All On The QT
“The welfare of the people…has always been the alibi of tyrants…giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” Albert Camus
They have absolutely no shame. They never back off. Yes, sometimes they conduct a tactical retreat, but they always come again. Leftists are Leftists because of their personality type; if you wish to see the progressive mind in all its glory, just tune into the YouTube coverage of US House Committees and see how they behave when they aren't in possession of the gavel. The Democrat members are deeply unpleasant, mendacious, intolerant and wholly unconcerned with the truth. Everything revolves around their precious narrative – their behavior demonstrates their character flaws in glorious technicolor. They just don't seem to be able to help themselves, nor do they seem to have any understanding of how they appear to others, although I don't suppose they really care.
I speak of the Democratic Party because they are the party that has surrendered itself to the tyrannical ten percent.(1) This is not to excuse the milquetoasts, cucks, neo-cons and controlled opposition in the RINO ranks, that make up the other wing of the uniparty. Nor does it mean that nominally conservative parties cannot be captured by the collaborationists, as is the case in the UK. These groups, while a collective waste of skin, aren't generally openly hostile or prone to supergluing themselves to motorways, which isn't to say that they aren't capable of inflicting just as much damage.
Whatever headwinds the progressives encounter, whatever opposition they may be confronted with, matters not. Doubling down is their default setting; using distraction to obscure their actions is a go-to tactic. And so, in the midst of all the clutching of pearls occasioned by our discovery that Midazolam Matt is a lying, conniving scrap of excrement (who could possibly have been in any prior doubt?) and the clearly contrived limited hangout that is the 'lab leak' theory (why on earth are they talking about it now, when under no more pressure than at any other time?), there are ongoing developments in the pandemic field that will go unreported by the press, but which are hugely consequential. They are re-runs, originally aired last year and, because they were roundly condemned at the time, they are back in exactly the same form. I speak of the WHO attempt to get two items passed by their World Healthy Assembly, attended by representatives of the 194 member states – a Pandemic Treaty and some amendments to their International Health Regulations.
Firstly, a brief summary of the WHO and the global role that it has been assigned by the ruling class. The organisation has been around since 1948, as a part of the United Nations. Back then, there were only 61 member states and the WHO's role was relatively benign. It mostly gave advice and claimed credit for vaccination campaigns that allegedly eradicated diseases, such as smallpox. This is false; smallpox was eradicated due to improvements in sanitation, good hygiene and healthy living. The UK was a good example of what became known as the Leicester method – by 1948, its population was de facto unvaccinated and untouched by smallpox,(2) but this is memory holed as it doesn't fit the narrative.
The WHO was responsible for drawing up the first list of essential medicines and for crusades against AIDS, polio and other diseases. It's International Health Regulations (IHR) have been in existence for decades and, in 2005, received a major upgrade in the aftermath of the first SARS 'pandemic' that wasn't. The redefinition of the International Health Regulations in 2005 was part of the initial morph from advisor to boss:
"to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade."(3)
By May 2009 (just prior to the Swine Flu debacle), the WHO had amended both its definition of what constituted a pandemic and also the requirement that the disease in question must be a new sub-type, meaning that many seasonal viruses could now be classed as a pandemic. Originally, this was the wording of the pandemic definition which, at the time, was focussed on influenza:
"… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness."(4)
The retrieval of that quote required a visit to the Wayback Machine. The new version, known as Phase Six, is not hidden:
“In addition to meeting the criteria of Phase 5, an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused community outbreaks in humans in at least 2 WHO regions.”(5)
Phase 5 doesn't add to our understanding, referring as it does to the imminence of Phase 6. We can see that, by widening the definition exponentially, the WHO greatly increased its potential reach. But it's all above board, you see, because they're allowed to reinterpret meanings as they see fit. Article 2 of WHO constitution states:
“In order to achieve its objective, the functions of the Organization shall be: a) to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work … k) to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with respect to international health matters … s) to establish and revise as necessary international nomenclatures of diseases, of causes of death and of public health practices … v) generally to take all necessary action to attain the objective of the Organization.”(6)
So far then, due to incremental steps taken between 2005 and 2009, the Director General of the WHO had been ceded the power to declare a pandemic under a definition that fell woefully short of what the word 'pandemic' actually meant to everyone else in the world outside the WHO. There is the question of why he would wish to do so and that will become apparent. But even these powers were seemingly not enough. The current proposal is for the WHO to be granted yet more authority, courtesy of Biden's initiative. It seems amending regulations alone isn't going to cut it; there also needs to be a Pandemic Treaty.
