BS”D
A Midwestern Doctor has put together a masterful and critically important article on the World Health Organization’s planned global power grab. This is required reading for every human being who doesn’t want to be a slave to a cruel one-world government which would control every single aspect of our lives.
The WHO is in the final stages of transforming themselves from a health advisory committee into a global dictatorship - in every sense of the word. I mean this. They are seeking legally binding power to dictate the behavior of all the world’s population - in the name of “protecting our health.” Just a few examples of how they would control us include dictating where we can travel, when we must quarantine, and what medical treatments we must (or may not) take. Of course, extreme surveillance and invasion of privacy is part of this package. As we saw in 2020, businesses and schools can be closed down, and economies and lives ruined, all in the name of “public health.” In reality, they seek to dictate much more about our lives than just those things. (I would look at China for a glimpse of just how atrocious government regulation of private life “for the greater good” can be: e.g. forced pregnancy checks, forced abortions, etc are endured by the Chinese and are something I believe we might expect from the WHO, justified by “overpopulation concerns.”)
This “pandemic treaty” is a wishlist of every awful thing that “elites” have been working on over the last few decades. It is a global strategy which bypasses national governments.
The pandemic treaty will be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.
I don’t have space to reprint AMD’s whole article, but I have pulled out what I feel are the most important parts.
The actions you can take are listed at the end.
I had to leave out the illustrations, which add very much to understanding the topic, in an effort to make the article short enough to go through on emails. Please click on the title and read the article on my website to get the pictures.
By A Midwestern Doctor, February 11 (Excerpts)
In the first part of this series, I attempted to shed light on the vast pandemic “prevention” industry.
Briefly, to summarize that article, this racket:
•Has convinced the world that we face an existential risk of a dangerous new infectious disease jumping from wild animals to the human population and then wiping out humanity.
•Has pivoted to trying to convince the world that the root cause of the increasing frequency of these diseases is climate change and human encroachment on nature.
•Uses the fear of a pandemic that might wipe out humanity to justify invasive surveillance of every aspect of our lives and to drum up a lot of money to “fix” the problem.
In short (like many other areas in medicine), the pandemic racket actually creates the problem it exists to “fix.”
“Preventing” pandemics is one of the most lucrative areas in medicine.
• A covert WHO treaty has been put together behind the scenes which gives international health agencies absolute control over anything related to an alleged “health emergency,” and in turn enshrines each awful policy which was conducted throughout COVID-19 (e.g., mass censorship or the promotion of dangerous and experimental vaccines).
BW: Of course, the WHO also gives themselves the ability to declare the health emergency, to begin with.
•A grass roots activist movement has accomplished something remarkable—despite the fact every single large organization has pushed the pandemic treaty through, in only a few short months, those activists have begun to derail it. I believe stopping this power grab is one of the most important issues of our time, and this article was written to explain exactly what they are doing so that each of us can help be a part of making sure this abhorrent treaty is never ratified.
The Pandemic Treaty
The pandemic cartel is arguing that the reason the pandemic response was a disaster was because we didn’t do enough of what they wanted, and they are reworking the legal system so that any dissent from their policies is illegal. Since that would be almost impossible to do within the existing Democratic framework (as more and more countries are having populist movements rebel against the pandemic cartel) a global strategy which bypasses national governments is being employed instead.
This began in November of 2020, at G20 (the annual gathering for the leading economic powers) where a proposal was put forward for a “pandemic treaty” to ensure the nations of the world would handle future pandemics in an “appropriate” manner. A few months later, in March of 2021, citing the statements made at G20, the World Economic Forum (WEF) echoed this call—which suggests much of what they were proposing to the public had already been put together in private.
Note: the Global Biosecurity Agenda was already being created during the Obama administration. Additionally, before that, massive sums were expended for pandemic prevention and response beginning with the 2001 anthrax letters (which originated from a US biolab). The PREP Act, which for the first time allowed untested, unlicensed drugs and vaccines to be rolled out to the entire nation with no liability for anyone, simply because of the potential for a national security emergency, got passed in 2005—revealing that the planning for the pandemic racket began at least two decades ago.
Since that time, a series of policies and regulations has gradually been put together by the WHO, the UN, the World Bank, the US, the EU and other multinational organizations (with the assistance of the other globalist organizations like the UN and the Rockefeller Foundation) to remedy the “deficiencies” in our pandemic response.
