The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) proposed Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will hand the international health body unprecedented powers to declare pandemics, lockdowns and vaccination mandates, with the force of international law, leading experts have told MPs.
Speaking to U.K. lawmakers at a meeting of the Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), Dr. David Bell, a former WHO scientific and medical officer, and Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds and Director of the World Health Organisation Collaborative Centre on Health Systems and Health Security, said that the changes would fundamentally alter the relationship between WHO and member states and put vital health programmes at risk.
Dr. Bell explained that the two agreements, as currently drafted, will hand the WHO the authority to order measures including significant financial contributions by individual states, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency of its own declaring.
He said:
The WHO was established in 1946 with the best of intentions, to help coordinate responses to major health issues and advise governments accordingly. Over the decades we have seen a significant change in direction as funding streams have shifted to private ‘specified funding’, particularly from private donors. This has led to the WHO becoming a far more centralised and externally-directed body in which private and corporate funders shape and direct programmes. What we have also seen shifting is the definition of a health emergency, making it extremely broad. It is a worrying background against which the IHR amendments and the Treaty are being negotiated.
These pandemic instruments are founded on a fallacy regarding the frequency and impact of pandemics and would, if ratified, fundamentally change the relationship between the WHO and national governments and their citizens. Of particular concern are the amendments to the IHR which constitute a dangerous increase in power and authority bestowed on just one person. The Director-General would be able to proclaim health emergencies, whether real or potential, on any health-related matter that they, influenced by their private and corporate funders, say is a threat. The WHO would be able to issue legally-binding directions to member states and their citizens. In light of the catastrophic harms the WHO’s policies have caused during this pandemic, probably greater than the virus itself, the potential economic and health-related harms of such power cannot be overstated. There is a vast pandemic industry waiting for these buttons to be pushed and I am in no doubt that policymakers should reject WHO’s pandemic proposals.
Professor Brown and his research team has been advising the WHO and others on the $31.1 billion a year plan for pandemic preparedness and whether it is defensible or even feasible. Vital public health programmes are suffering globally as a result of the misguided shift to focus on post-Covid pandemic preparedness, he warned.
The post-Covid policy environment has triggered a remarkable grab by various institutions to capture the pandemic preparedness and response agenda and its corresponding financial capacities. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the policy processes in terms of the representativeness of the emerging pandemic preparedness agenda. One particular concern involves the $31.1bn per year price tag, particularly the more than $24bn a year required from low-and middle income countries. The concern is whether this number is appropriate or even feasible. Nations need to be able to address their individual public health needs, to encourage better population health and resilience and the sort of sums they will be required to contribute to pandemic preparedness could threaten to divert resources from where they are most needed. We already saw this happen during the pandemic and there is evidence to suggest this has continued.
For example, tracking Overseas Development Aid for health from 2019 to the present shows that vital and established preventive public health programmes have suffered globally as a result of policy shifts to Covid and post-Covid pandemic preparedness and response. Evidence shows that malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, reproductive health and non-communicable diseases have been impacted by resource shifting. Overseas Development Aid saw a 34% decrease in funding for basic health and a 10% decrease for basic nutrition in developing countries. The fear is that emerging pandemic preparedness instruments will be a continuation of this trend, which will have significant population health effects.
Listening to the speakers, APPG Co-Chair, Conservative MP and former Government minister Esther McVey said:
In April, I spoke at the Westminster Hall debate on this topic [and] much more parliamentary scrutiny and debate is needed. As the COVID-19 Inquiry begins to hear evidence, how we prepare for future pandemics must be carefully considered. We have heard concerns about the expansion of the WHO’s powers, the encroachment on national sovereignty and the rights of the individual and the sheer cost of the plans. These are vast amounts of public money to prepare for pandemics when we have a proportional, evidence-based pandemic plan, formulated to prevent the avoidable suffering and loss we have now experienced. The Government abandoned those plans in early 2020, despite knowing the likely outcomes.
The Treaty and IHR amendments could cement a disastrous approach to future pandemics. It seems unwise to give an unelected and largely privately-funded supranational body power over sovereignty and individual rights with seemingly no oversight. My constituents are concerned, not least because the WHO has a poor track record when it comes to pandemics. I question whether we want to hand such authority to the WHO, whose focus in recent decades has moved away from its laudable founding principles, to blunt instruments such as lockdowns and a one-size fits all approach to public health with the terrible consequences we are now seeing.
