On Tuesday I published an article titled “Imagine a US election being halted, or even overturned, by a ‘Public Health Emergency’…” In it, I pointed out that the proposal to give the World Health Organization exclusive executive power to control entire nations’ response to “public health emergences” might be used as an excuse to disrupt or nullify national elections.
Now Off-Guardian goes further, showing that the proposed regulations will “hand the WHO the keys to global government”.
In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.
National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.
Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.
Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.
Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.
It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?
Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overt official ones.
Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:
- The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
- The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.
We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air…and I’m not talking about covid.
Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.
As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”
If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.
Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
Despite this historical example of blatant corruption … the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.
If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.
. . .
But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.
A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.
This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.
There’s more at the link.
… changes to the US regulations implementing the WHO’s policies ‘were published one day before Donald Trump was inaugurated’. What could have pushed the Obama administration into doing that? Could it have been a deliberate plan, a ‘poison pill’, to put in place some mechanism that could be used to override a subsequent administration, that was not doing what our ‘grey eminences‘ wanted? Might such regulations be used to either prevent, or override, a future election on the grounds of a fraudulent, made-up ‘Public Health Emergency’?
In the light of Off-Guardian’s report above, I’d say that’s a long way from far-fetched speculation. Instead, it appears more and more likely. To those who say it could never happen, that the US constitution prevents it, I can only point out that the US Senate has already ratified this country’s accession to the World Health Organization, and therefore approved the powers granted to that organization under its founding treaty. The new WHO regulations being proposed (by the Biden administration, no less!) are merely an amendment to powers that already exist. They would not have to be ratified again by the US Senate; they would be binding on all member nations (including ours) six months after they were approved. Argue all you like, but that’s the simple fact of the matter.
The more I read about the proposed changes to WHO regulations, the more worried I am by them. I think they’re nothing more than a pretext to impose “one world government” by declaring a health emergency that requires nations to surrender their sovereignty to health authorities. It’s the thin edge of the wedge, the camel’s nose under the tent. Once such powers are in operation, who knows what further mischief might be arranged by those wielding them – mischief that has nothing to do with health at all, but everything to do with reducing or abolishing nation-states’ rights to control their own affairs?
Draw your own conclusions.