But if dengue fever continues to rip across the globe like it has been, or if H5N1 mutates into a form that can spread easily from person to person, fear of what is coming next could potentially revive the negotiations.

On Friday, the WHO publicly admitted that negotiations had ended without producing a final draft of the treaty.  The following comes from ABC News…

On Friday, Roland Driece, co-chair of WHO’s negotiating board for the agreement, acknowledged that countries were unable to come up with a draft. WHO had hoped a final draft treaty could be agreed on at its yearly meeting of health ministers starting Monday in Geneva.

“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” he said, adding that finalizing an international agreement on how to respond to a pandemic was critical “for the sake of humanity.”

Driece said the World Health Assembly next week would take up lessons from its work and plot the way forward, urging participants to make “the right decisions to take this process forward” to one day reach a pandemic agreement “because we need it.”

At one time, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus had such high hopes for the treaty, and he still insists that “anything is possible”…

Addressing a sullen final day of negotiations, the WHO chief insisted, “This is not a failure.”

“We will try everything — believing that anything is possible — and make this happen because the world still needs a pandemic treaty,” he said.

Since the treaty is dead for now, this means that the WHO will not be running the show when the next global pandemic arrives.

And we should be very thankful for that.

But it is just a matter of time before there are renewed calls for a treaty, because we are already seeing some very chilling things happen all over the globe.

In areas that have tropical climates, dengue fever is spreading at an unprecedented rate.

This disease is also known as “bone crusher fever”, and there have already been millions of confirmed cases in 2024…

Australian travellers are being warned of a sharp increase in a potentially deadly virus, commonly known as the ‘bone crusher fever’ — with more than five million people now contracting the condition – and cases almost doubling in 2024 alone.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 1Cover Travel Insurance, dengue fever — a potentially fatal acute infectious disease caused by a virus and transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito — has seen a rise likely due to increased post-Covid travel and the El Niño climate cycle.

Earlier this week, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reported that dengue fever outbreaks are happening globally, with a “higher-than-usual number of cases” being witnessed in Africa, Asia, Central and South America and The Pacific.

We have never seen an outbreak of dengue fever on this scale before.

And it is here in the United States too.

In fact, Miami has become the “epicenter” for the spread of dengue fever in this country…

Miami’s role as the gateway to Latin America has also made it the US epicenter of dengue fever.

Cases of the mosquito-borne illness in Florida have more than doubled this year compared with the same period in 2023, as unsuspecting travelers have carried the virus back from the Caribbean and Southern Hemisphere. Now, authorities are working to keep the disease from infecting the local mosquito population before this summer’s heavy rains turbocharge the risks.

Malaria is another disease that is spread by mosquitos that is causing major problems all over the world this year.

Could it be possible that researchers that have been purposely breeding tens of millions of mosquitos have made a huge mistake?

The bird flu is also making lots of headlines right now.

At the end of last week, officials at the CDC warned that they are bracing themselves for the “possibility of increased risk to human health”…

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a summary on Friday that it is preparing for the “possibility of increased risk to human health” from bird flu following an outbreak among dairy cows and two confirmed human cases.

H5N1 has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of birds over the past couple of years, but as long as it wasn’t affecting humans most people weren’t too concerned.

Well, now it has been infecting cows all over the country, and 19 of 23 wastewater sites in Texas recently tested positive for the virus…

In Texas, for example, 19 out of 23 wastewater sites were found to contain traces of the virus between early March and the end of April, according to Texas Wastewater Environmental Biomonitoring. Meanwhile, the state has some 400 dairy farms, and just 14 herds have tested positive for bird flu to date, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

The bird flu has also been showing up in grocery store milk from coast to coast, but experts insist that we should not be concerned because the virus is killed by the pasteurization process.

But officials are warning us not to drink raw milk because they believe that it could “make you very sick”…

As the avian influenza virus, type A H5N1, continues to spread to an unknown number of dairy cows, health experts are informing the public milk and other dairy products are still safe to consume – with one major exception.

When a cow is infected with bird flu, high amounts of the virus can be detected in its milk. However, the pasteurization process kills off or inactivates the virus, the Food and Drug Administration says.

Raw milk, on the other hand, is not pasteurized. “Raw milk can be contaminated with harmful germs that can make you very sick,” the CDC says on its website.

Many scientists are worried that it could be just a matter of time before the bird flu mutates into a form that can spread very easily among humans.

Let us hope that is not true, because more than 50 percent of the humans that have tested positive for H5N1 since 2003 have ended up dead.

We live at a time when it has become so easy for just about anyone to monkey around with a deadly disease and release it into the public.

Personally, I am entirely convinced that deadly diseases will play a major role in reshaping society during the apocalyptic era that is ahead of us.

Our ability to create deadly diseases now far surpasses our ability to control them, and the fear that global outbreaks create will be used by those that wish to accumulate power for themselves.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

To understand this, one has to get to grips with the mode of rule called totalitarian government, of course, but I doubt whether most people have an adequate grasp of full-fledged totalitarian rule, despite recently experiencing it to a certain degree under ‘pandemic’ conditions. Should the amendments proposed by the WHO be accepted in May, the citizens of the world would be subjected to unadulterated totalitarianism, however, so it is worthwhile exploring the full implications of this ‘anonymous’ mode of governance here.

This is done in the hope that, if representatives of the people – which is what they are supposed to be – in legislative bodies around the world were to read this article, as well as others related to the same topic, they would think twice before supporting a motion or bill which would, in effect, grant the WHO the right to usurp the sovereignty of member nations. The recent developments in the state of Louisiana in the US, which amount to the rejection of the WHO’s authority, should be an inspiration to other states and countries to follow its example. This is the way to beat the WHO’s mendacious ‘pandemic treaty.’

On her website, called Freedom Research, Dr Meryl Nass has described the WHO’s notion of ‘pandemic preparedness’ as a ‘scam/boondoggle/Trojan horse,’ which aims (among other things) to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to the WHO as well as other industries, in order to vindicate censorship in the name of ‘public health,’ and perhaps most importantly, to transfer sovereignty regarding decision-making for ‘public health’ globally to the Director-General of the WHO (which means that legally, member countries would lose their sovereignty).

In addition, she highlights the fact that the WHO intends to use the idea of ‘One Health’ to subsume all living beings, ecosystems, as well as climate change under its own ‘authority;’ further, to acquire more pathogens for wide distribution, in this way exacerbating the possibility of pandemics while obscuring their origin, and in the event of such pandemics occurring, justifying the development of more (mandatory) ‘vaccines’ and the mandating of vaccine passports (and of lockdowns) globally, thus increasing control (the key term here) over populations. Should its attempt at a global power grab succeed, the WHO would have the authority to impose any ‘medical’ programme it deems necessary for ‘world health,’ regardless of their efficacy and side-effects (including death).

In the preceding paragraph I italicised the word ‘control’ as a key term. What should be added to it is the term ‘total’ – that is, ‘total control.’ This is the gist of totalitarian rule, and it should therefore be easy to see that what the WHO (together with the WEF and the UN) strives for is total or complete control of all people’s lives.

No one has analysed and elaborated on totalitarianism from this perspective more thoroughly than the German-born, American philosopher, Hannah Arendt, and her monumental study of this phenomenon – The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951 and in enlarged format, 1958) still stands as the authoritative source for the understanding of its historical manifestations. The latter, focused on by Arendt, are 20^th-century Nazism and Stalinism, but it is not difficult to perceive its lineaments in what we have been living through since 2020 – although a strong case could be made that 2001 marked its identifiable beginning, when (in the wake of 9/11) the Patriot Act was passed, arguably laying the authoritarian groundwork for totalitarian rule as clearly perceived by Henry Giroux.