APPG Co-Chair, Labour MP Graham Stringer MP, added:
I am opposed to these plans as they could represent a huge expansion of the WHO’s powers, to the detriment of public health. The authority it could gain would surely pressure countries into complying with diktats of its choosing. We saw the unaccountable and extreme influence of China on the WHO when it refused to investigate the Wuhan laboratory and the origin of SARS-CoV-2. It’s also worrying to see the increase in commercial interests within the WHO.
We experienced the WHO’s unscientific volte face on mask wearing, despite there being no strong evidence that they had suddenly become effective. It was an entirely political decision, much like many of the decisions taken by the U.K. Government, often in the absence of any real parliamentary scrutiny. We appear to have learnt nothing from that experience, in terms of both the eye-watering cost and the vast collateral damage, which the Treaty and amendments seem set to enshrine in the WHO’s principles. If these plans come to be, we would be handing over powers to an organisation with less clinical and scientific expertise than our own.
It may not be clear how the WHO will enforce these powers but we know the potential is there as we lived through it, and not just with Covid but also swine flu previously. The ease with which unelected bureaucrats can dictate damaging public health policy and erode democracy, civil liberties and individual rights is something we never want to happen again. This is why these plans demand robust debate, and an open review in Parliament and in public. As Sweden did during the pandemic, and is an example to us all, we must make our own decisions about how we manage public health threats in this country.
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.
The Treaty gives “force of law” in name only as I have been saying for months. The “law” is now a fiction used only by those with the power and control to get their own way. For the rest of us it is something we must suffer or accept if it suits.
Given the way law has been blatantly and deliberately abused these last three years we must expect the worse and be prepared to break or ignore their so-called laws as appropriate.
And in the UK our parliament does not have any rights which allow it to surrender our sovereignty. I am sure the first test of their “rule of law” will be how the judiciary is used yet again to subvert the basic rights of English men.
Very dark days indeed with a parliament blatantly working against its citizenry. The shorthand is of course treason.
How much lower can we go?
Good post Hux.. but I must add.. I’m one who will NOT CONFORM to orders from anybody, especially the Ethiopian terrorist Turd-dross.. and his slimy paymaster Bill tosspot Gates..
Do not comply..
I made my decision 12 – 18 months ago Will. I will NOT comply.
Get yourself a crossbow – they don’t require a license.
I imagine that’s the sort of comment a Marianna Spring sock-puppet might make.
“Right wing conspiracy website promotes crossbow violence”
I have 2 crossbows, machetes, swords, throwing axes and knives, whetstone, sharpeners. All ready to rock. In the interest of not seeing Belmarsh I won’t relate various plans I had made involving said tooling and some other longer distance technologies. Don’t want to be on Springtard’s naughty list now. Be prepared is what I would say.
I have been researching such recently.
10 shot mag PCP air pistols /rifles arnt bad…
“The shorthand is of course treason.“
In a nutshell – yes!
Parliament are not sovereign. They are a product of the people – sovereign beings. Parliament is owned by us. The statues that they issue are not binding on us, but so often we get conned by legalese.
Our only lawful obligations are to cause no harm, loss or injury to others.
None of these people have any more or less rights in this world than the rest of us. This situation results from action of the minority over inaction by the masses. If the power was taken, that would likely change quickly but an illusion of choice voted through by our trusted Parliamentary representatives whilst having an ill-informed public gets the same result with a lower probability of confrontation.
What’s the point of this “debate”.
Our MP’s are so far down the pyramid of power it’s laughable.
And more laughable still is that bar Andrew Bridgen and a few others, they’re so dim they don’t even realise it.
Don’t they realise we’re in WW3, – Covid, mRNA “vaccines”, Ukraine (Putin bad man, USA/NATO good, Lol), climate change.
But especially digital control of humanity – which they are unwittingly enabling.
Wake Up.
“To sum up, the Digital Global Compact is a piece of globalist legislation serving the final aim of globalist policy: Control of all aspects of life, achieved by inserting a digital filter between people and reality.”
I posted this quote yesterday from a short piece by Kit Knightly. It sums up what is going on most succinctly.
Agree that whatever the APPG decide Sunak and his globalist cronies/paymasters will simply ride roughshod over it. I was disgusted by the comments made by Graham Stringer about masks and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s decisions about covid. Appalling hypocrisy given that Labour offered no meaningful opposition during covid except calling for tougher measures introduced even sooner.