Except it'll be a Convention or Agreement on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness & Response – definitely not a treaty, then. The reason for this designation will shortly become clear. Apparently, we need extra structures (overseen by the WHO) because Covid revealed the “...catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity...”(7), which analysis (I suspect) would not be the first thing on most people's lips if they reflected on the response of the authorities wherever they happen to be. But, in ruling class circles, putting up straw man arguments so that one might then present preferred solutions is a favourite tactic, and so we are obliged to wade through much more alarmist rhetoric - “...the international spread of disease is a global threat with serious consequences… that calls for the widest possible international cooperation...”(8) – and homespun wisdom - “...previous pandemics have demonstrated that no one is safe until everyone is safe...”(9) before they get to the point.
Or, rather, a point, which they'd like you to believe was definitive enough for you to stop reading closely and, therefore, fail to register what comes later. Although there is a tell tale phrase, the form of which a seasoned reader will recognize from previous mealy-mouthed screeds:
“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation... sovereignty also covers the rights of States over their biological resources.”(10)
If that was all she wrote, we'd have trouble trying to identify the wiggle room that we know will be catered before because, otherwise, why is a globalist organisation going to the trouble of emphasizing national sovereignty? And, sure enough, it's there:
“...provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries...”(11)
Article 4, from which the above quote is taken, has eighteen separate 'guiding principles and rights', so the sovereignty declaration has to compete with all the usual progressive suspects, such as equity, solidarity, inclusiveness, gender equality and respect for diversity – all terms that can be taken to mean whatever they want them to mean at any given time. There is also room for the curious WHO mantra that appears all over their definition of their mandate – 'the right to health'. And, then we have what they call 'One Health'.
And, no. I'd never heard of an initiative called the “One Health” approach either, but I knew exactly what I was going to find when I subsequently researched it. I was not disappointed; or rather I was, but in an entirely predictable way. Within the first sentence, 'sustainable' made an appearance. Those of you familiar with the globalist canon will know that this is yet one more word that has become freighted with a meaning that was not originally intended. Sure enough, according to the WHO:
“By linking humans, animals and the environment, One Health can help to address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.”(12)
Or, to put it another way, 'we've decided that our reach will extend as far as humanly possible to encompass all the fields necessary to control your lives. But that's not all. In another fine example of the deathless prose that is used in an attempt to obscure rather than to enlighten - an example that might have been lifted verbatim from 1984 - we are further informed that the agreement will ensure more responsibility and accountability:
“In addition, it will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.”(13)
Of course. It isn't that the people are coming to understand what is going on by dint of their own experience. It isn't that people are sharing these observations. No. As we should by now have realized, 'misinformation' is whatever the globalists want it to be and that is (uniformly) anything that diverges from the narrative that they want to spin to us. There's even a shout out to “too much information, including false or misleading information...during a disease outbreak.”(14) Who is it that decides that there is too much information, by the way?
Nonetheless, information that isn't misinformation is still to be denied us, because it's all too much for our pea sized brains; we'd have to be making judgements, rather than receiving an approved download and that is not to be encouraged. That way independent and critical thinking lie. Now that we know what to look for, the code is not difficult to break, although I suspect that some of the people that write this stuff still think that we are all buying what they're selling.
But whoever drafted this document is at pains to reassure us that all the decisions that are made on our behalf will be righteous:
“Science...should inform all public health decisions and the development and implementation of guidance for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems.”(15)
You remember the science, don't you? Dr Fauci was the personification of the science, according to him. For a while. Not so much, now. But he's not the only one with an outsized ego;“We own the science and we think that the world should know it.”(16) That was U.N. Undersecretary-General Melissa Fleming at Klaus' annual Davos shindig. They have to say this, or similar, if they are to assign themselves imperial status. But it isn't true – nobody owns the science, least of all a captured agency (such as the FDA) which is partially funded by interested parties with financial skin in the game.