Arendt (p. 274 of the Harvest, Harcourt edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1976) singles out ‘total terror’ as the essence of totalitarian government, and elaborates as follows:

By pressing men against each other, total terror destroys the space between them; compared to the condition within its iron band, even the desert of tyranny [which she distinguishes from totalitarianism; B.O.], insofar as it is still some kind of space, appears like a guarantee of freedom. Totalitarian government does not just curtail liberties or abolish essential freedoms; nor does it, at least to our limited knowledge, succeed in eradicating the love for freedom from the hearts of man. It destroys the one essential prerequisite of all freedom which is simply the capacity of motion which cannot exist without space.

Reading this evocative characterisation of totalitarianism in terms of ‘total terror’ makes one realise anew, with a start, how fiendishly clever the perpetrators of the so-called ‘pandemic’ emergency were – which was no real pandemic, of course, as the German government recently admitted. It was the thin edge of the wedge, as it were, to insinuate ‘total terror’ into our lives by means of curtailing our access to free movement in space. ‘Lockdowns’ are the signature tool for implementing restrictions of free movements in space.

It may not, on the face of it, appear to be the same as, or similar to, the incarceration of prisoners in the concentration camps under Nazi rule, but arguably the psychological effects of lockdowns approximate those experienced by inmates of these notorious camps in the 1940s. After all, if you are not allowed to leave your house, except to go to the shop to buy food and other essentials before you hurry back home – where you dutifully sanitise all the items you bought (a concrete reminder that venturing out in space is ‘potentially lethal’) – the imperative is the same: ‘You are not allowed out of this enclosure, except under specified conditions.’ It is understandable that the imposition of such strict spatial boundaries engenders a pervasive sense of fear, which eventually morphs into terror.

Small wonder the pseudo-authorities promoted – if not ‘commanded’ – ‘working (and studying) from home,’ leaving millions of people cloistered in their houses in front of their computer screens (Plato’s cave wall). And banning meetings in public, except for a few concessions as far as the numbers of attendees at certain gatherings were concerned, was just as effective regarding the intensification of terror. Most people would not dare transgress these spatial restrictions, given the effectiveness of the campaign, to instil a dread of the supposedly lethal ‘novel coronavirus’ in populations, exacerbating ‘total terror’ in the process. The images of patients in hospitals, attached to ventilators, and sometimes looking appealingly, desperately at the camera, only served to exacerbate this feeling of dread.

With the advent of the much-hyped Covid pseudo-‘vaccines,’ another aspect of generating terror among the populace manifested itself in the guise of relentless censorship of all dissenting views and opinions on the ‘efficacy and safety’ of these, as well as on the comparable effectiveness of early treatment of Covid by means of proven remedies such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. The clear aim of this was to discredit contrarians who raised doubts over the official valorisation of these supposedly miraculous cures for the disease, and to isolate them from the mainstream as ‘conspiracy theorists.’

Arendt’s insight into the indispensable function of space for human movement also casts the WEF’s plans to create ‘15-minute cities’ worldwide in a disturbing new light. These have been described as ‘open-air concentration camps,’ which would eventually become a reality by prohibiting movement outside of these demarcated areas, after an initial period of selling the idea as a way of combating climate change by walking and cycling instead of using carbon-emitting motor cars. The WEF and WHO’s ‘concern’ with climate change as a putative threat to global health offers further justification for these planned variations on prisons for the thinly disguised incarceration of millions of people.

The pertinence of Arendt’s thinking on totalitarianism for the present does not end here, though. Just as relevant as the manner in which it cultivates terror is her identification of loneliness and isolation as prerequisites for total domination. She describes isolation – in the political sphere – as ‘pre-totalitarian.’ It is typical of the tyrannical governments of dictators (which are pre-totalitarian), where it functions to prevent citizens from wielding some power by acting together.

Loneliness is the counterpart of isolation in the social sphere; the two are not identical, and the one can be the case without the other. One can be isolated or kept apart from others without being lonely; the latter only sets in when one feels abandoned by all other human beings. Terror, Arendt sagely observes, can ‘rule absolutely’ only over people who have been ‘isolated against each other’ (Arendt 1975, pp. 289-290). It therefore stands to reason that, to achieve the triumph of totalitarian rule, those promoting its inception would create the circumstances where individuals feel increasingly isolated as well as lonely.

It is superfluous to remind anyone of the systematic inculcation of both of these conditions in the course of the ‘pandemic’ through what has been discussed above, particularly lockdowns, the restriction of social contact at all levels, and through censorship, which – as remarked above – was clearly intended to isolate dissenting individuals. And those who were isolated in this way, were often – if not usually – abandoned by their family and friends, with the consequence that loneliness could, and sometimes did, follow. In other words, the tyrannical imposition of Covid regulations served the (probably intended) purpose of preparing the ground for totalitarian rule by creating the conditions for isolation and loneliness to become pervasive.

How does totalitarian government differ from tyranny and authoritarianism, where one may still discern the figures of the despot, and the sway of some abstract ideal, respectively? Arendt writes that (p. 271-272):

If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of totalitarian domination.

Terror is the realization of the law of movement; its chief aim is to make it possible for the force of nature or of history to race freely through mankind, unhindered by any spontaneous human action. As such, terror seeks to ‘stabilize’ men in order to liberate the forces of nature or history. It is this movement which singles out the foes of mankind against whom terror is let loose, and no free action of either opposition or sympathy can be permitted to interfere with the elimination of the ‘objective enemy’ of History or Nature, of the class or the race. Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; ‘guilty’ is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgement over ‘inferior races,’ over individuals ‘unfit to live,’ over ‘dying classes and decadent peoples.’ Terror executes these judgements, and before its court, all concerned are subjectively innocent: the murdered because they did nothing against the system, and the murderers because they do not really murder but execute a death sentence pronounced by some higher tribunal. The rulers themselves do not claim to be just or wise, but only to execute historical or natural laws; they do not apply [positive] laws, but execute a movement in accordance with its inherent law. Terror is lawfulness, if law is the law of the movement of some suprahuman force, Nature or History.

The reference to nature and history as suprahuman forces pertains to what Arendt (p. 269) claims to have been the undergirding beliefs of National Socialism and Communism, respectively, in the laws of nature and of history as being independent, virtually primordial powers in themselves. Hence the justification of terror being inflicted on those who seem to stand in the way of the unfolding of these impersonal forces. When read carefully, the excerpt, above, paints a picture of totalitarian rule as something predicated on the neutralisation of people, as human beings, in society as potential agents or participants in its organisation or the direction in which it develops. The ‘rulers’ are not rulers in the traditional sense; they are merely there to ensure that the suprahuman force in question is left unhindered to unfold as it ‘should.’

It takes no genius to perceive in Arendt’s perspicacious characterisation of totalitarian domination – which she relates to Nazism and Stalinism as its historical embodiments – a kind of template which applies to the emerging totalitarian character of what first manifested itself in 2020 as iatrocracy, under the subterfuge of a global health emergency – something well known to all of us today. Since then other features of this totalitarian movement have emerged, all of which cohere into what may be described, in ideological terms, as ‘transhumanism.’