Those policies and regulations in turn are part of a “pandemic treaty,” amendments to existing International Health Regulations, or domestic legislation that each member of the WHO is being pushed to adopt, and by virtue of being an international treaty must then be followed by each signatory country.
The pandemic treaty in turn contains a wishlist of each thing globalists have been working on over the last few decades. Let’s now review what’s inside it.
Climate Change and Pandemics
Since the “war on climate change” and the “war on pandemics” represent two of the greatest sources of wealth and power for the global elite, a lot of work has been put into conditioning the public to being terrified of the existential risk each allegedly poses.
In turn, the pandemic treaty seeks to link both of these together by arguing that “climate change” is the root cause of the disastrous pandemics, and that this “problem” thus necessitates giving the WHO (and its related organizations) control over how we interact with the environment.
Note: while the link between the two is typically not specified, whenever a concrete justification is given, it is typically that wildlife habitat loss is bringing humans (or livestock) into closer contact with wild animals that harbor potentially serious diseases. While habitat loss is a huge ecological issue, there is very little evidence tying it to pandemics.
WHO’s director has stated the treaty is necessary for the survival of our future generations (e.g., grandchildren) and that there is a universal agreement amongst nations that we need this treaty to prevent another catastrophe like COVID-19. The important thing to remember is that while these declarations may sound very convincing, they are in fact lies.
One Health
One Health began in 2004, at an international (globalist) conference where the idea was put forward that public health needed be expanded into a umbrella which could control (and profit off) every aspect of our lives. For example, “climate change” was folded into public health under the rationale that the dire environmental threats we faced necessitated making “ecological health” a core facet of public health. As you might expect, the push for “One Health” was merged with the notion that the problems we now faced were too complex for the electorate to solve and hence necessitated decisions which would control our lives being delegated to a panel of multidisciplinary “experts.”
Note: the major problem with relying upon experts is how easy they are to buy off—particularly since the (corporate owned) media will typically only allow people who can be bought off to become our “experts.”
Since its founding, the scope of “One Health” has gradually expanded to cover each progressive concept (e.g., overpopulation, where humans should live, what farming practices should be used, global trade, vaccines, managing a wide variety of chronic diseases, promoting diversity and equity etc.). According to an editorial in The Lancet published in January 2023:
The reality is that One Health will be delivered in countries, not by concordats between multilateral organisations, but by taking a fundamentally different approach to the natural world, one in which we are as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans. In its truest sense, One Health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity.
In short, it’s morphed into a way to control each aspect of human life in the name of “health.” For example, One Health continually emphasizes the need for more surveillance and centralized control of public “health,” which will likely dovetail with the push to have digital identifications that will be used to track the global population.
Note: more detailed summaries of the broad scope of One Health can be found here and here.
At this point, I strongly suspect “One Health” was concocted by a public relations firm which was paid to come up with the most emotionally appealing euphemism that would effectively convince everyone to comply with its ever increasing dictates (which the public would likely never agree to were they to be presented in honest language). Likewise, as time has moved forward, more and more other (globalist) organizations have come together to support this declaration. For example:
•The CDC has a “One Health Office” tasked with promoting One Health domestically and abroad.
•The WHO has a team tasked with promoting One Health.
•Many other US agencies are devoted to promoting One Health (e.g., the USDA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the FDA and the NIH).
•Many other large international organizations (e.g., the UN, FAO, OIE, and UNICEF) along with their satellite organizations in each Western nation are aggressively promoting the One Health message.
•Private globalist organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF are funding and promoting One Health.
•Many other longstanding institutions within the medical industrial complex (e.g., the American Medical Association and the premier medical journals) are also promoting One Health.
Note: many foreign equivalents of these institutions are also promoting the One Health agenda (e.g., Australia’s recently created CDC and Moldova’s FDA).
In short, many billions in grants have been given throughout the world to establish “One Health” as a pillar of public health throughout the world. One Health is now embedded in most governments on every continent…even though it is still impossible to identify this nebulous concept has actually done anything that benefited health.
Note: American’s 2023 National Defensive Authorization Act contained a provision to advance the “One Health Approach” and provided at least one billion a year to support it (alongside financing a few related globalist “public health” organizations).