Plus, of course, science is not an encyclopedia. While many facts are true (or are not currently in dispute, to be precise), much of science is a moveable feast. Furthermore, physical science itself is in crisis, as evidenced by the search for the dark matter that needs to be out there if a theory as fundamental as the law of gravity is true.(17) If the way in which gravity works is in doubt (and it is), betting the house on experimental gene therapies, by way of example, would be foolhardy in the extreme.
Scientists also disagree continually – hypotheses are proven and dismantled constantly. “the long arc of science bends towards truth, but only if we preserve the integrity of the process by which we disagree and discuss evidence.”(18) Very few people of a dissident persuasion would use the word 'integrity' to describe any aspect of the governmental or supranational response to Covid. Plus, by asserting that the science is theirs to define, they are attempting to rather obviously set the narrative.
But the WHO's pièce de résistance, the alpha and the omega, is the requirement that has been the number one preoccupation of the globalists during the Covid 'pandemic' – if we set aside culling the population with 'vaccines', whilst simultaneously price gouging the victims:
“Member states will be required to “support the development of standards for producing a digital version of the International Certificate of Vaccination and Prophylaxis” (the WHO's official vaccine passport). The WHO will also “develop norms and standards” for “digital technology applications relevant to international travel”, such as contact tracing apps and digital health forms.”(19)
It's not difficult to skim over paragraphs like these and not appreciate the gravity of what is being proposed. Remember, when preceded by the amendments to the WHO's constitution, this will allow governments to mandate vaccine passports, without which international travel would seem to be verboten. Digital health forms – not fully defined and therefore not simply limited to the existing, discredited Covid versions – would also be required.
The overall combined effect of both the amendments and the treaty are pretty straightforward. The WHO's constitution would, henceforth, override every member country's constitution. Not just during a pandemic, which could be declared on a whim by the WHO D-G (and has been in the past), but also prior to a pandemic that they may estimate is in the offing. And a genuine, medical pandemic isn't even a necessary ingredient. Any public health emergency, again as defined by the WHO, would be enough to trigger their intervention.
Lock-downs, testing regimes, enforced medical procedures and more would all be on the agenda and, when the One Health approach is factored in, the capacity for coercion across every significant sector of society is limitless. But the key is still the amendments. Without them, we are where we were with Covid; in a place where the authoritarians could quote WHO recommendations at every turn, but where they were also still answerable (just about) and uncertainly equipped with a licence to coerce.
It is vital to remember the fundamental principle at issue, as some fail to do. The point is that we will be sold down the river, we will have no way of objecting to it and, from there on in, we will be under the yoke of the WHO and whatever it is that they decide we should do; not just with regard to what we would identify as public health, but everything else as well. The issue isn't, instead, the ability of the WHO to rule justly and competently. That shouldn't matter as it's downstream. But, if the globalists get their way (and I predict that they will), we will soon find ourselves ducking as the brown sticky stuff hits the rotating arm. So, let's just have a quick look at their competence, nonetheless. Because, compared to the twentieth century, we seem to have been inundated with dodgy outbreaks of disease with no verifiable animal source.
The Asian flu (H2N2) was in circulation for over two years, killing between 2-4 million people, disproportionately the elderly and vulnerable, and most closely resembles the current pandemic in terms of alleged outcomes. It ran from 1956 to 1958. The Hong Kong variant – a mixture of two strains, one of which was the H1N1, the Spanish flu type – killed an estimated 1 million people worldwide, with a case fatality rate of approximately 0.5%, during the years 1968-9. We have to go all the way back to the Spanish Flu to find the previous genuine pandemic (I use that term hesitantly, as there is far more to that pandemic than one might think).
Incidentally, the Spanish Flu achieved herd immunity, something about which we have heard much in the past year. But instead of needing 70/80/90% of the population to be infected, herd immunity was achieved once approximately 33% had been afflicted. And the Hong Kong Flu and the Asian Flu? The Hong Kong Flu is still with us, as a virulent part of the seasonal flu and the Asian Flu morphed into a part of the regular flu also, having gone extinct in the wild in 1968.(20)
And that was it until 2002 and the onset of the original SARS, another wild virus, which has a genome that is similar to both a bat virus and a mouse virus. This came out of China, reached 29 countries culminating in 8,000 illnesses and 700 deaths. Then it just disappeared, which is a development that has vexed investigators ever since, as this is not how viruses work. Despite this fact, there is a beautifully innocent theory is, according to the virologist at the University of California, is that
“...it likely existed in a wild animal, probably a bird. It jumped species only recently when it came into contact with a human being.”(21)
This is not a theory that's ever been proven, but if one starts one's hypothesizing halfway through the story (at the point at which one asserts that it must have come from the wild; it couldn't possibly have been engineered), then the odds of the outcome being accurate are, perhaps, not stellar.