This, too, fits into Arendt’s account of totalitarianism – not the transhumanist character, as such, of this latest incarnation of the attempt to harness humanity as a whole to a suprahuman power, but its ideological status. Just as the Nazi regime justified its operations by appealing to nature (in the guise of the vaunted superiority of the ‘Aryan race,’ for example), so the group of technocratic globalists driving the (not so) ‘Great Reset’ appeals to the idea of going ‘beyond humanity’ to a supposed superior (non-natural) ‘species’ instantiating a fusion between humans and machines – also anticipated, it seems, by the ‘singularity’ artist called Stelarc. I emphasised ‘idea’ because, as Arendt observes (p. 279-280),

An ideology is quite literally what its name indicates: it is the logic of an idea. Its subject matter is history, to which the ‘idea’ is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same ‘law’ as the logical exposition of its ‘idea.’

Given the nature of an ideology, explicated above, it should be evident how this applies to the transhumanist ideology of the neo-fascist cabal: the idea underpinning the historical process has supposedly always been a kind of transhumanist teleology – allegedly the (previously hidden) telos or goal of all of history has constantly been the attainment of a state of surpassing mere Homo and Gyna sapiens sapiens (the doubly wise human man and woman) and actualising the ’transhuman.’ Is it at all surprising that they have claimed to have acquired god-like powers?

This further explains the unscrupulousness with which the transhumanist globalists can countenance the functioning and debilitating effects of ‘total terror’ as identified by Arendt. ‘Total terror’ here means the pervasive or totalising effects of, for example, installing encompassing systems of impersonal, largely AI-controlled surveillance, and communicating to people – at least initially – that it is for their own safety and security. The psychological consequences, however, amount to a subliminal awareness of the closure of ‘free space,’ which is replaced by a sense of spatial confinement, and of there being ‘no way out.’

Against this backdrop, reflecting on the looming possibility that the WHO may succeed in getting compliant nations to accept the proposed amendments to their health regulations, yields greater insight into the concrete effects this would have. And these aren’t pretty, to say the least. In a nutshell, it means that this unelected organisation would have the authority to proclaim lockdowns and ‘medical (or health) emergencies,’ as well as mandatory ‘vaccinations’ at the whim of the WHO’s Director-General, reducing the freedom to traverse space freely to ironclad spatial confinement in one fell swoop. This is what ‘total terror’ would mean. It is my fervent hope that something can still be done to avert this imminent nightmare.

Critics of the treaty warn that this global pact is nothing but a power grab that incentivizes the creation of a biomedical police state. Critics also warn, that by centralizing gain-of-function data, it would be impossible to trace the source of future biolab leaks. The treaty would enable perpetual experimentation on human populations, through pandemic propaganda campaigns or through new vaccine and testing programs that are mandated into existence.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty would continue to disguise bioweapon and vaccine profiteering as “pandemics” that require fearful obedience

With WHO and its financiers calling the shots, all future biolab leaks could be hidden and disguised. Any investigation into misconduct at these biolabs would be forbidden. WHO would immediately call lab leaks “conspiracy theory” or “misinformation.” This is currently how WHO and its body of experts handle any inquiry that comes their way about COVID-19, and it is exactly how the WHO helped quash investigation into the very real possibility of a laboratory leak for SARS-CoV-2.

Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has struggled to garner global support for the globalist’s “pandemic treaty.” The treaty would help normalize predatory testing and vaccine development, which requires gain-of-function research to understand how pathogens will infect and harm human populations.

The WHO claims the treaty will help “prevent future pandemics.” However, as seen during the covid-19 scandal, there are several multinational business interests that seek to capitalize on pandemic messaging, fear-based propaganda and the ensuing hysteria. COVID-19 testing programs, which failed from the start, are just one of the lucrative business plans built into the “pandemic treaty.” Further mRNA experiments will continue to bring in billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies, as governments are leveraged to enforce unlawful mandates onto populations.

WHO’s pandemic treaty will continue genetic surveillance and exploitation of human immune systems

As the world has learned, developing pathogens of pandemic potential does NOT “prevent future pandemics.” Pandemic messaging can be created out of thin air, and biological threats can be leaked, whether accidentally or intentionally, so that Big Pharma and other nefarious, special interests can take advantage of populations.

According to the treaty, “Government officials, researchers and workers across sectors at the local, national, regional, and global levels should implement joint responses to health threats.” The treaty continues, “This includes developing shared databases and surveillance across different sectors, and identifying new solutions that address the root causes and links between risks and impacts.”

The treaty requires all countries to obtain and sequence the genomes of the?pandemic pathogens they collect. The countries are then required to share the most dangerous and deadly?agents with WHO. Participating countries are also required to construct genetic sequencing labs, which paves the way to sequence everyone’s DNA.

WHO failed to fully implement vaccine passports during their covid-19 pandemic test run. These databases and surveillance systems will rely on more vaccine mandates and coercive testing systems that enhance the genetic surveillance of the population.

As WHO collects genetic information from populations around the globe, the threat of race-specific bioweapons becomes real. As vaccine data is shared, governments and AI systems can learn how to exploit the cells of select demographics. This will lead to the exploitation of the human immune system, and AI systems can be trained to find the best ways to profit from human disease. This is already taking place with new mRNA platforms and “boosters” that are adjusted to resemble the next coronavirus variant. This disease profiteering will inevitably extend to new releases of aerosolized bioweapons and new declarations of “pandemics.”

Free people around the globe must break free from this global system of bio-terror and propaganda and work together to deconstruct predatory bioweapon and vaccine development.

Sources include:

• LifesiteNews.com
• BMJ.com [PDF]
• TheGuardian.com
• Brighteon.com
• MidwestDoctor.com

In a Conservative Political Action Conference panel hosted by Jan Jekielek, a senior editor of The Epoch Times, physicians Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Brooke Miller explained what they see as a plan to expand the centralization of medicine. The event took place at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Fort Washington, Maryland, on Feb. 24.

“This appears to be a power grab,” said Dr. Malone, who hosts the EpochTV show “Fallout.”

While the WHO and its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus deny it, Dr. Malone said the WHO, an agency of the United Nations, is proposing an international treaty that would allow the WHO to establish treatment norms and define a public health crisis “for anything they wish.”

Dr. Malone said this power can be used to tell the United States what to do about matters like energy, carbon dioxide emissions, firearms, and abortion.

“Everything falls under public health as an issue, and then they will have the authority to mandate what nation-states shall do in response to those public health emergencies,” Dr. Malone said.

States that object, Dr. Malone said, will be subject to potential sanctions or other actions if they don’t follow the WHO’s commands. He argued this is an unconstitutional action since the federal government is not granted public health authority under the Constitution.

“This goes all the way down to the level of the WHO being able to stipulate what medical products or procedures you receive, what vaccines you take, what medicines you’re allowed to take,” Dr. Malone said.

“This is centralized medicine on a global scale.”

Both Dr. Malone and Dr. Miller lamented the shift away from patient-driven medicine toward what they called checklist medicine.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, both physicians saw how the medical world rejected researching novel ideas and treatments for the disease and instead followed the orders of the top public health authorities.

Dr. Miller said when he was investigating treatments for COVID and presented them to fellow doctors, they “didn’t want to hear about it.”

“They only wanted to follow what the central planners told them to do,” Dr. Miller said.

Even without a WHO treaty, Dr. Malone said the medical profession is now becoming more centralized, and thinking outside the box is being punished.

“In many states, many nations, there are now laws being enacted that physicians that speak about their opinions, their observations, which differ from the approved narrative, they’re subjected to jail time in major fines up to $200,000,” Dr. Malone said. “This is coming through in Canada and already is enacted in France.”