The quotes above are from Esther McVey MP and Graham Stringer MP.
NOT (most unfortunately) quotes from The Conservative Party and The Labour Party, which have been consistently disastrously insane on energy and health policies.
Esther has a handful of colleagues who give some support.
Graham is, so far as I am aware, the ONLY sane voice on the Labour benches. But, never mind that, you want to say you are “disgusted” with him.
Get a grip.
I’m finding that dropping in that the EU digital ID requirement from the end of this year to go on holiday will be linked to all their health records & be used to dictate what healthcare interventions they have to have to folk who are & have fallen for the narrative, expanding on how this would impact on their much loved grandchildren has given them a sufficient jolt to think about how intrusive & controlling this would be.
The prospect of the children & the grandchildren having their lives controlled to such an extent that they would have no opportunities to travel, have fun or any joy is what is beginning to wake folk up.
This is all about the children. They want to normalise & legalise paedophilia, control & indoctrinate children into the cult with wrap around state child care from ever younger ages, destroy family bonds & loyalty replacing those bonds with loyalty to the cult.
Protect the children. Point out the potential harms to those precious souls & most right minded folk start to question as civilised societal norms are being crossed.
The indoctrinated teens & twenty somethings are the hardest group to shake out of their stupor, having been most exposed to the brainwashing but wake them up we must by informing them of the child abuse agenda.
Terrific BB
Thank you Hux
Globalism or sovereignty.
Time for MPs to reveal their allegiance.
No middle ground.
We know where Sunak, Hunt, Starmer et al sit.
How abiut the rest of you?
”Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” sensibly once said by a US President that wasn’t Biden. Equally there are some very sensible and well-made points featured in the above article. But Captain Obvious has to stick his oar in again and declare that the WHO’s power grab is all the more obvious and transparent when we remember that there never was a pandemic, that’s why the manufactured PsyOp-19 Trojan horse was integral to their dastardly plans.
Enter Jordan Schachtel, stage right ( I’m quite the fangirl, *not* in a stalkery way ), another sensible guy that makes a lot of sense.
”There is a consensus among epidemiological astrologists [my apologies for maligning astrology, a far more precise science than epidemiology] that populates the virological $cience industry today. That line of reasoning advances the idea that a “novel” coronavirus — evidence of which the Chinese government uploaded to the internet in January of 2020 — once caused a super deadly disease, and then mutated over time to become less and less of a severe threat to humans.
It’s significant that both the majority of unapologetic lockdowners and those opposed to the lockdowns largely agree with this framework. It explains how the virus evolved from the “Wuhan strain” to the less potent “Omicron” strain, and beyond, they say.
The problem with this conceptual framework is that it’s baseless and flies in the face of all available evidence, because from the very beginning of the covid hysteria era, there was never an out of the ordinary disease burden imposed upon human civilization. The extensive burden to humanity was applied by governments, not a virus.”
https://www.dossier.today/p/the-myth-of-a-deadly-covid-virus
Of course there was a pandemic, China’s World Health Organization said so. And don’t forget, these days two plus two really does prefer it if you call ze five. Fires will be kindled indeed.
Quote by G.K. Chesterton: “Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they a…” (goodreads.com)
Incidentally, I still suspect that the shamdemic was to some degree a function of the global economic crash that we’ve had coming for a long time (and that the demographic crisis of a globally ageing population dating back to 1968 has perhaps made inevitable). We’re in for a rough ride…
There never was & never will be a deadly viral pandemic for a number of reasons:
Wild viruses still have not been proven to exist – manmade virus type substances do exist in labs.
A mild disease which spreads is not a serious threat to life & limb unless one is very elderly, very frail, malnourished or under great psychological/physical stress.
A severe disease which seriously affects an individual is self limiting due to taking those individuals out of societal circulation.
Think about the types of clusters of illness which have been promoted as deadly over the last 40 – 50 years by the MSM & what the ‘treatment’ proposed was. A ‘preventative vaccine’…. Think about how self limiting these outbreaks were & how the ‘cure’ was more devastating than the disease.
All of this is about making customers for life. Disease is profitable, scaring populations into control mechanisms enables tyranny.
We have been played for a very long time.
Keeping oneself as healthy as possible in body, mind & spirit is the best defence for one’s health & gives one a solid base from which to resist the propaganda.
