This is how they roll.
a) When a constitution isn't accommodating to the legislation you wish to pass, ignore the constitution.
b) When the law doesn't allow what you want to do, ignore the law.
c) Move stealthily avoiding headline news – this has the tendency of alert your enemies to your plans. To that end, the following are acceptable tactics:
i) Make extensive use of rules, regulations and guidelines drafted by unelected officials.
ii) Offload as much decision making as possible to globalist organisations.
iii) If it is possible, completely hide your actions or obscure them for as long as possible and rely on a compliant Fourth Estate to either misrepresent the story, ignore the story or distract from it with another story. As a last resort, if forced into a corner, rely on the existing narrative (which is itself a fiction) and state that the measure is necessary to preserve safety, equality, truth over misinformation, (insert any other BS you wish).
Handing over national sovereignty has a long and not so proud history. The United Nations (of which the World Health Organisation (WHO) is a part) and whose climate change panel is the global arbiter of a vast array of previously domestic policies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO and the EU are all supranational organisations who have been granted autonomy over large tracts of what used to be considered the business of national governments, and nation states themselves have been the ones doing the granting. Consequently, the economy, banking, defense and much more besides are now hostages to overseas interests. Health policy is set to join them and the WHO will be the beneficiary.
One could argue that it will merely be an extension of the social compact – the agreement - that the citizen makes with the state; a surrender of a small portion of personal autonomy in the interests of broader, societal cohesion. Except there is one crucial difference; the citizen has a say in matters and his representatives are (theoretically) elected and accountable. No such arrangement exists with the likes of the UN. They are unelected and unaccountable and, even if a convincing argument can be put forth explaining why it is crucial that these various organisations should be accorded primacy, it remains the case that the democratic process is being circumvented and alleged experts are now making decisions that are not theirs to make. Plus, in this case, the WHO has diplomatic immunity, which definitely puts it beyond any flavor of legal redress.
I would be startled if I could find a single Western European country – or one inhabiting the Anglosphere – which has a constitution that caters for the outsourcing of sovereignty, but it has nonetheless happened on a profound scale. In reality, even referenda are simply an elite trick, for the most part. If the underlying foundational document of a nation makes no provision for undemocratic, foreign control of a nation's interests, then a referendum is irrelevant and illegitimate, but that fact has been conveniently ignored. See point a) above.
So, although state, county or town mandates may be irksome – and solely justified by an often unconstitutional exercise of emergency powers – they are still the product of public officials who are answerable to the public via the ballot box. A global mandate issued by the WHO and enthusiastically endorsed by the bureaucratic state, chanting 'We're only following orders' in unison, cannot be so readily challenged.
Which brings us to a two pronged offensive that has been prepped in secret and revealed while the eye is distracted by the many and various disasters engineered by the regimes; the proposed WHO pandemic treaty and, much more immediately, to the amendments to the WHO constitution, which will be debated this coming week. These amendments were proposed on 18th January, made public on 12th April, to be voted on during a meeting scheduled for 22nd- 28th May or now, in other words, and stand a very good chance of accumulating a voting majority, which will be all that is needed to make them binding. In time-honored fashion, even the controlled opposition in the conservative ranks is paying far more attention to the treaty, which is currently scheduled for 2024, whilst failing to draw the eye to the imminent danger that lays the groundwork.
Reading between the lines, it appears that the Biden administration is unhappy about the global response to the Covid 'pandemic'. Not every country did what Biden thinks they should have done, apparently. Some, like Sweden, didn't lock-down at all. Indeed, there were some states in the US which didn't toe the WHO line (notably Florida) and the unacknowledged problem is that the predicted apocalypse that should have engulfed the mavericks did not materialize. In fact, Sweden's numbers are amongst the lowest in Europe (1) and Florida, despite having an atypically elderly population, has also done better than many of the lock-down states, while managing to avoid tanking the state economy.(2)
But, the globalists being what they are, the evidence of our eyes is insufficient; after all, it's not about what works. It's about doing as you're told and dissension in the ranks will not be tolerated. So changes must be made. The initial incision must be in the International Health Regulations, as arbitrated by the WHO. A little background on that.