This shift, Dr. Malone said, completely ignores the Hippocratic Oath a doctor should swear to, which compels them always to do what’s best for the individual patient.

The medical industry wants doctors to work off of a checklist and follow a set of prescribed orders, Dr. Malone said. Furthermore, he said the breakdown of individualized care is part of a broader objective: artificial intelligence-driven medicine.

“That’s where they want to go … standardized medicine where you’re all a number, and you are processed through the system given a diagnosis,” Dr. Malone said. “Checklist-driven medicine … is what’s being taught in medical schools right now, together with wokeism, this is what’s being pushed all the way through the system.”

The doctors said regular people need to get involved with their government to prevent the further centralization of medicine in the country. Dr. Miller said citizens must not be afraid to stand up to the powerful.

“We must demand that our government not sign this treaty. And I would say go even further, we must leave the WHO and defund the WHO,” Dr. Miller said.

Dr. Malone said people need to get involved with their state governments, alert them of what’s happening, and urge them to resist. He also recommended forming a commission to review what’s happening within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Finally, he said people need to seek out doctors who aren’t part of the corporate medical world.

While many doctors may not want to be involved with corporate health care, the increasing complexity of paperwork forced by the Affordable Care Act and other regulations —and the allure of money— makes it harder to avoid.

“They work for the corporation, they don’t work for the patient,” Dr. Miller said.

Sound off about this article on The Liberty Daily Substack.

He emphasized the importance of international cooperation during a speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, pointing out the potential obstacles posed by an overemphasis on national interests.

Tedros took part in a session titled “Disease X” at the forum where he underscored what he believes to be the critical importance of being more prepared for potential future pandemics.

Tedros backed the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, viewing it as a necessary tool for enhancing our understanding of such diseases.

Addressing the Davos audience, Tedros stated, “This is about a common enemy. Without a shared response, we will face the same problem as COVID.” He identified “Disease X” as a placeholder term that could be used to encompass yet unknown diseases and reiterated the importance of continued research and development for treatments.

Earlier this week, the WHO worked with the WEF to advocate for the implementation of the Pandemic Treaty. The treaty, backed by the European Union (EU), aims to strengthen global resilience to future pandemics and already has plans to introduce a digital vaccine passport by this Spring.

With a deadline of May 2024, the WHO, along with support from the EU, is working toward a binding agreement among the United Nations member states to facilitate global participation. Tedros remarked, “The importance of a legally binding instrument cannot be overstated: it will be our collective legacy for future generations.”

He’s right about tyranny and coups. But not about sovereignty or constitutions.

Technocrats learned a lot from Covid. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks, and herded them to vaccination clinics. In some countries, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history.

The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.

Under the proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. It will have authority to declare public health emergencies. National governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties…[who] shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors [private citizens and domestic businesses] operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.” Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions, and more will be on the table.

That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO recommendations cannot be directly enforced in American courts. Sovereign nations can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can undertake to tie their own hands and to fashion their domestic laws accordingly.

The WHO proposals are a shell game. The scheme will provide cover to domestic public health authorities. Power will be ubiquitous but no one will be accountable. Citizens will lack control over the governance of their countries, as they already do. The danger that confronts us is still our own sprawling discretionary administrative state, soon to be boosted and camouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy.

When countries make treaties, they make promises to each other. International law may regard those promises as “binding.” But they are not binding in the same sense as a domestic contract. International law is a different animal from domestic law. In Anglo-American countries, the two legal systems are distinct.

International courts cannot enforce treaty promises against unwilling parties in the same way that a domestic court can enforce contractual promises. International law is formalized international politics. Countries make promises to each other when it is in their political interests to do so. They keep those promises on the same criteria. When they don’t, political consequences sometimes follow. Formal legal consequences rarely do.

Nevertheless, the idea is to persuade the public that their governments must obey the WHO. Binding recommendations legitimize the heavy hands of domestic governments. Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties. They will say that WHO directives leave them no choice. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”

During Covid, authorities tried to censor dissenting views. Despite their best efforts, skeptics managed to speak out. They offered alternative explanations in podcasts, videos, declarations, research papers, columns, and tweets. For many people, they were the source of sanity and truth. But next time things may be different. Under the new pandemic regime, countries will commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”

As Weinstein put it, “Something is quietly moving just out of sight, in order that we will not have access to these tools the next time we face a serious emergency. … What [the WHO] wants are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly.”

The WHO documents will not override constitutions in Anglo-American countries. In the United States, the First Amendment will still apply. But the meaning of constitutions is not static. International norms can influence how courts read and apply constitutional provisions. Courts can take account of developing international standards and customary international law. The WHO proposals would not replace or define the meaning of constitutional rights. But they would not be irrelevant either.

The WHO is not undermining democracy. Countries have done that over time by themselves. National governments must approve the new plan, and any can opt out as they wish. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. Not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too. In the end rich countries embraced them anyway. They were keen to virtue-signal and justify their own climate boondoggles. Most can be expected to sign on to the WHO gambit too.

Countries who do so retain the sovereignty to change their minds. But leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the UK belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. But Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want.

Numerous critics have made the same allegations as Weinstein, that the WHO’s regime will eliminate sovereignty and override constitutions. Brownstone writers have done so, for example, here and here. These allegations are easy to dismiss. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, has repeatedly said that no country will cede sovereignty to the WHO. Reuters, the Associated Press, and other mainstream news outlets have done “fact checks” to debunk the claim. Saying that the WHO will steal sovereignty allows critics to be discredited as conspiracy theorists. It distracts from the game that is afoot.

The WHO proposals will protect power from accountability. National governments will be in on the plan. The people are the problem they seek to manage. The new regime will not override sovereignty but that is small comfort. Sovereignty provides no protection from your own authoritarian state.

About the Author

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

The primary instruments for this consolidation are a WHO Pandemic Accord and a series of far-reaching amendments to existing International Health Regulations (IHR). The target date for finalising both the IHR Amendments and the new Pandemic Accord is May 2024.

The net effect of the proposed text for the pandemic accord and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, would be to create a legal and financial basis for the emergence of an elaborate, internationally coordinated bio-surveillance regime and significantly strengthen the authority of the World Health Organisation to direct and coordinate the international response to global and regional public health threats.

It is not entirely clear why the WHO decided to negotiate a separate pandemic treaty that overlaps in significant ways with the proposed IHR amendments. In any case, most of the far-reaching changes to global health regulations are already contained within the IHR amendments, so that is what we will focus on here.

Even if the WHO failed to get a new pandemic treaty passed, the proposed amendments to International Health Regulations would be sufficient by themselves to confer unprecedented power on the WHO to direct international health and vaccination policies in circumstances deemed by the WHO to be a “public health emergency of international concern.”

The WHO wants the IHR amendments to be finalised on time for next year’s World Health Assembly, scheduled for 27 May – 1 June 2024. Assuming the amendments are approved by a simple majority of the delegates, they will be considered fully ratified 12 months after that, unless heads of State formally reject them within the designated opt-out period, which has been reduced from 18 to 10 months.

If ratified, they will come into effect two years after their announcement at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (i.e., around June 2026), as stipulated in the annex to Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) agreed to on 28th May 2022.

In other words, revisions to the International Health Regulations will pass by default rather than by formal acceptance by heads of State. The silence of heads of State will be construed as consent. This makes it all the easier for the revised IHR to pass without proper legislative scrutiny and without a public debate in the States that are subject to the new legal framework.