Then there was the Swine Flu of 2009, which appeared shortly after the WHO's increased powers had been ratified. It may be that you remember that pandemic; or perhaps not. This was flu variant H1N1 again, but a mild version thereof. It is believed that around 285,000 people died from this outbreak, although skepticism is warranted.(22) There had been previous scares – in the US in 1976, in particular, but there were only ever 200 odd cases and one death. The US government wanted everyone vaccinated then, too, and there was a ten week national campaign which was halted when a rare side effect to the jab was detected.(23)
Well, it was rare then – it's not now, not after the Covid jab. More than 500 people got Guillain-Barre syndrome and 25 died; but 40 million Americans had been vaccinated by then, even though the outbreak never gained traction. The government's response was deemed to be ill thought out and the whole affair was a fiasco. It should have acted as a cautionary tale to the WHO, but the organisation was far more interested in flexing its newly acquired muscles than taking a measured approach.
There is strong evidence to show that, when it declared the pandemic, it was for the benefit of Big Pharma and the middlemen between the vaccine companies and the WHO, rather than out of any genuine concern for public health. There was a substantial scandal at the time when it emerged that, not only was the 'pandemic' not a pandemic (even under the new, expanded, English language mangling version), but many countries had made secret deals with pharmaceutical companies in the months leading up to the WHO's declaration.
Countries included Italy, Germany, France and the UK and the contracts that they signed obliged them to buy Swine Flu vaccinations if the WHO went to Def Con 6, which they duly did.(24) The total worldwide spending on health measures that was triggered by the WHO was around $18 billion, most of it going to Big Pharma. Is any of this collusion sounding familiar, because it should be?
It's possible that the WHO was feeling a little bruised by the time the next epidemic rolled around, which was in 2012 in Saudi Arabia. This virus was dubbed the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and it's a mix of a bat virus and a camel virus, however unlikely that may appear. Bats and camels are unlikely ever to meet, let alone infect each other, but that's what the science says, so it must be true.(25) A Saudi Arabian scientist, member of the Scientific Consultative Council said that
“the virus has existed in the Kingdom for more than 30 years but did not spread to humans. This only took place about four years ago. He said that 74 percent of camels have antibodies for the MERS virus, which shows that they were infected at some point in their lives.”(26)
He couldn't rule out the possibility that it was an engineered bioweapon, but the disease stayed localized and there were only 2,500 cases, although 800 died. It appears that, on this occasion, the WHO managed to restrain its enthusiasm; no pandemic was declared.(27)
However, because no procedure exists for WHO oversight, because they are not obligated to supply any outside agency with any information that may be requested and because they have diplomatic immunity, they felt able to pull the 'pandemic' trick again in 2016 – with Zika – and then, during Tedros' time, in 2019 with Ebola, before Covid even existed outside of a laboratory. And why not? The WHO is the plaything of vested interests and its very unaccountability is what makes it so useful to them.
The Covid 'pandemic' is just another disgrace in a long list of them, albeit undoubtedly the biggest. The WHO has been a fountain of disinformation from the start of the 'pandemic', incompetent and corrupt. From the beginning; in late January 2020, they stated that the global risk assessment was moderate and that the Chinese authorities had found “no clear evidence of human to human transmission.”(28) Had we known what we now know about the extent to which the globalists will go in using language to confound and mislead us, the ambivalence of the word 'clear' would have rung alarm bells. Incidentally, the WHO's official position is still that the virus emanated from a wet market, not a laboratory.
In March 2020, having finally got the message from its sponsors, the WHO over-corrected its course and informed us all that the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) was 3.4% (29)(30) or, put another way, nearly twice as high as the 1918 Spanish Flu. This was hugely irresponsible; as it transpires, even the most alarmist Jeremiahs put the CFR at 0.4% and that's without early medical intervention and with some of the 'died with' rather than just the 'died of' counted in the total.