Although the WHO has been around since 1948, these regulations weren't deemed to be necessary prior to 2005, when the organisation commenced Operation Power Grab.
Figure 1 US Senate Joint Resolution 1948
There was no need for any upgrade in influence until the new millennium dawned. The introduction 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)
In practice, this meant that the WHO granted itself – in collaboration with member states desperate to give away their own autonomy - the power to call a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), just like that. Were that to happen, drug and vaccine contracts could be triggered. But there were still a couple of safeguards in place. Firstly, there had to be a pandemic and, secondly, whatever steps that were deemed necessary had to be instigated via a consultation between the WHO and the state itself.
After ratification of these regulations in 2007, the problems started almost immediately. By May 2009, 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 focused 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 as covert:
“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, 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)
All that was needed was an outbreak of a disease that was already known and which didn't result in enormous deaths and illnesses worldwide and the cack-handed conspiracy could be exposed for what it was, not that the subsequent scandal resulted in a reversion of the definition. More on that shortly.
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. Article 12 of the WHO constitution is reproduced below. The parts which have been crossed out constitute the proposed amendment:
Figure 2 Biden's proposed amendments.
To be clear, Biden is proposing that the WHO alone determines that there is a public health emergency of international concern; the country concerned no longer has any say in the matter. In addition, there are two other amendments of note. The first concerns what is now coyly referred to as collaboration, instead of consultation, except that the word 'collaboration', instead of its dictionary meaning - two or more people or organisations working together to achieve a goal, synonym of which is 'co-operation – now means one party doing what the other says in quick time, or else. The state has 48 hours in which to accept the WHO's 'collaboration' or the WHO shall (not may):
“If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall may, when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO...”(7) (highlighted text are the new amendments)
Almost as an afterthought, there is also this provision:
“WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications or consultations and shall assess these reports according to established epidemiological principles and then communicate information on the event to the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.”(8)
I'll come back to that; briefly, this provision will allow for the creation of some other expert body that will 'monitor' the globe, the better to provide an early warning system. You may have some idea who will be involved with that.
So the net result of all that is the following. The WHO Director General, as of 2007, was able to declare a pandemic. From 2009, the definition of 'pandemic' was redrawn, vastly increasing the proscriptive power of the WHO who were, nonetheless, still largely employed in an advisory role. These current amendments, if implemented, will remove any requirement to advise and truly co-operate. And somewhere along the line, the need for there to be a pandemic to trigger WHO involvement has also been dismantled.
These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and despite the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations. And if a nation doesn't want to play ball? These are a selection of the agencies that the WHO shall (not may) notify, in order to coerce that nation into doing it's bidding:
“United Nations, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Air Transport Association, International Shipping Federation.”(9)
The idea is clearly to ostracize any recalcitrant countries. Trying to do business without the co-operation of the international air transport or shipping community is going to prove to be impossible. Watering down the definition of what constitutes a pandemic is bad enough. But what about widening their remit still further to encompass public health emergencies? How are those identified, anyway? Well, the WHO has helpfully given an arbitrary definition of what they consider them to be and, by extension, what we are obliged to accept they are. It includes the following:
“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of diseases, especially communicable diseases, is a common danger.
Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.”(10)
That is a meddler's charter, which is exactly what it is supposed to be. As always, with the globalists, we cannot trust them as far as we can throw them. If they told us it was night-time, we'd have to open the curtains and check. So, if they say that this is all for our own good, let's just have a look at it from a different perspective; let's stress test that assertion by working out what they could do, were they so minded.
What could meet the definition of a public health emergency, if we are to accept that it doesn't only involve disease? Anything that detracts from a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being”, that's what. Which could be anything that they say it is; 'misinformation', diet, an alleged surfeit of atmospheric CO2 or methane, you name it. The Director General could allege that a racial group is being disadvantaged in some way (remember, it no longer has to be anything to do with disease) and redress must be offered.