To get a flavour of how these changes in international law are likely to impact the policies of governments and citizens’ lives more broadly, it is sufficient to review a selection of the proposed amendments. While we do not know which of the amendments will survive the negotiation process, the direction of travel is alarming.

Taken together, these amendments to International Health Regulations would push us in the direction of a global public health bureaucracy with limited democratic accountability, glaring conflicts of interest, and significant potential for systematic harm to the health and liberties of citizens.

The amendments discussed below are drawn from a 46-page document hosted on the WHO webpage entitled “Article-by-Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022).” Because these changes are being negotiated largely outside the frame of national electoral politics, the average citizens is barely aware of them.

Should these amendments come into force, States will be bound by international law, in the event of a public health emergency (as defined by WHO) to follow the playbook of health policies determined by the WHO and its “emergency committee” of “experts,” leaving far less scope for national parliaments and governments to set policies that diverge from WHO recommendations.

Insofar as national States formally consent to the IHR amendments, their sovereignty would remain intact, from a legal perspective. But insofar as they are binding themselves to dance to the tune of political actors outside the scope of national politics, they would clearly lose their freedom to set their own policies in this domain, and health policy “gurus,” instead of representing their fellow citizens, would represent a global health regime transcending national politics and operating above national law.

Under a globally coordinated public health regime, activated by an international public health emergency declared by the WHO, citizens would be vulnerable to errors committed by WHO-nominated “experts” sitting in Geneva or New York, errors which could replicate themselves through a global health system with little resistance from national governments.

Citizens have a right to know that the amended regulations as they stand would give unprecedented power to a WHO-led global health regime and, by implication, its most influential financial and political stakeholders like the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, all of which are largely beyond the reach of national voters and legislators.

There are dozens of proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations. Here, I will highlight eight changes that are of special concern because of their implications for the independence of national health regimes and for the rights of citizens:

States Bind Themselves to Follow WHO’s Advice as “The Guidance and Coordinating Authority” During an International Public Health Emergency

One of the amendments to IHR (International Health Regulations) reads, “States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health responses.” Like many other treaty “undertakings,” the means for other parties to IHR to enforce this “undertaking” are limited.

Nevertheless, States party to the new regulations would be legally binding themselves to adhere to WHO recommendations and may lose credibility or suffer politically for failing to follow through on their international treaty commitments. This may seem “toothless” to some, but the reality is that this sort of “soft power” is what drives a good deal of compliance with international law.

Removal of “Non-Binding” Language

In the previous version of Article 1, WHO “recommendations” were defined as “non-binding advice.” In the new version, they are defined simply as “advice.” The only reasonable interpretation of this change is that the author wished to remove the impression that States were at liberty to disregard WHO recommendations. Insofar as signatories do “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health responses,” it would indeed appear that such “advice” becomes legally “binding” under the new regulations, making it legally difficult for States to dissent from WHO recommendations.

Removal of Reference to “Dignity, Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”

One of the most extraordinary and disturbing aspects of the proposed amendments to IHR is the removal of an important clause requiring that the implementation of the regulations be “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”

In its place, the new clause reads that the implementation of the regulations shall be “based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their (the?) common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.” It is hard to know how any sane and responsible adult could justify removing “dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms” from International Health Regulations.

Expansion of Scope of International Health Regulations

In the revised version of Article 2, the scope of IHR includes not only public health risks, but “all risks with a potential to impact public health.” Under this amendment, International Health Regulations, and their main coordinating body, the WHO, would be concerned not only with public health risks, but with every conceivable societal risk that might “impact” public health. Workplace stress? Vaccine hesitancy? Disinformation? Misinformation? Availability of pharmaceutical products? Low GDP? The basis for WHO intervention and guidance could be expanded indefinitely.

Consolidation of a Global Health Bureaucracy

Each State should nominate a “National IHR Focal Point” for “the implementation of health measures under these regulations.” These “focal points” could avail of WHO “capacity building” and “technical assistance.” IHR Focal Points, presumably manned by unelected bureaucrats and “experts,” would be essentially nodes in a new WHO-led global health bureaucracy.

Other important aspects of this new global health bureaucracy would be the WHO’s role in developing global “allocation plans for health products” (including vaccines), the WHO’s role as an information hub for expanded disease surveillance and research units across the world, and the WHO’s role as a a lead player in an international network of actors devoted to combatting “false and unreliable information” about public health events and anti-epidemic measures.

Expansion of WHO Emergency Powers

Under the revised regulations, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, “based on the opinion/advice of the Emergency Committee,” may designate an event as “having the potential to develop into a public health emergency of international concern, (and) communicate this and the recommended measures to State parties…” The introduction of the concept of a “potential” public health emergency, along with the idea of an “intermediate” emergency, also to be found among the proposed amendments, gives the WHO much wider leeway to set in motion emergency protocols and recommendations. For who knows what a “potential” or “intermediate” emergency amounts to?

Entrenchment and Legitimation of an International Bio-Surveillance Regime

The old Article 23, “Health Measures on arrival and departure,” authorises States to require that travellers produce certain medical credentials prior to travel, including “a non-invasive medical examination which is the least intrusive examination that could achieve the public health objective.” In the new version of Article 23, travellers may be required to produce “documents containing information…on a laboratory test for a pathogen and/or information on vaccination against a disease.”

These documents may include WHO-validated digital health certificates. Essentially, this reaffirms and legally validates the vaccine passport regime that imposed prohibitive testing costs on unvaccinated citizens in 2021-23, and resulted in thousands and probably tens of thousands of people vaccinating just for the convenience of travelling, rather than based on health considerations.

Global Initiatives for Combating “False and Unreliable Information”

Both WHO and States bound by IHR, under the revised draft of IHR, “shall collaborate” in “countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks, and other ways of disseminating such information.” Clearly the misinformation/disinformation amendments entail a propaganda and censorship regime.

There is no other plausible way to interpret “countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information,” and this is exactly how anti-disinformation measures have been interpreted since the Covid pandemic was announced in 2020 – measures, it may be added, that suppressed sound scientific contributions concerning vaccine risks, lab origins of the novel coronavirus, and efficacy of community masking.

The joint effect of these and other proposed changes to International Health Regulations would be to enthrone the WHO and its director-general at the head of an elaborate global health bureaucracy beholden to the special interests of WHO patrons, a bureaucracy that would be operated largely with the cooperation of State officials and agencies implementing “advice” and “recommendations” issued by the WHO, which State parties have legally undertaken to follow.

While it is true that international treaties cannot be coercively enforced, this does not mean that international law is inconsequential. Under the newly amended regulations, a highly centralised public health bureaucracy would be propped up by lavish funding mechanisms and protected by international law. A bureaucracy of this sort would inevitably become entrenched and intertwined with national bureaucracies, and would become an important element of the policymaking architecture of pandemic planning and responses.

Though national States could, theoretically, bypass this bureaucracy and renege on their legal undertakings under IHR, taking a different path to that recommended by WHO, this would be rather strange, given that they themselves would have both approved and financed the regime they are boycotting.

In the face of opposition from one or more signatory States, the WHO and its partners could pressure such a State into complying with its edicts by shaming it into upholding its legal commitments, or else other States may reprimand “renegade” states for putting international health in jeopardy, and apply political, financial and diplomatic pressure to secure compliance. Thus, while IHR would operate upon State officials in a softer way than national, police-backed regulations, it would certainly not be powerless or politically inconsequential.

The impact of the new global health bureaucracy on the lives of ordinary citizens may be quite dramatic: it would erect a global censorship regime legitimated by international law, making challenges to officially sanctioned information harder than ever; and it would make international public health responses even more slavishly dependent on WHO directives than they were before, discouraging independent, dissenting responses such as that of Sweden during the Covid pandemic.