The organisation also flip-flopped on its advice on mask wearing and lock-downs, sometimes sensible, sometimes nonsensical, always unreliable.(31) Their experts couldn't even bring themselves to declare that Covid was spread via droplets in the air until December 2021;(32) their guidance on self testing didn't appear until March last year.(33)
The WHO's most infamous intervention, one which has received almost no coverage, was the Solidarity/Recovery trials. Early in the 'pandemic', doctors were having much success with early outpatient treatment. The two most frequent prescriptions were for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, drugs that had been known to be effective against the original SARS virus of 2002. Additionally, both drugs had been on the approved list for decades and were capable of being used off label – that is, in order to treat conditions that they weren't originally approved for. This is a common phenomenon with many approved drugs. As time passes, more uses become apparent.
However, for the first time ever, a drug (hydroxychloroquine) had its approval withdrawn – not across the board, just in relation to Covid treatment. This wasn't because there were documented problems. The only viable explanation, both at the time and in the present, was that any existing drug which successfully treated Covid would block the authorization of the 'vaccines' that were in development. It is not possible to even issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to what is, inherently, an under-tested treatment if there is already an approved, safe and effective alternative available.
The WHO, to their eternal shame, conducted clinical trials of four drugs; hydroxychloroquine was not initially going to be trialed at all, but multiple countries forced the WHO's hand as hydroxychloroquine was included. It was, therefore, necessary to find another method by which to spike the trials. This was achieved in the most appalling fashion. Firstly, the trials used HCQ on inpatients, when the disease was well advanced, rather than outpatients.
This immediately negated beneficial effects, but to make absolutely sure that the trial failed, patients were given doses four times higher than recommended. Of the 1,542 UK patients receiving this overdose, 396 died.(34) It wasn't just adults who were vulnerable; babies under 5kg in weight could be given a dose equivalent to 47mg a kilo in their first 24hrs of life. This is also four times the recommended maximum:
"Ingestion of 1-2 tablets of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is thought to predispose children under 6 years of age to serious morbidity and mortality...ingestions of greater than 10 mg/kg of chloroquine base or unknown amounts require triage to the nearest health care facility for 4-6 h of observation.”(35)
It is difficult to credit, sometimes, how far some people are prepared to go in order to achieve their ends. What is certain is that, when there is no deterrent, no downside, bad people will go further. And who was it is that part-funded this trial in the UK? The answer may not be entirely surprising. It was Bill Gates. I'll come back to him in a moment.
In addition to this malfeasance, the WHO knows that there are at least six studies which have reported T cell reactivity against Covid in 20-50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) And before you say that these were likely asymptomatic people who hadn't realized that they'd had the virus, one study used blood samples from 2015-2018. It's believed that this response is due, at least in part, to common cold coronaviruses, which are closely related. At any rate, it demonstrates natural immunity, which would be impossible if the disease was truly novel.
Logically, it follows that Covid is not a new phenomenon, and the WHO must have known it. The 2009 Swine Flu outbreak was very similar. That died out much sooner than expected, as pre-existing immunity effectively deprived the disease of the conditions it needed to thrive. Covid would likely have been similar, were it not for the championing of 'vaccines' that increase the chances of re-infection, and the WHO was the agency most relied upon for that advice.
As previously noted, the WHO has long been known to be a captured agency, funded by nations, businesses and private individuals to advance their own interests. No single individual (or country, even) contributed more to the WHO's annual budget than Bill Gates. Even Politico, a determinately left wing publication, has issues with Gates' influence at the WHO, which is spending:
“...a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects...Gates prefers....Some experts are worries that, because the Gates Foundation's money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests...”(41)
This appraisal is still distinctly lily-livered; it is known that 70% of the WHO's budget is linked to specific countries or regions, dictated by the funders themselves.(42) And there is no bigger funder than Bill Gates. His contributions, via both his foundation and Gavi, the vaccine alliance, outstrip an single country's contribution.
Figure 1
So, that is the organisation that will be calling the shots come the end of May. And there seems to be an implicit assumption that it's only a matter of time before we get the next pandemic, for some reason. The great and the good are constantly harping on about it.