So as you might have guessed, everyone who made a lot of money off COVID-19 (even Pfizer) is promoting One Health because enshrining this incredibly vague declaration within the legal and public health system provides them with the means to enact whatever policies benefit them. In turn, advancing “One Health” is a key theme throughout the WHO’s pandemic treaty.
The parties commit to promote and implement a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response that is coherent, integrated, coordinated collaborative among all relevant actors, with the application of, and in accordance with, national law.
Lastly, for anyone who doubts One Health is part of a globalist power grab to “regulate” (and monetize) every aspect of our lives, consider the text of this report (which repeatedly mentions promoting “One Health.”)
Likewise, as the Lancet shows, a lot of this is just about money:
“We call for the creation of an integrated and flexible Global Health Fund…The Global Health Fund would require annual disbursements of the order of $60 billion per year…This recommended annual funding of $60 billion would be allocated roughly as follows: commodities, $20 billion per year; pandemic preparedness, $15 billion per year; and support for primary health systems, $25 billion per year…We also highlight the design and political advantages of consolidating the target funding into a single Global Health Fund, which will ensure consistency, coordination with WHO, and a holistic vision of health that places the health system at the core.
The Global Health Fund should be closely aligned with the work of WHO. We propose that the Fund has its headquarters in Geneva, but has strong regional offices in each of the six WHO regions…The Global Health Fund should be supplemented by an emergency financing mechanism to enable a surge of funding in the face of a global health emergency.”
Combatting “Misinformation”
If you have a bad enough product that no amount of marketing will make people want to buy, the only remaining option is to have the government mandate it on the population (e.g., what we saw with the COVID vaccines).
One of the biggest problems the pandemic cartel now faces is that because of the audacity of their vaccine lies, much of the population no longer trusts them. Because of this (and their unwillingness to admit their mistakes and reform their actions), the only remaining option available to them is to outlaw any public criticism of their actions.
As far as I know, this push was started by Obama at the end of his presidency and has evolved into enshrining the term “misinformation” into every corner of the society (which is essentially what was also done with “One Health”). Consider for instance that the WEF recently stated that their greatest concern over the next two years is “Misinformation and Disinformation.”
I first became interested in this issue after I discovered Peter Hotez, like a stereotypical childhood bully who can’t get their way, was relentlessly calling for anyone who disagreed with the narrative to be censored and prosecuted by governments around the world. Yet, rather than this being viewed at lunacy, many prominent groups (e.g., the WHO) actively promoted this message. For example, consider JAMA’s recent calls to censor and punish physician’s who dissented against the COVID narrative.
It soon dawned on me that Hotez was not acting alone (rather he simply was one of the prominent figures tasked with first promoting this message) and I saw case after case where the devastating censorship he advocated for was then enacted. In turn, many of the globalist organizations now have language which is very similar to the insane ideas Hotez put forward.
Note: the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and human rights law) sanctifies the importance of freedom of expression (e.g., speech) and opposes censorship or punishment for exercising that freedom. This contradiction in turn may be why the proposed amendments to the international health regulations deliberately removed the preservation of human rights and freedoms..
Let’s now look at what was in that report (per the Epoch Times):
The U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.” in a 59-page report released this month.
The approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, that seek to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”
In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” through a focus on what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”
Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination…”
Note: the UN has previously admitted there is no agreed upon definition of misinformation.
To quote the treaty:
The WHO shall collaborate with and promptly assist State Parties, in particular developing countries upon request, in….countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventative and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information.
To this end, the (signing) parties shall promote…knowledge translation and evidence-based communication tools, strategies and partnerships relating to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, including infodemic management, at local, national, regional, and international levels.
The WHO in turn defines infodemic as follows:
“Infodemic” means too much information, false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.
The truly ironic thing about these misinformation provisions is that our disastrous (and costly) COVID-19 response was the direct result of misinformation (e.g., all the critical scientific evidence that would have gotten us out of the pandemic was deliberately suppressed by the pandemic cartel) and unscientific policies being pulled out of thin air. However since the greatest purveyors of misinformation (e.g., Fauci and Hotez) were part of the establishment, the blame hence needed to be dishonestly shifted to the other side.