Last but not least, the new global health bureaucracy would put the fate of ordinary citizens – our national and international mobility, our right to informed consent to medication, our bodily integrity, and ultimately, our health – in the hands of public health officials acting in lockstep with WHO “recommendations.”

Apart from the fact that policy diversification and experimentation is essential to a robust healthcare system, and is crushed by a highly centralised response to health emergencies, the WHO is already riddled with internal conflicts of interest and a track record of catastrophically unsound judgments, making them singularly unqualified to reliably identify a global health emergency or coordinate the response to it.

To start with, the WHO’s income stream depends on individuals like Bill Gates who have significant financial stakes in the pharmaceutical industry. How can we possibly expect the WHO to make impartial, disinterested recommendations about, say, the safety and efficacy of vaccines, when its own donors are financially invested in the success of specific pharmaceutical products, including vaccines?

Secondly, to allow the WHO to declare an international public health emergency is to create an obvious perverse incentive: given that a large part of the raison d’être of a WHO-led global health bureaucracy is to prevent, monitor, and respond to public health emergencies, and the activation of the WHO’s emergency powers depends on the presence of an actual or potential “public health emergency of international concern,” the WHO’s Director-General has an obvious professional and institutional interest in declaring potential or actual public health emergencies.

Third, the WHO wasted no time in praising China’s brutal and ultimately unsuccessful lockdowns, continues to support the censorship of their critics, repeatedly recommended community masking in the absence of plausible evidence of efficacy, failed to warn the public in a timely manner about the serious risks of mRNA vaccines, and has entered into a partnership with the European Union to extend the discriminatory and coercive Covid vaccine certificate system globally. These are certainly not people I would trust as custodians of my bodily integrity, health, informed consent, or mobility.

About the Author

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society in Pamplona, Spain, and a recipient of the prestigious Ramón y Cajal research grant (2017-2021, extended through 2023), awarded by the Spanish government to support outstanding research activities. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting assistant professor at Bucknell and Villanova, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. Dr Thunder earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

(Mercola)—In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization’s upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics.”¹

“I’ve been reading the different drafts of the amendments and the Pandemic treaty that have been put forward,” she says. “They’re a mix of things, different ideas put forward by the different [member] countries. And then there’s a group within the WHO that tries to harmonize them, and also make sure that what the WHO wants is in them.

I had finally read through, line by line, the June 2nd, most recent draft of a pandemic treaty, and it had things that were much worse and more explicit in it than before, and I felt compelled to start writing about it.

Then, after I’d written a short piece, I realized it was too important and I needed to write a long piece with background and links, and try to get the message out to a lot of people.

Because the only reason these documents and the plan — the biosecurity agenda through the pandemic treaty and the International Health Amendments — have gotten as far as they have is because nobody has read them. [People] don’t understand what the plan is, and may not understand the backstory.”

Converging Agendas With Identical Goals

It’s important to realize that many different aspects of the grand plan are being put into motion by a variety of sectors and globalist organizations at the same time, and while they may appear independent of each other, they’re all leading us in the same direction, toward a unified goal, namely the enslavement of mankind and the centralization of control over the world’s population.

We have development of a new financial apparatus involving the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), for example.

“At the same time, the U.N. also wants into the action,” Nass says. “It wants to be able to declare global shocks and manage them. And those could be the ones that the WHO wants to manage, which is biological warfare and pandemics that occur in more than one country.

So, the U.N. has listed those two, but also all sorts of other potential global shocks, like climate change, supply chain interruptions, cyber events, and even events in outer space. And they finalize it with black swan events, which means anything the U.N. wants to designate as a global shock can be one, and then the U.N. will come out with its management of that event.

So, the secretary general of the U.N. is asking its members … at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, to give it permission to create this global emergencies platform … which will give the secretary general and the U.N. authority to manage global shocks.

Also at that meeting, the WHO and the U.N. are coming together to try to divvy up how things are going to go for biological warfare and pandemics that affect more than one country. So, look for information coming out on that on September 20.”

Why Was the Pandemic Treaty Introduced?

The WHO proposed the initial plan to grant itself the power to issue global emergency instructions in 2021. The claim was that nations had handled the COVID pandemic so poorly, we need a centralized organization to manage the next pandemic better.

“Of course, it was laid out in terms of equity, like the rich countries didn’t give the poor countries enough vaccines, etc … and so many people died. What is never said is that, in fact, almost all the countries of the world were following the WHO’s guidance, and that is what caused this last pandemic to be so devastating.

The economic implications were all as a result of the lockdowns, the resulting supply chain interruptions, the closure of schools, etc. So, although the WHO wants this great power, it hasn’t said that it’s going to do anything differently.

Nobody at the level of the WHO, the U.N., or the United States public health authorities or the president has said they did anything wrong. What they want to do is more of the same, and I mean more, lots more,” Nass says.

WHO Wants To Be a Centralized Ruler of All

For example, they want to put into law the requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared. Already, YouTube has announced they will henceforth censor all health information that does not conform to the WHO’s narrative. But that censorship is nothing compared to what’s to come.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) also specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well. As explained by Nass:

“The pandemic treaty … is a completely new document, and each draft has been different than the one before. In the current draft, the director general of the WHO doesn’t even need to declare a pandemic. The pandemic treaty will be in effect all the time.”

The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments, the WHO’s recommendations become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will.

In their current form, the amendments do require the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) before he can start giving orders, but there are no standards for what a PHEIC is. It could be anything. He would also have the power to declare a “potential” pandemic, even with limited or no evidence.

All Vaccines Will Be Fast-Tracked and Untested

The treaty also demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. According to Nass, the EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and manufacture enough for everyone in the country in another 30 days.

“It’s a completely crazy idea because you don’t have time to test the vaccines in human beings if you’re developing them in 100 days,” Nass says. “The COVID vaccines were developed in 326 days … That was the Pfizer vaccine. And the median testing in humans was only two months or less.

We gave the vaccines to billions of people, and we only found out later what the side effects were. We still don’t have a totally clear view of all the side effects and how often they occur, because our countries have hidden the data …

Today, when FDA is letting things get through right and left without good tests, still only 29% of the vaccines presented to the FDA are given a license; 71% are rejected. It’s hard to make a good vaccine. Many have to be thrown away before you get to a safe and effective one.

That is, unless you have a complete waiver of liability, and then you can inject people with anything. And there are no manufacturing standards, no safety standard, no efficacy standard. The only ‘standard’ is that the FDA commissioner needs to hope that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Never-Ending Pandemics Ahead

Both the treaty and the IHR amendments require nations to perform extensive biosurveillance, year-round, and perform genomic sequencing on all pathogens collected. Well, if we’re testing people, livestock, wild animals, farms and factories all the time, we’ll always be able to find pathogens with pandemic potential.

So, this will give rise to a never-ending series of pandemic and “potential pandemic” declarations. Any and all of these declarations could then result in lockdowns and new vaccine requirements. And, importantly, these documents will supersede all domestic laws if implemented, so not even the U.S. Constitution will be able to save us.

Door To Freedom

To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments are, and how they will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom.

Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.

“The WHO appears to be nervous about the fact that some of these bits of information are in fact making it into the mainstream,” Nass says, “and so they themselves have made little short videos with Tedros and other people at the WHO denying that this is a sovereignty grab — claiming that the WHO is not even going to be a party of the treaty, etc.