“I believe the great pandemic is still in the future, and that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic for man. It’s going to have significant mortality in the 10 to 50% range. It’s going to be trouble.”(43)
That's from en ex-director of the CDC. The expectation that we are simply waiting for the next pandemic has been normalized, largely due to the recent past. And yet, there should be no automatic assumption that we will ever get one again. Yes, it's likely that there may be another genuine pandemic at some point but, given that there is considerable doubt as to the authenticity of the 21st century iterations (and the origins of the Spanish Flu, to boot)(44)(45)(46), it's by no means certain that it will be soon, or that it will be highly lethal.
But the WHO are trying to convince us that they need total control of global pandemic response and that they need it now. The entire affair, the treaty, the amendments, the aborted pandemics plus Covid has the whiff of familiarity as to authoritarian tactics. Create the problem, scare everyone half to death and then provide solutions that would never be accepted in normal times, but which are suddenly appropriate in a crisis; and, if they're not completely sure that they will escape scrutiny entirely, keep schtum about the ongoing process until it's too late for the rubes to do anything about it.
I think both measures will pass. The World Bank is busy putting together the massive Pandemic Fund, which will eventually total $1 trillion.(47) And there are other clues. The surveillance system envisioned by the treaty already exists; so far, fully financed by that man Gates again. However, the treaty, when passed, allows the WHO the latitude to consult with other organisations, the better to cater to our needs; “WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications or consultations and shall assess these reports according to established epidemiological principles...” That would be what Gates refers to as his GERM team, which is a plan for a permanent panel of 3,000 health experts, located worldwide and currently funded by Gates to the tune of $1 billion a year:
“The team’s disease monitoring experts would look for potential outbreaks. Once it spots one, GERM should have the ability to declare an outbreak and work with national governments and the World Bank to raise money for the response very quickly. Product-development experts would advise governments and companies on the highest-priority drugs and vaccines.”(48)
Any single variant of any single disease could be said to be a potential risk. The potential candidates will be virtually limitless. And the digital IDs and vaccine passports that the treaty wishes to introduce? Gates, again. The WHO is also working on a QR Verification Code Project, with a stated aim of creating a global digital data bank of every last one of us, in partnership with? ID2020 and the Gavi Alliance, both funded by Gates.(49)(50) Gates is far from the only partner that the WHO wishes to consult; there's also the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, Microsoft, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Clinton Health Access Initiative and Soros' Open Society Foundations. It'd be difficult to assemble a more malevolent rogue's gallery.
I'll wager that, this year, the opposition to the power grab will be much more muted. It's mid-March now and the WHO planning meetings have been ongoing since January, but our democratically elected officials haven't made a peep, have they? The same dissident commentators have been sounding the alarm again, but this time traction is not being gained. It's likely that the official controlled opposition that last year felt that there was some political capital to be gained if they engaged in some virtue signalling are keeping their heads down this time.
If that continues, then the amendments and the treaty will pass. The only missing piece will be a 'pandemic', but we've already seen how easy they are to summon up. A global putsch will have been launched, ostensibly by the United States and Bill Gates and associates. If nothing else, this will provide us with some clarity, because it will reveal true alliances and expose contrived antagonism. It is surely inconceivable that potential signatories cannot appreciate the implications of ratifying both measures.
At present, it appears that there are two rival camps, whose paths are rapidly diverging – the G7/G20 axis versus BRICS. However, if the BRICS nations (and those who seek to join) sign on to the treaty and the amendments, there are only two viable explanations; they're either on the One World Government bandwagon or they are simply going with the flow, keeping their powder dry, but making ready to defect as soon as the next 'pandemic' heaves into view.
The cognitive dissonance is otherwise deafening – on the one hand, closer co-operation between a group of influential nations whose leaders are openly planning to end dollar hegemony. On the other, those same countries are demonstrating a seeming willingness to submit themselves to ongoing control via the mechanism of the WHO.
My guess is that the next 'pandemic' will be the avian flu that has allegedly been decimating wild birds and domestic flocks throughout Europe and the US but, curiously, not so much further afield. This may constitute a further clue; it'd be difficult for a state to suddenly claim a bird flu infestation if it had managed to avoid one whilst the epidemic has been raging for the past two years. Difficult but not, I guess, impossible. Believability is not a necessary component of the globalists' schemes any more and the WHO will be able to mandate whatever it wants to whomever it wants, anyway.