Or he may decide that the inequality of health provision in different countries – for which read the uptake of 'vaccines' – is problematic and those countries who haven't had the alleged benefits of the Covid 'vaccine' better shape up sharpish. Where 'vaccine' take-up, in developed countries, is less than the D-G deems acceptable, governments may be encouraged to fulfill their responsibilities by providing 'adequate health and social measures' of the WHO's devising. All these options (and many more that I haven't thought of, I'm sure) are allowable under such a vague and wide-ranging remit.
This is the immediate threat, not the treaty. Without these amendments, the treaty will be so much hot air, because the WHO will still be operating in an advisory role. Granted, nations can (and do) treat their pronouncements as holy writ – when it suits their purposes – but, at present, they are not obliged to and there is no signed and sealed retributive process if they decide thanks, but no thanks. All that is set to change and, as soon as regimes have that scrap of paper to give them top cover, there will be a reason to invoke what is recorded on it.
The proposed Pandemic Treaty puts the meat on the bones. It provides clues as to what the globalists are thinking, where their emphasis lies and reveals the degree of latitude that they are seeking. And, once again, the WHO has the power because Article 19 of their constitution states that they can “adopt conventions or agreements on any matter within WHO's competence”; this an authority that they once again granted to themselves. And so, thoughtfully, they decided to get ahead of the curve:
“In a consensus decision aimed at protecting the world from future infectious diseases crises, the World Health Assembly today agreed to kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”(11)
The current plan is to have a preliminary vote on a draft next week, discuss it further in August, pass it as law in 2023 and implement it in 2024, although that might (will) be moved forward. And what clues do we have as to elite thinking? In addition to the usual blurb about pandemic preparedness and early detection – which will allow all manner of intrusions into ordinary life, without the need of an actual, current pandemic – there is another reference to “universal and equitable access to medical solutions” and a stealthy nod to “the “One Health” approach, connecting the health of humans, animals and our planet.”(12)
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.”(13)
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.”(14)
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.”(15) Notice that the alleged false or misleading information is a part of the total being touted, not its entirety.
The other part, presumably 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 the 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.”(16)
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. And a 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. But, if the globalists get their way (and I predict that they will), by the end of next week we will find ourselves ducking as the brown sticky stuff hits the rotating arm. So what can we expect from our new Fuehrers?
Lets start with the money. Who funds it? The annual budget is around $4.3 billion (that's not a typo) and it's collected in three separate ways. There's the Assessed Contributions from member countries - the equivalent of a yearly subscription - but that is the just the tip of the iceberg. The top contributors, in terms of countries are the US ($103 million), China ($57 million), then the usual suspects such as Japan, Germany, the UK, France and so on. Basically, the biggest world economies.
Next, we have the Core Voluntary Contributions Account, where we find that some countries have been extraordinarily generous with taxpayer money, but without bringing our attention it.
Figure 3 Voluntary Contributions by country
That was the year Trump put his foot down and slashed US funding. This is rather more typical.
Figure 4 Overall Voluntary Contributors
Also revelatory, I think. The GAVI Alliance was set up by Bill Gates and remains his entity so, in total, his contributions to the WHO very nearly matched the total given by the USA. Financially, it's not looking much like a Chinese proxy, is it? Voluntary contributions make up the vast bulk of income; total income in 2021 was $4.3 billion, of which $3.7 billion was voluntary.(17) And what do we get for that?
An awful lot of not very much. I say that, but it's not entirely true. There are the run of the mill scandals focusing on lax accounting ($200 million a year on travel expenses, for instance, which the WHO doesn't seem interested in tracking adequately).(18) There's a surplus of questionable activity and conflicts of interest and the top man is a Marxist who is a leader of a political party that has a reputation for extra-judicial killings and torture in his native Ethiopia. He has been the subject of an accusation of genocide, lodged at the International Criminal Court (19).