Most of their claims are lies. So, it will be confusing. But the WHO is definitely a party to this treaty. The WHO intends — in the June 2, 2023, version, which is called the Bureau Draft — to take management of certain aspects of pandemic control.”

Who Will Vote on the Treaty and IHR Amendments?

The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting in May 2024.² Countries will then have only 10 months to send a formal opt-out to the WHO if the amendments pass. Barring an opt-out, all countries will then be required to comply with WHO directives.

Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect one month after 30 nations have ratified it. The amendments require an active opt-out, while the treaty requires an active opt-in.

Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out.

“That’s important to remember, because I don’t think too many people want to give the WHO three years of directing them how to manage public health emergencies before they can can say no,” Nass says.

It is important to be aware that the treaty will be in force all the time. It won’t require a pandemic to give the WHO director-general the power to surveil and censor the entire world, 24/7. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the treaty has essentially blank pages, to be filled in later.

New committees will form, and they will determine how the treaty provisions will be carried out and enforced. They can add new provisions too. This is like giving a blank check to the WHO to impose whatever it wants on the world’s people.

Action Items

While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following:

• Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,³ introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake. As noted by Nass:

“That means 51 congressmen have already been convinced about how bad this is. We the people have to get educated and then push it out to more members of Congress.

These provisions are so terrible, if you stand up in front of a room and say, ‘My congresswoman is voting to give away our sovereignty, to have the WHO take away our medications, to transfer our intellectual property to other nations,’ everyone will say ‘That person is terrible.’

So, there’s a lot of opportunity to embarrass your members of Congress if they don’t understand what this is and vote to get out. I think that’s our best bet.”

The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.

• Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,⁴ which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors.
• Call your senator and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.⁵ It currently has 47 cosponsors.
• Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster⁶ everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information.
• Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here.

In 2021, the U.S. introduced several new amendments that were rejected by other nations, so when it came to a vote in 2022, the U.S. rescinded most of them.

If we can make enough noise and get a wellspring of people to push back, saying we will not accept these terms, many of the amendments may simply be withdrawn before they come to a vote in 2024.

The WHO is trying to achieve this soft coup on the sly, and exposing how these amendments will eliminate human rights and bodily autonomy, and strip our nation of its sovereignty, will force them to take a step back, because while they are tyrants, they don’t want to be identified as such.

We Must Stop the Funding of Our Demise

Also be sure to sign up for Door To Freedom’s newsletter so that you can take action when WHO-related bills come up. We need to oppose all funding of the global biosecurity agenda, and Door To Freedom will alert you when it’s time to call on your representatives to oppose funding measures that will further the biosecurity agenda.

Other newsletters that will help you stay abreast on this issue are Children’s Health Defense and Stand for Health Freedom.

The U.S. has already contributed money to a financial intermediary fund set up through the WHO and the World Bank. But that fund is still many billions short of what it wants, so the WHO is looking for member states to dramatically increase their contributions.

The U.S. also committed $5 billion over five years to the global biosecurity agenda when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2022. So, those contributions are now part of U.S. law, and they’re part of Biden’s proposed budget for 2024.

Another $20 billion in mandated spending by the Department of Health and Human Services has been requested in the president’s FY 2024 budget request to Congress for International Pandemic Preparedness. More money will also be allocated for this purpose by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Additional funds may also be allocated through the State Department, USAID, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In all, the U.S. is already set to spend some $30 billion a year on global pandemic preparedness, and part of that is for surveillance of our social media and the internet, and biosurveillance for pathogens with pandemic potential.

It seems that with so much money sloshing around, a large number of vested interests support the WHO plan. However, when we citizens reach out en masse, politicians oftentimes are compelled to appease their constituents, especially when it comes to turning over state and federal authority for health to unelected officials of the WHO, an organization well-known for corruption, which unabashedly caters to its biggest donors, particularly Bill Gates. A recent example is offered by Nass:

“There’s a group called the Sovereignty Coalition that we are part of. They have the ALIGN Act software and this enables people going to their website, with two or three clicks, to send needed messages to the president, your congressman, senators, governors, etc., and that was used.

So, when the funding bill came up a month or two ago for the State Department — and funding for the WHO is in that bill — the Republicans had cut funding in their markup, because … we got over 4,000 calls and emails to every member of the committee the night before.”

So, thanks to that outreach, the State Department Foreign Operations appropriations bill draft now has zero funding for the WHO in it. As noted by Nass:

“Now that is extraordinary. I’m sure they’re going to try to sneak it in somewhere else, but right now the United States has defunded the WHO in the pending legislation, which needs to be voted on, I believe by the end of October.

Stand for Health Freedom also has something like that, and Children’s Health Defense also has ALIGN Act software. So, we can make this happen. When bills are coming up, when important things are happening, we can get out the action alerts and get people to take action. That’s already in place. It’s tremendously important, and we’ll continue to do that.”

We Must Connect the Dots for People

A common question is who is responsible for this global coup? Also, who’s in charge of it? And why are they doing it, exactly?

“The answer is, we don’t know who’s doing it,” Nass says, “but we know there are some very evil, rich people that are [part of it]. We know that Klaus Schwab is part of their apparatus. We know that the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders —that Schwab has raised up for the last 30 years — are a big part of implementing these things in their countries …

They’re like a large Skull and Bones club where they work together. They come together for meetings, and their job is to elevate each other into powerful positions in industry and government … So, we have to make people aware of the role of these secret societies, and how they are being used to bring in bad programs.

People are already noticing the terrible inflation in the United States, and that’s due to the money printing. They had to do the money printing to bribe the schools, the hospitals, the industries, the pharmaceutical makers, and the media in particular, to push this whole pandemic narrative through and make us do what they wanted.

Now everybody thinks we’re coming up for another pandemic soon. The FDA is pushing out a new COVID vaccine in the middle of September. What are they going to do to us next? Are they going to be able to print money again and dole out $10 trillion of our grandchildren’s money?

I think people are starting to understand this money printing inflationary spiral, and how it impoverishes us for the benefit of a small group. Those are bits of information — what is needed is connecting the dots. So, in my article, I tried to connect a lot of dots …

Everything in our lives is changing at the same time and people are so confused. We need those who are paying close attention and know how to write to start explaining how these things are connected. We’ve got nine months until the WHO will vote on these two documents …

At the beginning of May, I was invited to the International COVID Summit at the European Parliament in Brussels, and my talk was on the IHR amendments. I prepared a 10-minute talk … but at the last minute the sponsors said, ‘Look, you only have five minutes because we’ve run over’ … So, I’m like, ‘Oh my God, what do I do?’ I looked at my slides; what are the main points? And I gave a five-minute talk. I thought it must be terrible …

Well, somebody made a three-minute, and somebody made a four-minute, and a five-minute little video of it and sent it around on Twitter and TikTok. Now people have added sound and they’ve added images. The thing has garnered millions of views. It’s extraordinary.

But it’s because I start off saying, ‘We are experiencing a soft coup. This is what’s happening. This is what the WHO is doing.’ And it’s so short, people are able to watch it. They see this little old lady who is speaking in a very measured way, and they see the European Parliament insignia behind me, and they’re saying, ‘Oh my god, maybe this is real.’

So that little thing has gotten 5 million to 10 million views and TikTokers are now adding to it. So, I think this whole issue of the WHO trying to grab our sovereignty is very meaningful to people. We just have to figure out the right messages, get them out there, and we’ll win.”

