture with the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty. Citizens, MEPs, politicians, and activists are joining forces to oppose the encroachment on their countries’ independence and protect the rights of individuals. The concerns voiced by experts and representatives shed light on the potential risks of consolidating power within unelected international bodies. Robust debate, transparent review processes, and informed decision-making are crucial to ensure that public health threats are managed effectively while safeguarding democratic values and individual liberties. The future of pandemic response depends on striking the right balance between global cooperation and the autonomy of sovereign nations.
The upcoming implementation of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) proposed Pandemic Treaty in early 2024 has sparked concerns among many individuals regarding the potential enforcement of authoritarian measures. The treaty’s provisions grant the Director-General of the WHO extensive powers, including the ability to enforce lockdowns, suppress dissent, and impose vaccination passports. These measures raise significant apprehensions about the infringement upon individual rights and the principles of democracy.
One particularly distressing aspect of the proposed treaty is the introduction of “health passports.” The WHO director mentioned their intended use during future epidemics, conflicts, climate crises, and other emergency situations. The prospect of permanent civil liberties violations, reminiscent of the COVID-19 lockdowns, implemented by a foreign entity, is deeply concerning. These passports could potentially lead to increased control and surveillance, causing further unease among the populace.
The concept of a “pandemic treaty” has gained attention recently, with critics expressing concerns about the WHO’s role in its development. This theory suggests that the WHO seeks to assert complete authority over emergency operations in the United States, potentially granting foreign powers significant control. This theory has found support among various individuals and groups, raising questions about the extent of control and surveillance such a system would impose on individuals.
Here are some essential points to consider regarding the latest WHO IHR Proposal, set to take effect by 2024:
- Deep Concerns: Many of the proposed IHR Amendments are deeply concerning. They include making WHO emergency guidance legally binding, removing the clause requiring the WHO to uphold individuals’ dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.
- Empowering the Director-General: The proposed amendments grant the WHO Director-General, an unelected individual without medical qualifications, the power to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) unilaterally. This expansion of power, influenced by private and corporate funders, could impact UK public health policy, restrict human rights, and limit freedoms without any recourse.
- Legal Enforcement of Restrictive Measures: The amendments would empower the WHO to issue legally binding requirements to mandate measures such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, medication, including vaccination, and medical examinations during a PHEIC declared by themselves. Such measures pose a threat to human rights, medical ethics, and the doctor-patient relationship.
- Global Health Certification System: There is a push to amend the IHRs to facilitate the implementation of an International Global Health Certification system, enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions through various certificates and QR codes. These amendments also seek to increase censorship of dissenting voices and restrict free speech by mandating global collaboration to counter dissent.
The notion of “mis/disinformation,” often referred to as “fake news,” has become a tool utilized by those in power to advance their authoritarian agendas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals who expressed views differing from the official narrative were censored and banned online. The suppression of free-flowing discussion and ideas poses a grave threat to society. The beauty of societal progress lies in the free exchange of ideas, debate, discussion, and dialogue. These are the catalysts that drive us towards a better future.
Free speech is under attack on a societal level. Dissenting voices during the pandemic were ostracized and demonized, leading to an echo chamber of thought and the implementation of absurd and tyrannical policies without room for questioning. The Enlightenment era recognized the significance of free speech, debate, criticism, and the pursuit of truth for societal progress. Yet, the wave of “mis/disinformation” seems to counteract these foundational principles.
The concept of “hate speech” is often exploited by those seeking to control and impose tyranny, suppressing alternative viewpoints that challenge their ideology. Offending someone based on their ideological views is far less detrimental to society than the dangers posed when ideas are not debated, critiqued, and ridiculed. The Enlightenment era understood that public criticism, even if it offends, is necessary for discovering truth and propelling society forward.
The impending WHO Pandemic Treaty and its provisions pose a significant threat to democracy, free speech, and individual rights. The concentration of power in unelected bodies and the potential for censorship and control over public health decisions is cause for concern. Robust debate, transparent review processes, and public engagement are essential to prevent the erosion of democratic values. Balancing global cooperation and the autonomy of nations is crucial to effectively manage public health threats while preserving the principles that underpin a free and progressive society.