But why are all these machinations necessary? Because they've been rumbled domestically – any attempt by national or state governments to re-introduce lock-downs and mandates is likely to meet much fiercer resistance that it did last time. Offshoring the responsibility to the WHO is already a well worn tactic, especially in the realm of social media, where any problematic post that contradicts the narrative can be flagged as misinformation (or removed entirely) by quoting WHO guidelines. This phenomenon is another reminder that, when structures that benefit the public good are captured by bad actors, corrupt outcomes are the only fruit. The presumed strength of the 'system' becomes its Achilles heel.
It's a classic tactic – pretend to cede power to a supranational, undemocratic organisation (while hoping that people don't realize just how unaccountable it is), whilst actually retaining said power on the quiet. Then, openly flout international law and national constitutions (by not acknowledging that any such conflict exists) and force the changes through. Informed consent will disappear, if it hasn't already, and individual rights will be stamped upon, vigorously. The collective will be all there is, because it won't simply be about health management – it'll be about every aspect of life. Economies, travel, digital passports and everything downstream of that will also be affected, including currencies, freedom of speech and freedom of association.
This is not an exaggeration. They will have carte blanche in the policy arena:
“...policies could include requiring medical examinations or proof of such exams, requiring proof of vaccination, refusing travel, implementing quarantine and contact tracing or requiring travelers to furnish health declarations, to fill out passenger locator forms and to carry digital global health certificates.”(51)
On the face of it, it seems as though they are going to completely ignore the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, every country's constitutions (almost certainly) and a host of other accords and agreements. The Code states, in relation to 'permissible medical experiments' (which any 'vaccine' on an Emergency Use Authorization is categorized as) that “...the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent...”.(52) The Declaration's fundamental principle is the right to make informed decisions regarding participation in research and stresses that “...the participants welfare must always take precedence over the interests of science and society (Article 5), and ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations (Article 9).”(53)
Forced 'vaccination' is impossible to square with these principles. However, I fear that the WHO will circumvent these strictures, as both documents concern themselves with experimental treatments, not established ones, and the Article 8.2 of the proposed treaty gives the WHO the perfect out:
“Each Party shall build and strengthen its country regulatory capacities and performance for timely approval of pandemic-related products and, in the event of a pandemic, accelerate the process of approving and licensing pandemic-related products for emergency use in a timely manner, including the sharing of regulatory dossiers with other institutions.”(54)
Given that all the products that we will be forced to use will be new, expensive, experimental (the way Big Pharma likes it) and probably another mRNA 'vaccine' and being further mindful of the lethal liberties taken with the clinical trials for the Covid 'vaccines', I fully anticipate that they will attempt an end-run around our rights as enumerated.
They'll claim that there are no issues with ratification, either. The IHR of 2005 went through on the nod, which shouldn't have happened, so the precedent is there. The amendments need a simple majority of the 194 votes at the WHO's World Health Assembly in May and they will then be considered a binding instrument in international law.
The treaty that isn't a treaty needs a two thirds majority at the same meeting, but that ought to be just the beginning of its ratification process. It needs to be passed into law by national parliaments before it takes effect. But the bad actors have thought of a workaround for that, too. It won't matter what the US Congress or the UK Parliament (or any other signatories' national assemblies) have to say; not in the short term. Because, once it passes the Assembly vote and is signed by a member country, it immediately becomes live due to a completely illegal provisional clause, thus:
“The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application...”(55)
This provision is materially in breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and is a blatant attempt to sideline national legislators who might just be influenced by the citizens they represent.(56) Whoever drafted the treaty has absolutely no regard for individual or national rights. True ratification by national assemblies doesn't matter; that process can be dragged out for whatever period is necessary and, all the while, the treaty will be provisionally operational. All it needs is a 'pandemic'.
And there doesn't even need to be an actual pandemic. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is, because there's always the law of unintended consequences waiting in the wings – the chance that one of the anointed accidentally falls victim to a genuine disease. Controlled exposure to non infectious but non transmissible agents would be one option, the better to create the initial panic about a disease that is 'novel', but symptomatically indistinguishable from several other viruses. They could always run with another fake PCR test 'pandemic'; after all, it worked pretty well last time. As with Covid, the problem won't primarily be the disease itself, but rather the responses – including the 'vaccine'. This modus operandi is much to be preferred, as it provides considerably more controllable outcomes.