Note: in the previous article, I discussed Orwell’s concept of doublespeak, manipulative language which meant the opposite of its literal meaning. The pandemic treaty, in turn, is full of doublespeak (e.g., censoring people is being done “to protect their human rights and fundamental freedoms”).
Protecting Pandemic Products
Since the pandemic racket’s primary source of revenue is selling proprietary products that “mitigate” the next pandemic, a significant portion of the pandemic treaty goes towards protecting that market.
This is done by enshrining the use of emergency use pharmaceuticals, which as we saw throughout COVID-19, were a disaster, but are incredibly profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) can be issued without any testing of the drug or vaccine at all—or perhaps minimal testing—depending on the mood of the FDA Commissioner (and it just so happens that the current one is arguably the most corrupt commissioner in history). This eliminates the lion’s share of the costs of drug and vaccine development. Rather with an EUA, the manufacturer can roll out the pharmaceutical product absent a demonstration of its safety and effectiveness—but only if the manufacturer, government, WHO and everyone else involved is shielded from liability for injuries that result. The WHO’s pandemic treaty in turn makes it very clear each signatory nation is expected to push such EUA products onto the market.
Likewise, since injuries from these untested products are inevitable, the pandemic treaty stipulates complete immunity be given to the manufacturers.
Worse still, this medical monopoly is being established by giving the WHO (rather than your doctor) the authority to choose what responses are adopted to manage a pandemic—which will inevitably lead to the (lucrative) experimental pharmaceuticals being mandated while the competing ones (e.g., repurposed pharmaceutical drugs) are prohibited. For example, in Article 43, the treaty states the usage of medications during a pandemic can be restricted if they claim the use “is disproportionate or excessive”— which can instantly be weaponized against any therapy not deemed appropriate.
Cloaking the Agenda:
Throughout this series, I’ve tried to illustrate how progressive euphemisms (doublespeak) are being used to conceal very malicious policies. While this tactic typically works (which is why the mainstream media continually uses it), because of how many eyes are on the pandemic treaty, many people are slowly becoming aware of what those euphemisms actually mean, and this collective awareness is proving itself to be the most effective tool for destroying the treaty.
In addition to deceptive euphemisms (e.g., using “peaceful” terminology to describe the bioweapons research the treaty requires), some of the other tactics being used to conceal what is in the treaty include:
•Having the treaty documents contradict each other (e.g., in one place it says the WHO can’t do something, while in another place which supersedes the previous one it says it can). This allows the treaty advocates to point to the first instance but not the second and hence falsely suggest the treaty does not also contain its reprehensible provisions.
•Having the WHO’s plan be extremely difficult to understand, as it involves two separate legal documents (a treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations) that need to be pieced together. Much of the language within each is complex and contradictory so most people (myself included) will struggle to make sense of what they actually mean and which statement takes priority under which situation.
•Continually change the name of the treaty with each draft so it’s difficult for independent researchers to even find the right document (most recently, the treaty was referred to as the “pandemic agreement”).
•Not allowing the public to see what is within the current version of the amendments until shortly before it will be voted on in May (this is similar to how many bills are pushed through Congress and only made available at the last minute so legislators cannot possibly read through them before voting on them).
Note: to support these tactics, WHO officials such as the WHO’s Director-General insist again and again that nothing “bad” is in the treaty. In turn, they are becoming increasingly flustered by the fact the public is waking up to their lies (e.g., now they are stating a “torrent of fake news” is putting the treaty at risk). This I would argue goes hand in hand with the fact the WHO’s chief was accused of crimes against humanity in his conduct as Ethiopia’s Health Minister prior to joining the WHO.
Finally, the WHO’s constitution permits the organization to conduct either “consensus procedures” or secret ballots, avoiding a roll call vote, so that no one will ever know how each diplomat voted—a technique that is frequently used to remove accountability and to push through unpopular measures the electorate would never support.
Usurping National Sovereignty
One of major debates in international law is the question of when exactly when an international treaty supersedes national (or state) law. Since the underlying purpose of the WHO’s pandemic treaty is to provide a mechanism to bypass populist resistance against the WHO’s edicts, the treaty is attempting to supersede local law, and as the previous section shows, do so in secret so local legislators don’t realize what has been agreed to until the treaty’s “emergency” pandemic provisions kick in.