He's not a doctor of medicine – the first D-G to be a non expert – and, under his watch, the WHO has continued its uninterrupted record of incompetence, on the one hand (it is, after all, a UN agency), and corruption, on the other. I don't propose to get into the weeds with every example of WHO malfeasance or to fully document Tedros' (the D-G) manifest unsuitability for the role, but a potted recent history will give you a flavor.
Dr Tedros (he has a PhD in community health), whilst the Ethiopian Minister of Health, displayed ethnic partiality, favoring regions where his party was politically popular at the expense of others – a practice as old as time. What isn't quite as common is an active attempt to harm less pliable voters by denying them aid, poisoning them with iodine deficient salt and failing to provide appropriate AIDS prevention. The region in question, the Amhara, is the historical enemy of the Tigras people, of which Tedros is one.
Additionally, under his watch, cholera epidemics were almost a yearly occurrence but Dr Tedros, in marked contrast to his WHO era persona, refused to declare an epidemic at any point, thus ensuring that the disease had the opportunity to spread throughout the country.(20)(21) It's extremely difficult to see why he would be regarded as a suitable candidate to lead the WHO, because he clearly isn't. But, as a ventriloquist's dummy, he has potential and one man in particular has rolled his sleeve up.
The organisation itself has a reputation for doing the bidding of its funders, which is the way of the world, is it not? The evidence suggests that it was transformed into a captive agency soon after its inception, with Big Tobacco and the nuclear and pharmaceutical industries dictating policy, putting profits ahead of any genuine concern for public health.(22) There is strong evidence, when the WHO used its new found powers to declare a Swine Flu epidemic in 2009, that it was for the benefit of Big Pharma and the middlemen between the vaccine companies and the WHO.
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.(23) 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 wasn't the only occasion when the WHO went off prematurely. 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 pulled the same trick 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.”(24) 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% (25)(26) 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.(27) Their experts couldn't even bring themselves to declare that Covid was spread via droplets in the air until December 2021;(28) their guidance on self testing didn't appear until March this year.(29)
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 Authorisation (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 (despite an attempted sabotage almost as soon as the trial had started in the form of a hit piece in The Lancet which turned out to be entirely fabricated), multiple countries forced the WHO's hand. 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.(30) 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.”(31)
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 the bad people here (as well as those who administered the trials) were those in the WHO who designed the trial and set the dosing.(32) And who was it is that part funded this trial in the UK? That man Gates again. His fingerprints are present at every single scene.
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, and only one country (the US) 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...”(33)
Even this appraisal is 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.(34) And because Gates is vaccine obsessed and in bed with his partners in Big Pharma (he has vast investments in vaccine companies, for one), other health priorities are inevitably second best – minor concerns such as the alleviation of poverty, nutrition and clean water.(35)
Gates appears to be the man with his sleeve rolled up. Prior To Tedros' election, in 2009, he collaborated with vaccine companies that tested vaccines on Indian village girls between the ages of 9 and 15. Seven of them died, many more fell ill, and the subsequent investigation revealed that informed consent was not obtained. Parents and children had no idea as to the nature of the vaccines.(36) This isn't the only problem in India. Gates' organisation GAVI funded the introduction of a 5 in 1 vaccine called Pentavalent; at least 54 babies have died as a result of it.(37) Its use has also been suspended in Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Vietnam too. There has also been a little local difficulty in Africa concerning just another vaccine.
