Late last year HART was invited to be a co-signatory on an open letter to the relevant Parliamentary scrutiny committees on the much vexed question of increasing WHO powers. The proposals are via a combination of changes to international health regulations, which require only a 51% majority of member states, and a wholescale change to the Treaty, which would require a two thirds majority.
Dr. David Bell, a British public health physician currently working in the U.S., wrote a detailed analysis of the changes here, and it would have been helpful if some of the MPs attending last week’s parliamentary debate had read this or even the WHO document itself before speaking.
The parliamentary debate arose from a petition which had garnered well over the 100,000 signatures required to trigger such an event.
As a representative of HART, I joined Shiraz Akram, lead author from the Thinking Coalition, and Jon Dobinson, another signatory on behalf of Time for Recovery to attend in person. Arriving early, I immediately saw the tireless Piers Corbyn with loudspeaker in hand and a team of leafleteers trying somewhat unsuccessfully to engage the passersby. Unfortunately, constitutional change, completely ignored by mainstream media, doesn’t really grab the attention.
Moving inside through the usual security, we soon encountered the ubiquitous British queue. The first problem for open democracy is that of course the debate was held in one of the committee rooms. The members of the public attending were greater than the number of MPs, with no possibility of moving some of the empty members’ seats into the public area at the back, so some were left waiting outside. Those of us lucky enough to get a seat were all under strict instructions not to heckle nor indeed to clap! This proved too hard for some of the more enthusiastic.
It is well worth watching the whole debate though you may wish to play it on a fast setting (slow it back to normal for Esther McVey who crammed many excellent words into her allotted time).
Alternatively, skim reading on Hansard is a good option or if really short time to Molly Kingsley’s Twitter thread!
The opening speech was by Nick Fletcher MP, from the Petitions Committee. Committee members are under no requirement to promote the views of the petitioners but he was quite measured and I suspect reading the petition had got him thinking about issues of sovereignty he would otherwise have completely overlooked.
Watch the early interjection by John Spellar – the venom of the word ‘antivax’ and the way it is simply used as an alternative to debate are notable. He opened his subsequent speech with, “Part of this argument has been about vaccination. We go back to Dr. Wakefield and that appalling piece of chicanery that was the supposed impact of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which has now been completely exposed and discredited. He is now Mr. Wakefield and no longer a recognised doctor.” The implication was somehow that anyone questioning the wisdom of the WHO should be stripped of the title ‘doctor’ or else what was the relevance of his remarks? He described the “appalling subculture of those who live by conspiracy theories. The anti-vaccine campaign is one of those”.
Then followed an excellent speech by Danny Kruger giving examples of the proposed extension of the regulations.
The WHO’s powers will potentially extend to ordering countries to close borders; to travel restrictions; to the tracing of contacts; to refusal of entry; to forced quarantining; to medical examinations, including requirements for proof of vaccination; and even to the forced medication of individuals. It is not just when a pandemic has already been declared that those powers might be invoked: the WHO claims these powers when there is simply the potential for such an emergency.
As John Redwood aptly put it,:
To colleagues who like this treaty, is the easy answer not that we will, of course, remain members of the WHO, read its advice and accept that advice where we wish? Why should we have to accept advice when the WHO may get it wrong, and we can do nothing about it because it decides, not us?
Danny Kruger pointed out:
Global threats that defy borders require global co-operation, and it is certainly true to say that this country was not sufficiently prepared for the pandemic when it broke out, but I do not believe that the lack of readiness was due to a lack of international co-operation. Indeed, the degree of international co-operation was astonishing. The lack of readiness was in the ordinary business of contingency planning by the British state — the security of supply of equipment, capacity in the health service and our ability to support the vulnerable and the isolating. That is where we were not ready.
In fact, we could say that in a crucial respect the U.K. was prepared. We thought that we knew what we would do in the event of a pandemic. We would introduce targeted isolation and targeted protection of the most vulnerable — the application of personal responsibility, not mass lockdowns, which were not part of the plan — but we threw that plan aside immediately, and we went for exactly what everybody else around the world was doing. Or almost everyone — never forget plucky Sweden.
