U.S. government officials, along with representatives of over 150 nations, are actively negotiating amendments to existing International Health Regulations and a new treaty governing future pandemics. If this treaty and certain amendments are passed, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, would be handed the power to unilaterally dictate what constitutes an actual or potential Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Previously, the role of the WHO has been advisory, but this draft treaty in combination with proposed amendments to the WHO’s governing documents would make WHO “recommendations” legally binding under international law. The WHO would then have wide latitude in the event of any public health emergency (per Article 18 IHR recommendations), with the authority to: require medical examinations; review or require proof of vaccination or other prophylaxes; place “suspects” under public health observation; implement quarantine, isolation, or contact tracing.
Additionally, provisions in both the pandemic treaty and any amendments dictate the censorship of health “misinformation” and “disinformation” — in violation of our First Amendment. The WHO would also have the power to determine which drugs or treatments can be used, and which ones will be restricted. Is It an Agreement, an Accord, or a Treaty? Though the pandemic treaty has been referred to as an “accord” or “agreement,” this is not the truth. What are the facts? In 2005, President George W. Bush unilaterally signed the United States onto the International Health Regulations (IHR), declaring it an “agreement.” But “because the revised IHR included language making it legally binding under international law, the 2005 document was a treaty that should have received a 2/3 majority approval by the U.S. Senate,” according to Liberty Counsel. The WHO defines the IHR as a legally binding “instrument of international law.” Well, on whom is it legally binding? On 196 countries.
Here’s the critical fact that causes confusion and allows miscommunication, and Liberty Counsel presents it succinctly: “Individual nations can make more rules or laws that are more restrictive than what the WHO is demanding, but they cannot make rules or laws that are less restrictive” than the WHO’s legally binding standards. Who, exactly, is running the WHO? WHO Director-General Dr. Ghebreyesus is not a medical doctor, but he is a Marxist revolutionary. He once led a communist terror organization known as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, in Ethiopia. He calls the legitimate concerns about the IHR “fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories.” But he’s not the biggest concern. It’s communist China that is really at the helm of the WHO, which is the supranational health arm of the U.N. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO adopted the “China Model,” which featured Chinese communist-style lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Frank J. Gaffney Jr., executive chairman of the Centre for Security Policy, a co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, warns: “If they can get two treaties adopted in May, Tedros would be able to compel compliance with a China Model 2.0, featuring surveillance, censorship, and other totalitarian control techniques that will crush our sovereignty and freedoms in the name of ‘global governance.’”
Gaffney points out some of the many ways the WHO is untrustworthy. The organization lied about the nature and origin of the COVID virus, thus untruthfully deflecting attention from China. It endorsed China-style lockdowns, mask/vaccine mandates, and digital passports/IDs. It suppressed effective treatments and instead demanded poorly tested gene therapies (“vaccines”). It encouraged censorship of doctors, scientists, and medical experts, while taking funding for itself from big pharma. Tedros has repeatedly stated that a new pathogen is primed to strike, insisting that it’s “a matter of when, not if,” and claiming that it could be 20 times deadlier than COVID-19. This prediction then creates pressure to sign the treaty by May 2024, even labelling it a “critical mission for humanity.” Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician and a staunch medical researcher who proved that the world’s largest anthrax epidemic was due to biological warfare. She maintains that the WHO’s pandemic treaty and amendments are designed around a biosecurity agenda that will create more pandemics, rather than stopping them.
“There is no logical reason a disease 20 times more virulent will appear out of nowhere unless it comes from a gain-of-function lab which the WHO proposed to supervise in the February 2024 version of the pandemic accord. “This might be a recipe for population control. It’s extraordinarily dangerous. It is illogical. It is unscientific. And we must stop it right now.” Gaffney and Nass are not the only ones sounding the alarm about the WHO and this upcoming vote. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., have also voiced their concerns. And Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the WHO Withdrawal Act in June 2022, which requires the president to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO (repealing a law that originally authorized us to join) and prevents any taxpayer money from going toward participation.
Source: Intercessors for America
Print This Post
Comments are closed