This is not a man truly interested in philanthropy. Every seemingly altruistic gesture helps guarantee profits from his investments. He wields disproportionate influence over many areas of life, including tech, agriculture and food policy (including fake food), weather modification, surveillance, you name it; he's invested in it. He is a philanthro-capitalist. He invests billions of his own money in the very companies that his foundation invests in.(38) He is on the record as saying that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers for him, with returns of 20 to 1.(39)
However, in addition to his self interested vaccine advocacy, there are two specific links to the proposed treaty. You will recall that the WHO allowed itself 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 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.”(40)
And the digital ID's 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 him.(41)(42) So, what would be the point of one of those, apart from its stated purpose? It doesn't take much energy to connect the dots:
“A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”(43)
Surely not? Actually, yes. According to the BIS (Bank of International Settlements, the central bank's central bank), 86% of central banks are researching CBCD's, 60% were fiddling with the tech and 14% were in the business of pilot projects. This has been prompted by changes in technology and disruptions like Covid-19, according to them. It's noticeable how there is never any detail given; just bland statements that sit there, unencumbered by evidence.(44)
Once again, I urge you to consider what could be done, not what you believe will be done. The WHO (and by extension, Gates), aided and abetted by the many countries that have so far expressed their support, are intending to establish a framework which allows the WHO unprecedented control over nation states. The power they will wield will be greater than any other supranational organisation on the globe. Nothing about their conduct to date inspires confidence and, ultimately, why would such power be accrued unless it was going to be used? As I've demonstrated, any public health emergency that the D-G cares to designate will suffice, once the treaty is in place. Before that treaty is fully agreed, however, he will still require a 'pandemic'. Is there anything around right now that might fit the bill, that might allow Tedros (Gates) to throw his weight around prematurely? Why yes, there are at least two candidates, plus a reheated Covid.
A rejuvenation of the Covid narrative is still possible, certainly in the US. The federal government has indicated that it will extend its designation of Covid as a public health emergency through to mid-July at minimum. This allows it to continue the authorization of 'vaccines' and other treatments (such as remdesivir) which would necessarily have to be curtailed otherwise. Naturally, the circumstances do not justify any such extension; from an alleged high of 800,000 new cases a day in January, the seven day average is now running at under 27,000. The claimed daily death rate is under 500, down six fold over the same period.(45) But, as it is with the WHO, so it is with presidential declarations of emergency, albeit there is actually a review mechanism for the latter; it's just not deployed. One wonders what an extra two months of potential measures will net the globalists, especially as the public ennui over Covid must have penetrated even their echo chamber.
The other possibilities are the monkeypox, which has come upon us rapidly and extremely conveniently. What are the odds of an infectious disease making an appearance the week before the WHO meeting to amend the constitution? It's truly remarkable. Especially as, traditionally, it's a disease that spreads slowly and is easily containable.(46) Just not this time. This time, it's popping up all over Europe and now the Americas simultaneously. The UK, Portugal, Spain, Massachusetts – and seemingly, transmission is not in the normal fashion, via the respiratory tract, but by sexual relations.(47) And, whisper it quietly, but it seems to be sexual relations between men. Naturally, the usual platitudes are being given another burnishing and the possibility that the pox with spread significantly “cannot be ruled out.”(48) That's what they say when something 'novel' comes along.
Figure 5 Monkeypox
It doesn't look very nice and it can occasionally cause severe symptoms. It lasts two to four weeks; symptoms may include fever, headaches, exhaustion and, presumably, blisters. It's that last bit that makes it a different animal to Covid. Covid symptoms weren't always present in alleged Covid sufferers and, in any event, Covid symptoms are the same as any number of other respiratory diseases such as flu and pneumonia. Plus, of course, the whole population was supposedly at risk. Monkeypox, on the other hand, it currently claimed to be solely affecting gay or bisexual men and the symptoms would seem to be impossible to either fake or mistake for another disease. The last outbreak in the US, in 2003, affected 79 people, only two of whom fell seriously ill. All made a full recovery.(49)
One factor is the same; there's a recently approved vaccine available. Forty nine years after its discovery, in September 2019, a German company licensed a vaccine which was then approved.(50) How lucky are we? Although it doesn't seem like it's readily available as even though the US has ordered millions of doses, they won't be available until 2023, which doesn't really help us now. It's difficult to see how this can be leveraged into more lock-downs and mandates, but the WHO are nonetheless giving it their full attention on Monday when they are, conveniently, already scheduled to meet.(51) And it does depend how brazen they want to be. Until the treaty arrives, they still need a 'pandemic' to justify leaping into action and saving us all. Never say never. The globalists often score an A+ in brazenness.