Justin Madders, Labour, was very worried about conspiracy theories, e.g. “referring to the WHO as ‘globalists’ that ‘drain our resources, serve our enemies, and continue working to establish a global dictatorship over everyone and everything.’ That sentiment is clearly ludicrous, as is the reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates or the Chinese Government.”
Worryingly, whatever the motivation, ‘globalists’ is surely correct as is the major financial input from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and the Chinese Government. He went on to mention “descending into the dark world of conspiracy theories that suggest that vaccines do more harm than good”. He might want to reflect on Table S4 of Pfizer’s own six month Safety and Efficacy report!
Read the next speech by Sir Christopher Chope, who has done a detailed dig into the current Director General of WHO, at whose discretion WHO can declare an emergency or even a potential emergency. Tedros Ghebreyesus’ past as a senior figure in the Tigray People’s Liberation Front does not make for reassuring reading.
Although not strictly relevant to the topic of the WHO treaty, Preet Kaur Gill, MP for Birmingham, Edgbaston made one very important request to the minister which has been largely overlooked, namely that:
Advances in gene editing mean that virologists can more easily modify viruses to be deadlier and spread more quickly, increasing the security risk posed by bioweapons and bioterrorism. Will the Minister comment on our concern that the biological weapons convention currently remains very weak, with little funding and only four staff, compared with the 500 staff for the chemical weapons convention?
Most worryingly, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, does not appear to have a full grasp of the proposed changes in the regulations. When asked by Esther McVey, “Can the Minister reassure my constituents who are concerned that the Government will concede sovereignty and hand power to WHO? Can she give reassurances that that will not happen?”. She replied: “Yes, absolutely I can. The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine U.K. sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is simply not the case.”
How does Ms Trevelyan explain the removal of the word “non-binding” and the replacement of “should” with “must”? Just check out the proposed changes. The potential reach of the WHO is summed up in this graphic.
If the changes go ahead as proposed, then all signatories will be tied under international law into a straightjacket of groupthink. As Danny Kruger rightly said: “Never forget plucky Sweden!”
Dr. Ros Jones is a retired Consultant Paediatrician with a special interest in neonatal intensive care and paediatric HIV. She is a member of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART), on whose website this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Few if any of these criminals read it. I guess many more of us, the whackjobs-conspiracy idiots read it. I did watch the small group ‘debate’ this measure with Bridgen in attendance. It was obvious few had read it. Again and again these idiots said they don’t believe in conspiracy theories -whatever the hell that means – and the Stabbies were a great success and ‘saved us’. The UK is a leader blah blah. The UK will form the treaty and its implementation blah blah. Everyone knows we are a sovereign state blah blah.
These MPs are criminals. Their bank accounts full of Pharma pounds. They are dumb, graft ridden, inarticulate, gutless, globalists. Most of them fully supported the Rona fascism and wanted more of it.
Do you think they care about a ‘treaty’ giving up our ‘rights’ whatever is left of them, to a terrorist org like the WHO?
Let’s face it, they didn’t read the Maastricht Treaty either. Why are we surprised?
As I recall, the Maastricht Treaty was specifically crafted to avoid anyone understanding its contents. Ultimately, European Law ensured that the treaty could be interpreted in any way the European Commission dictated.
Politicians vote for many things they don’t understand. ———-It seems you don’t need to understand things because even if you do then you are going to often vote to get the majority your party needs anyway. How many politicians truly understand the complexity of the issue of climate? I suggest very few, and as in the media, when things are heavily politicised like climate and covid are, then in comes the group think, and if you don’t care to participate in the group think consensus type of thing, then you won’t be allowed to stay in your position. If David Attenborough was a climate sceptic do we really think he would be on the BBC? ——–No chance.
I understand the concerns and share them, but on a practical level what sanctions can be applied to a sovereign nation which fails to follow WHO directives?
Exactly.
The rule of law is shattered now. Over the last three years the authorities have twisted, ignored, and reinvented absolutely any and every law as it has suited. The suggestion that this WHO treaty is legally binding is complete and utter BS. The reality is that it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Furthermore, any British parliament which thinks it is free to sign up to such a treaty is in itself guilty of breaking the law of this country. The Sovereignty of this country is not within the hands of parliament to be donated to whomever they conclude is offering the biggest bung.