Where to Learn More

Door To Freedom is unique in that it is trying to introduce these highly complex, interlocking aspects of the global power grab in bite-sized pieces. The website has dozens of short summary articles and videos, with longer in-depth pieces for those who want to dive deeper. We also publish each new draft of the IHR amendments and the treaty as they come out, and I encourage people to have a look at the actual documents.

So, to get a good grasp of what’s at stake, be sure to bookmark doortofreedom.org, and start sifting through it. Also, share the site with others and encourage them to learn more.

“We’ve put up the documents so people can read them,” Nass says. “We have about 30 two-minute reads about the documents, about what’s going on, about all sorts of things, trying to connect the dots on transhumanism, CBDCs, child sex education. And we have a large number of longer articles about related subjects.

So if you go to the site, it will give you an education about the massive global changes that the globalist cabal is bringing forward right now. As we speak, we’re in the middle of the coup. The coup isn’t next year. It’s not when these documents get voted on. We’re in the middle of it now. The documents are part of it.

Once we’ve completed everything on the website … we will start building a worldwide coalition of organizations to fight all of this. That’s the next step. Children’s Health Defense … are taking up this issue of the WHO, and there are many other organizations I’m working with: Stand for Health Freedom, organizations in England, in the European Union [and] South Africa …

We want to then start pushing regular messaging to the world that will be the same everywhere. Education is the answer, because even if we beat back the WHO, if we don’t beat back this entire agenda, the globalists will hit us with something else, either through the U.N. or through other multilateral organizations, or through national laws that are draconian.

[We must] make people understand what’s happened over these last few years, where it’s coming from, what led up to it and where it’s going. And I think that’s the best we can do. It’s really important that we retain our ethics, our morals. We don’t want to manipulate people.

We’ve all been manipulated, we’ve been mind-controlled. The media, the advertising, the education system have all been trying to limit the way people think … We want you to open your minds, be able to identify propaganda when you see it, so that you can learn to think clearly for yourself. That’s when we win.”

• ¹ Door To Freedom September 3, 2023
• ² WHO Governance, Dates of Constitutional Meetings
• ³ H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act
• ⁴ H.R.1425, the NO WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
• ⁵ S.444, The No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
• ⁶ Door To Freedom Poster

According to Nass, whose medical license was suspended in January 2022 by the Maine medical board for allegedly spreading “COVID misinformation” and prescribing ivermectin, the current draft of the treaty and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) would require the public to have mRNA-based vaccination. However, these vaccines are only produced in 100 days by skipping human trials and reducing safety and efficacy testing to the bare minimum.

The treaty gives the director-general of the WHO additional power to determine which medications can be used in medical emergencies. This means that the WHO will gain authority over the healthcare of the public in different states, obliging local healthcare practitioners to adhere to their directives. (Related: WHO whistleblower: Globalist puppets seek full control over humanity through deployment of COVID-19 pandemic treaty.)

The WHO is also set to implement nationwide biosurveillance programs to identify potential pandemic-causing pathogens by testing humans, domesticated and farm animals and wildlife, as well as inspecting farms, factories, wastewater, and more. Additionally, the WHO director-general can declare a pandemic or even a potential one, but with no predefined criteria to declare one.

Furthermore, the director-general can act based on little more than hearsay. Concrete evidence of an impending or ongoing pandemic is not a prerequisite. Nations are also obliged to monitor and censor social media to push the WHO’s narrative.

This globalist agenda, disguised as a treaty, implies a loss of medical freedom and bodily autonomy for the masses.

WHO pandemic treaty encourages gain-of-function research

In an article published by Nass entitled “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics,” she pointed out that the treaty encourages “gain-of-function” research, a euphemism for biological warfare research, to predict future pandemic threats or potential bioweapons.

Meaning, the WHO obliges its members to actively search for potentially pandemic-causing pathogens and, once found, share them and any associated research globally. With this strategy, it would be harder to blame a country or organization as all nations are working with the same pathogens.

Moreover, the treaty proposes that governments share all viruses and bacteria with “pandemic potential” with the WHO and other governments, even putting their genomic sequences online. However, this plan risks exposing dangerous pathogens to hackers and other malicious actors, undermining global security.

In short, gain-of-function research is explicitly incentivized by the treaty.

Ultimately, the WHO treaty pushes people in the opposite direction of what is required to prevent future pandemics. To effectively prevent pandemics, it is necessary to stop gain-of-function research, as it represents the most significant pandemic threat.

“It is the public who pays the cost of the research, [and] then pays again for the accidents and deliberate leaks. Wouldn’t it be better to end gain-of-function research entirely, by restricting funding or closing the laboratories, rather than encouraging the distribution of biological weapons?  If we want a decent future, it is crucial that we control these weapons instead of proliferating them,” Nass wrote.

Follow MedicalTyranny.com for more news about the WHO pandemic treaty. Watch the video below to know more about Dr. Francis Boyle’s warning about the WHO pandemic treaty.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Dr. Francis Boyle tells Mike Adams: WHO Pandemic Treaty is a totalitarian, medical and scientific dictatorship.
• Clay Clark: Biden set to empower WHO via “legally binding” pandemic treaty – Brighteon.TV.
• WHO releases international pandemic treaty, forcing all governments to target “disinformation” in digital and physical environments.
• WHO converging on Dec. 5-7 to discuss new “Pandemic Treaty” that would unleash a global medical dictatorship.
• WHO says it’s one step closer to passing “legally binding” Pandemic Treaty for global authoritarian control over next “health emergency.”

Sources include: 

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• DoortoFreedom.org
• Brighteon.com

Dr. David Bell, an ex-WHO medical officer, and Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, who chairs Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds, outlined how the proposals could reshape the dynamics between the WHO and its member nations and imperil critical health initiatives.

The contentious point revolves around the unprecedented authority these proposals could vest in the WHO. According to Dr. Bell, the WHO could wield the power to demand hefty financial contributions from countries, suppress scientific discourse, and enforce travel restrictions, lockdowns, and compulsory vaccinations in response to health emergencies, which the body can declare at its discretion.

Bell explained the transformation of the WHO since its inception in 1946. Initially formed to offer guidance and coordination in health emergencies, it has increasingly become centralized. A shift in funding patterns, notably from private donors, has led to the WHO turning into an organization where external influences dictate the agenda. The implications of this shift are particularly alarming when considering the broadened definitions of health emergencies. “The WHO was established in 1946 with the best of intentions… Over the decades we have seen a significant change in direction… It is a worrying background against which the IHR amendments and the Treaty are being negotiated,” said Bell.

The discussion also elicited responses from UK lawmakers. Esther McVey, APPG Co-Chair, called for greater parliamentary scrutiny, questioning the wisdom of granting sweeping powers to the WHO, a largely privately-funded body with no apparent oversight. McVey, referring to the WHO’s track record, expressed skepticism. “It seems unwise to give an unelected and largely privately-funded supranational body power over sovereignty and individual rights with seemingly no oversight,” she opined.

Labour MP Graham Stringer, also an APPG Co-Chair, voiced opposition to the WHO’s prospective expansion of powers. He expressed anxiety regarding the likely influence of commercial interests within the WHO and cited the organization’s controversial stance on mask-wearing as indicative of political, rather than scientific, decision-making. Stringer stressed that the potential impact on public health, democracy, civil liberties, and individual rights necessitates rigorous debate and transparent review.

Both experts and parliamentarians conveyed the urgent need for caution and thorough analysis of the WHO’s proposed changes, calling for countries to retain autonomy in addressing public health challenges, and for the protection of global health initiatives from undue influence.

Article cross-posted from Reclaim The Net.