Marburgs Disease, which was looking like a possibility late last year, is currently at the back of the field. Nobody in a position to know what is coming next has mentioned it since Gates did in April last year. However, there is one pandemic that is already with us which fits the bill much better. Certainly, an ex-director of the CDC thinks so:
“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.”(52)
Bird flu (H5N1) is currently not transmissible between humans, so one might think that the ex-CDC man had taken leave of his senses. Sadly not. Even though have only ever been 860 known infections, matters have become complicated of late.(53) Some familiar figures have been colluding behind the scenes, in a not very surprising fashion. Fauci and Gates have been funding gain of function research in Ukrainian biolabs – the ones that don't exist. The intention? Making bird flu transmissible, human to human.(54)(55)(56)
It's difficult to credit the rank stupidity, arrogance or malevolence displayed by these people. In order to circumvent the temporary ban on gain of function research in the US, some research was off-shored to Ukraine. Some was done in Wisconsin. It's believed that even the emergence of the non-transmissible version was the result of lab tinkering. The latest iteration definitely is. Long story short, at least three different sets of researchers, all funded by Fauci, have succeeded in making avian flu airborne and transmissible between humans. They've even created a bird flu/Spanish Flu hybrid.(57)(58)(59)
This is a disease that, as far as is publicly known, has absolutely no pandemic potential. And yet, an H5N1 vaccine was approved by the FDA in January 2020, further supplemental authorisation was given in 2021 and, lo and behold, the US and other countries have already begun stockpiling the vaccine (marketed as Audenz 'for 2022').(60)
Allow me to mix in a couple more ingredients. Since early April, in the US, a highly pathogenic strain of bird flu has been ripping through poultry herds – allegedly. As of early April, over 23 million birds in 24 US states had been culled. (61) There are reports of chick sellers not being allowed to restock.
And, wouldn't you know it, the second case of human avian influenza was diagnosed in Colorado in late April and some poor unfortunate in China (again) tested positive for H3N8, a strand of bird flu that was thought to only be infectious to animals and birds – again, allegedly.(62)
Can you begin to see a pattern developing here? The difference, this time, is that it's possible to see what looks like a diligent attempt to prep us for another pandemic before it happens, rather than afterwards. There is one other item of interest. Researchers from Ohio State University are posing a theory; wild White Tailed deer are believed to be carriers of Covid. Yes, indeed. That must mean that a lab engineered virus that was specifically designed to infect humans has now done the highly infeasible and jumped from humans to animals – they believe. Because other studies told them so. According to them, and despite a complete absence of credible evidence (the test used on the deer was the wholly unreliable PCR test, abandoned even by the CDC), this might complicate our mitigation strategies; we may have to 'vaccinate' the deer.(63)
However, this direction of travel may not be as random as it seems. We may be witnessing the birth of another hoax, one that may allow the globalists to squeeze us still further:
“... did you catch that little subtle influence and propaganda of COVID in animals transmitting to us? It is becoming clearer that that is where the narrative is heading ... The wicked handlers need to get the masses off of meats, and so, the ‘solution’ will be to artificially kill them off, vaccinate them to death, and mandate it be taken off the shelves.”(64)
Some of the above is conjecture – I don't know what the next pandemic will be. I pretty much know that there will be one soon, as strenuous attempts to normalize that outcome are coming thick and fast. The Leftist trope which holds that man is bad, that he has been encroaching on nature, abusing the planet, becoming vulnerable to zoonotic disease transfer, is still with us. It serves as a cover, excusing manufactured pandemics and fraudulent claims about man made global warming. I don't see why they would change a winning strategy.