“The WHO was established in 1946 with the best of intention”
Well look at how symbolic that date is. The Sovereignty of the English Parliament began with the execution of Charles I in 1649! We now have Charles III and we are on the brink of giving away our Parliamentary sovereignty that was won at great cost in lives and blood over centuries – just like that.
Please whoever down-voted come out of the shadows and present your case. All views are welcome and it’s good to test them in the light of day.
I don’t know. Despite reservations (is it a form of censorship), I have come to wonder if the up/down vote system may in fact serve a useful purpose. Consider: if we accept the principle of free, secret ballots at elections, the down votes may be considered as serving a similar role. Now we know that, when opinion polls are conducted, there is an element of people telling the pollsters what they think they’re supposed to say rather than what they really believe. Now one may or may not criticise such people for this, but we can at any rate say that an anonymous up/down vote system is at any rate likely to be a true snapshot of what people think – one which we may not get by requiring people to comment on their reasons. Anyhow, speaking for myself, I very rarely comment on these down votes. I consider it not worth the bother – if people want to comment, they will. And votes don’t particularly affect me – if I think something needs saying, I will say it, vote or no vote.(and anyhow, under the old system of showing net votes, you would never know if 3 up votes was 3 up or 15 up and 12 down. Now one rogue down voter can cause a whole heap of trouble and I refuse to play along).
I understand that and I’m OK with downvotes, but I’m curious considering the enormity of this development. We had two votes recently that supposedly sent a message that the UK wishes to leave the EU so as to retain national sovereignty with the 2nd vote being even bigger than the first, and here we are being ushered into an even bigger bureaucracy and the beginnings of a world government with even less discussion.
I am currently reading Douglas Murray’s book ‘The War on the West’ which describes a phenomena that is identical to the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. Much of our institutions and a few corporations have become Marxist in nature and the attack on our history has become relentless. The Director-General of the WHO is a Marxist. This is a big deal.
Experts have to tell the freeloading shit house MP,s what I can see & feel with every fibre of my being !! We are truly in dire straights
MPs are, if you like, a sort of anti-sceptic class. They find some “experts” (well Niall Ferguson anyway) to tell them some stuff to fit their agenda. Actual truth and rigorous cost-benefit analyses are not that important to them. Just look at the wailing in parliament over deaths from the ” ‘covid’ pandemic”, as if some frail people dying with a Winter respiratory bug is the only thing that matters from the last few years.
You mean Neil Ferguson?
Author of Imperial College Report 9, that devastated the world with its recommendations…
Yes. (And previously devastated UK cattle farmers). Though sometimes I wish I could forget him.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/insight-slaughtered-on-suspicion
This is a first class film. What is absolutely clearer than ever now is that Bliar was doing a test run with the foot and mouth scam back in 2001. In total 11 million cattle were slaughtered and not six million as we were led to believe.
A taste of what is on the way?
Thanks for the link.
Crikey…Ferguson!!! What a piece of work!!!
It’s deja vu all over again…
In 2009 UK Government Experts Wildly Over-hyped Dangers of Swine Flu – is History Repeating With COVID-19?
Ester McVey says:
Exactly!
How is this even happening?!
The WHO is dominated by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi Alliance – it’s a front for the vaccine industry.
What should be happening now is an examination of the WHO’s key role in the biggest crime in history, the Covid scam that has wreaked havoc across the world!
Surely it can’t be LAW ! Let’s them vote amongst themselves Silly Tw-ts !! ( I’m being polite)
(China’s WHO).
Esther McVey MP?
She has repeatedly demonstrated that she is a genuine friend of freedom.
Vote Get Brexit Done; get China’s WHO pandemic treaty. From Sino Sunak…
Can you be a friend of freedom and remain in the Conservative Party?
Precisely.
As for Professor Pantsdown, he must be held to account!
Will he be? Don’t hold your breath. But if a blatantly incompetent, hubristic, venal twerp like Ferguson walks away smelling of violets, what hope of bringing Gates to justice?
No Government has the right to sign away the Sovereign Rights of its citizens to an unaccountable globalist organisation …. particularly one which has been captured by private Corporations and mega-wealthy individuals.
If Parliament doesn’t vote against the WHO’s proposed power-grab, we might just a well close Parliament down and make it very clear that democracy is dead and buried.