For example, to quote an international lawyer and a former WHO physician scientist:
A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:
1. The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
2. The WHO Director General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied [remember that they apply to both “pandemics” and “other health hazards”].3. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
Note: these powers include controlling where people can travel, forcing them to quarantine, implementing contact tracing, and mandating treatment or vaccination. Furthermore, many of the treaty’s provisions also violate existing laws (e.g., mass surveillance which violates basic medical privacy protections, taking away intellectual property rights from members of signatory nations, and as mentioned before, encouraging GoF research which violates the 1972 Biological Weapons Treaty).
Likewise, recently, 8 members of Europe’s parliament (from 5 different nations) contacted the EMA (Europe’s FDA) and cited numerous valid points to request it rescind the emergency authorizations for the COVID vaccine (e.g., that there was no longer an emergency, that the newly authorized vaccines were never tested on humans, along with many now-known issues with the vaccines). The EMA (which controls what pharmaceuticals are used throughout Europe) chose to dismiss every single point which was raised to them.
This in turn again illustrates how problematic it is when a large (corrupted) international organization is allowed to supersede health policies determined at a more local level (e.g., by a national government).
Note: another major issue is that many of the unelected bureaucrats within our governments have significant conflicts of interest that are causing them to also support the One Health agenda. Because of this, in addition to promoting the pandemic treaty, they are trying to bypass the democratic process to push the treaty through (e.g., US and Australian officials, like the WHO’s leadership, are overtly lying about what is in the treaty.
What you can do:
(AMD has a longer list; see his original article for the complete version.)
• Spread awareness over this issue (e.g., by discussing it with your peers or sharing articles about it with your network). I sincerely believe very few people would support the pandemic treaty if they actually understood what was in it.
• Click on Door to Freedom for much, much more information. Door To Freedom’s activity has had a seismic political impact and has shown that there are a sizable number of elected officials who are willing to listen to public complaints about the pandemic treaty. For this reason, it is critical to contact your elected representatives about this treaty.
Important:
•The pandemic treaty will be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Because of this, we have about two months left to hit the critical mass to stop this (and have that vote fail).
•There are two entirely different things the WHO is trying to push through. One is the treaty itself, while the other are new set of International Health Regulations. It is very possible the WHO will have to let go of the treaty (due to the pushback it has received) but use that confusion to covertly pass those disastrous regulations.
•While it is unlikely the current presidential administration will be convinced to reject the pandemic treaty (as it is staffed with individuals who profited handsomely from COVID-19), as described above, individual states can opt out of it. Because of this, if legislatures, attorneys general, or governors either pass a bill or issue a statement declaring that the state is the authority over healthcare within it, that will prevent the treaty from being able to take effect there—and given the current political climate, it is likely many Republican states will listen to their constituents if enough of them voice their concerns on this treaty.
Note: this tactic has the potential to be very effective. For example, consider what recently happened after Texas refused to heed the Biden administration’s demand to open their border—26 states had their attorney generals side with Texas’s challenge to the federal government. Similarly, recently 25 states refused to support the financial sector’s creation of natural asset companies, and before long, both the NYSE and SEC withdrew the proposal.
•Technically, for a treaty to be enacted in the United States, it needs to be debated in the Senate. Since that exposure would quickly turn the public against the treaty (as it is so indefensible it can only be passed in secret), the current presidential administration has been trying to bypass that step (as the State department has some latitude to decide if it wants to skip the Senate’s advise and consent process). Because of this, one of the most viable ways to stop it is by forcing a debate in the Senate (which senators like Rand Paul are already trying to do). However, a bill Senator Ron Johnson introduced that would have required the treaty to be reviewed by the Senate barely failed early last year on a strict party line vote.
Note: a more detailed summary of what members of Congress can do to stop the pandemic treaty can be found here. Keep in mind that there are now dozens of members of Congress who oppose the pandemic treaty.
Please find A Midwestern Doctor’s original article here:
BW: The most important thing you can do is pray to the Creator to save us from this slavery. It just occurred to me that by pledging to serve G-d, we can be free of servitude to humans (The reverse is true, as well. I believe that it is highly significant that those who seek to control us and those eager to promote the agenda are individuals who have abandoned their Creator.)
I published this a decade ago.
https://www.NaturalCancerCures.org
"Internet of Trust"
Talk about creepy doublespeak