Would the globalists devise ways to award themselves more power? Of course they would. Would they utilize another fake pandemic so soon after the last one? We might suppose that would be over-egging the pudding, but we would not be thinking like the enemy. Look at what has been visited upon us since Boris supposedly lost his bottle and triggered the worldwide collapse of much of the Covid tyranny; a fuel crisis, a food crisis and a war into which the elites have been inexorably drawing us. In about three months. They don't seem to have an off switch.
It's just possible that the war is losing its pull, and it appears that NATO is going to have to put up or shut up pretty smartish as the Ukrainian front collapses and the probability of defeat draws ever closer. However, other building blocks are clearly being maneuvered into place. 'Conspiracy theories' have become fact at an alarming rate in the past two years and coincidences simply don't exist when active measures, rather than random circumstances, are the point at issue.
There is about to be a transfer of power. Accountability will, henceforth, be non-existent if the globalists get their way. This is the whole point – it doesn't matter if you complain about it. The idea is that the powers that be will simply defer to the orders they have received, because that's the game that they have been playing and now they can say they don't even have a choice any more. Tedros (Gates) said so.
The Amendments and the proposed treaty, taken together, will set in place a platform for global governance. Another pandemic could make it virtually impossible for dissidents to refuse to play ball again. Add in a manufactured food crisis and famine and then consider how easy it will be to provide solutions to those who want to co-operate and to justify action against those who will not. Gates' digital ID's will be compulsory, but it won't allow you to collect your food ration unless you're up to date on your 'vaccinations.'
Neither will you spending any of your cash if you aren't obedient enough; programmable digital currencies will take care of that. Creating problems, solving problems (not merely restoring what was, but navigating a third way) in a seemingly endless calamitous cycle, until our rights and freedoms are either worn away or we become so exhausted that we willingly surrender them – that's the name of the game, and the WHO power grab in the first vital step in the process. If you think it's all too far fetched, I'm here to tell you that a system like this already exists in China. But will these measures pass? The globalists need a simple majority. We'll know soon enough.
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://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf#page=4
(8) Ditto
(9) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580410
(10) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(12) https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
(13) Ditto
(14) https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1
(15) Ditto
(18) https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/world-health-organization-corrupt-wasteful/
(20) https://defyccc.com/the-crimes-of-who-director-tedros-adhanom/
(21) https://meaww.com/who-tedros-adhanom-china-coronavirus-response-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity
(22) https://www.bitchute.com/video/kEn3iVabHtao/
(24) https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-health-organization-coronavirus-what-went-wrong
(29) https://news.yahoo.com/issues-covid-testing-advice-long-161610849.html
(30) https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html
(31) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15837026/
(33) https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-doctor/
(34) https://www.bitchute.com/video/kEn3iVabHtao/
(35) https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/trustwho-documentary-who-corruption-funding-bill-gates/
(37) Ditto
(38) https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/foundations-investments-influence-covid-research/
(39) https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-vaccines-phenomenal-profit-makers/
(40) https://thecountersignal.com/bill-gates-germ-team/
(41) https://id2020.org/alliance
(42) https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles
(43) https://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-our-home-native-dictatorship/5772052
(44) https://www.bis.org/about/bisih/topics/cbdc.htm
(47) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/18/monkeypox-alert-spain-men-show-symptoms
(48) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/18/monkeypox-alert-spain-men-show-symptoms
(51) https://nypost.com/2022/05/20/who-convening-emergency-meeting-on-monkeypox/
(53) https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/is-bird-flu-being-weaponized
(54) https://reporter.nih.gov/search/x2YfCizmxkyxljH7zNTlRw/project-details/7086711
(55) https://reporter.nih.gov/search/g5XQl7YlZUmpcu6FTnXnZg/project-details/8745582
(56) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206985/
(58) https://www.businessinsider.com/yoshihiro-kawaoka-creates-deadly-flu-strain-for-resear-2014-7
(59) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682078/
(60) https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/vaccines/audenz-influenza-ah5n1-vaccine
(62) https://qz.com/2163039/what-will-cause-the-next-pandemic/
Figure 2
Figure 3 https://www.who.int/about/funding/