“...the requirement for an actual health emergency, in which people are experiencing measurable harm or risk of harm, is removed. The wording of the amendments specifically removes the requirement of harm to trigger the DG assuming power over countries and people. The need for a demonstrable “public health risk” is removed, and replaced with a “potential” for public health risk....
This will enable them to issue orders, supposedly binding under international law, to restrict movement, detain, inject on a mass scale, yield IP and know-how, and provide resources to WHO and to other countries...”(57)
Will it be as bad as all that? Well, why would they accrue those powers unless they intend to use them? And, tactically, they will try and divide and conquer the sceptics. For instance, there may very well be some, even amongst the resistance, who will find it hard to resist the siren call of collectivism; good citizens, of a caring disposition, will likely be more prone to this phenomenon. It goes something like this – yes, I agree that fundamental individual rights are sacrosanct, but I also believe that I have a responsibility towards others in society, so I'm conflicted as to whether these proposals are a good thing, or not. After all, the social compact involves me giving up a certain amount of individual sovereignty so that the state might function.
To which I say the following; you need to take heed of the actions that will be henceforth be possible and you need to assess the intentions of those who will wield these powers. The former calculation is the more important, the latter being a useful guide given past performance. The WHO will morph into a world government, under the auspices of the United Nations, because
“...once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.”(58)
This is the ruling class doing what the ruling class does; going rogue. There is no popular support for any of this; if there was, there would have been a blizzard of propaganda seeking to gaslight us into acceptance. But they know that we wouldn't accept what they are drafting, so they are doing it all on the QT. The amendments and the treaty are the Trojan Horse for all the authoritarian measures that they desire – the 'vaccine' passport is the jewel in the crown. The WHO (read the globalists) will be able to force us to sign up and punish us if we don't. Informed consent will be obliterated. Any poison that has been granted an expedited EUA on the basis of whatever fraudulent clinical trials the medical regulators review, will be mandatory.
We will be even more devoid of any meaningful representation; the WHO will trump any national government. And don't think they won't abuse the privilege, because they already are.(59) The only way we can preserve our freedom is to get out of the WHO. The politicians won't do that of their own free will. But the steps necessary for authoritarian control are being taken, while we are being distracted by Chinese weather balloons, UFOs and Sunak's sudden aversion to illegal immigration. We're going to have to try and make them, somehow, and the first step must be to make public what is being attempted. So, pass it on.
Citations
(3) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580410
(4) https://sambentleygraphics.weebly.com/blog/how-changing-the-definition-of-pandemic-altered-our-world
(5) http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/phase/en/. Accessed June 10, 2009.
(6) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/26/who-pandemic-treaty-threat-to-your-freedom/
(7) https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
(8) Ditto
(9) Ditto
(10) Ditto
(11) Ditto
(12) https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
(14) Ditto
(15) Ditto
(17) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/physical_science_is_in_a_crisis.html
(18) https://brownstone.org/articles/science-is-not-to-be-trusted/
(20) https://www.sinobiological.com/
(21) https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2003-07/sars-where-did-it-come/
(22) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html
(23) https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/history-disease-outbreaks-vaccine-timeline/sars-mers
(24) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-shadow-1976-swine-flu-vaccine-fiasco-180961994/
(26) https://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/802221
(27) https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2003-07/sars-where-did-it-come/
(32) https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-health-organization-coronavirus-what-went-wrong
(33) https://news.yahoo.com/issues-covid-testing-advice-long-161610849.html
(34) https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html
(35) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15837026/
(36) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00838-5
(37) https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
(38) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd3871
(39) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z
(40) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34465633/
(41) https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-doctor/
(42) https://www.bitchute.com/video/kEn3iVabHtao/
(44) https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/
(46) https://thedispatch.com/article/a-round-of-gof/
(48) https://thecountersignal.com/bill-gates-germ-team/
(49) https://id2020.org/alliance
(50) https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles
(51) https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-proposals-sovereignty-totalitarian-state/
(52) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
(53) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
(54) https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
(55) Ditto
(56) https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
(57)https://expose-news.com/2023/02/28/ihr-enable-totalitarianism-on-global-scale/
(59) https://expose-news.com/2023/03/13/who-pushes-for-a-one-world-government-by-issuing/