There could be no legality in breaking National laws and then going on to state that a new International law is legally binding, that would be simply Orwellian….
….whoops
For a slightly more detailed explanation of what I am saying have a read of Dr McGrogan’s piece on the Raab kerfuffle.
A better question is how to dispose of the bodies of politicians that attempt to enforce it.
One of my worries is that the U.K. government could fully abdicate its responsibility by following the WHO ‘experts’. The government would not have to think critically and if the end result is a disaster it was not the fault of the government…
Bingo! Got it in one.
PS yes that’s my tick.
PPS “Government critical thinking” has to be an oxymoron.
Sorry, wrong reason.
The Sunak/Hunt alliance has only one purpose and that is globalism. Literally everything they’ve done is to that end.
The WHO is a big piece of the plan.
Let’s focus on the signal, not the noise please.
“Danny Kruger pointed out:
Dear Mr Kruger, there was no pandemic.
its the same amount of politicians who read the Lisbon Treaty.
One of the quotes from Danny Kruger must be challenged. It was not the case that we were unprepared for Covid. The problem was that carefully considered plans and measures were thrown out overnight and faulty alternatives were applied.
I recall an IRA bomb exploded in the City. It has been reported and not refuted that the top UK Board of HSBC met from early morning within range of a potential second bomb to consider what to do to protect staff, the business snd customers. After lunch they decided to activate a DR plan which had been approved by the same board months before but presumably not read.
Quite right. Having worked many a flu season in an NHS hospital we’ve always managed because we always expected it to be busier over the winter months. Never ever did we require ‘pop-up’ hospitals, that didn’t even get used in the end, but then never ever did we test staff to see if they were ”ill” and tell them to stay home if they got a ”positive” even if they felt perfectly fine, we never wore masks or forced them on the public, we never repeatedly tested our patients for a respiratory virus, especially when that isn’t even why they were admitted, and I’ve certainly never ever witnessed hospital staff rehearsing dance routines in their break times.
Back then the only ‘theatre’ I experienced was the operating theatre but it would appear that from early 2020 onwards the entire NHS as an organization turned into a performing one!
“…it would appear that from early 2020 onwards the entire NHS as an organization turned into a performing one!
”
Aye, and it’s still performing.
(Northern humour).
It’s irrelevant. They and virtually all other “governments” are so far down the pyramid of power that it’s almost laughable. When was the last time anything important was even debated in Parliament?
The real question is precisely why are the strings being pulled?
-Global Warming
-Pandemics/bigpharma
-The feared loss of control, wealth and power enjoyed by the “Elite” mainly in the so called democratic, lol, West- aka the big family/banks/investment houses presently in control of the world’s wealth generated and perpetuated by the giant world wide Ponzi/Money Printing Schemes created by the deliberate imposition of Fiat Currency encouraged after WW2.
My money’s on the third. The other two are just useful control mechanisms being imposed on us by our democratically elected idiots at the behest of their masters.
The real threat to The RPTB are sceptics worldwide and those countries not yet in the club.
Hence we are at war with Russia via poor Ukraine, maybe China to come – and sceptics worldwide are being silenced.
As an aside just ask yourself what would happen if all countries simultaneously stated they would never repay any of their “debts” to the Elite?
Germany tried that on their own in the lead-up to/cause of WW2.
We’re already in WW3 but only us sceptics realise.
Interesting the language they use: “appalling subculture”, “descending into the dark world”. They see themselves as lofty and those that disagree with them as waaaay beneath them.
MPs promote medical dictatorship
************************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
An excellent appraisal. It was absolutely obvious to anyone watching the debate that those in support of the proposals had not actually read or understood them. Those supporting the petition showed excellent grasp of the details and the implications.
The comment by Steve Brine the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee stating that the UK was the second largest contributor to WHO funding was grossly misleading. 88% of funds comes from private donors with obvious vested interests and is earmarked for very tightly controlled uses. The ‘s contribution is minuscule by comparison and it’s specific use is not determined or controlled by the UK.