Regardless of what they say, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is coming after national sovereignty.
Democracies and healthy societies are built on rationality and honesty. They may not always exhibit this, but these values must underpin major decisions. Without them, neither democracy nor justice is sustainable. In their absence, these foundations are replaced by a structure in which a few dictate to the many, and the excesses of feudalism, slavery or fascism rise to dominance. This is why so many fought so hard and for so long in defence of these ideals. People in democratic countries elect representatives to the privileged position of guardians of their freedom.
The WHO is promoting a pandemic treaty (currently in the form of a draft called ‘CA+’) and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) to increase its power during health emergencies. These proposals also broaden the scope of emergencies to include potential rather than actual harm.
The draft treaty creates what it calls a ‘One Health’ approach – a nebulous concept describing a highly collectivised global mechanism overseen by the WHO. If the treaty comes to be, emergency decision-making power will be placed in the hands of a single person, the WHO Director General. Signatory countries will then be obliged to follow orders.
Together, the two proposals aim to expand an international bureaucracy for health emergencies with an additional annual budget estimated by the World Bank at three times the WHO’s current budget. This programme is heavily backed by WHO’s major individual and corporate sponsors. These are entities that will directly benefit from the proposed setup. However, it will mainly be funded by taxpayers.
This all represents a drastic departure from the principles of public health. The WHO was originally intended to serve countries, not instruct them. The proposals aim to reduce individual and national decision-making power, replacing this with obedience to the WHO. Of course, the organisation’s leadership denies this is the case. But this reflects a public messaging campaign that has little resemblance to the words in the proposed treaty. In WHO parlance, this denial amounts to misinformation.
Developing a drug cartel
Much of the WHO’s funding comes from private and corporate sponsors, who specify how their money will be used. Sponsor companies have a responsibly to their shareholders to use this relationship to increase profits. In turn, individuals are invested in companies who will gain from the WHO’s health emergency proposals. We saw this mechanism in action during Covid-19. The WHO’s sponsors can profit when the WHO takes control of potentially profitable aspects of health away from representative governments. Just imagine having the power to legally mandate entire nations use your product.
Obvious incompetence
Before entrusting one’s heath to others, it is essential to know that they are competent. Despite having previous evidence-based guidelines for pandemics, the WHO lost the plot disastrously with COVID-19. It supported policies that have worsened such diseases as malaria, tuberculosis and malnutrition, and increased debt and poverty to lock in poorer health for the next generation. These policies increased child labour and helped to force young girls into child marriage, whilst denying formal education to hundreds of millions of children. Sick, elderly people were unable to get care, and healthy people were needlessly confined at home. They have promoted the largest ever upwards concentration of wealth in history while contributing to mass impoverishment.
For the past two years, the WHO has embarked on a project to mass vaccinate 70% of African populations. This despite half the population being under 20 years of age, and therefore at minimal risk from Covid and despite the WHO’s own data showing the vast majority have already had COVID-19, which provides natural protection against reinfection. The proposed treaty seeks powers that will enable it to repeat these types of responses, based on their own declarations of emergencies.
Disdain for human rights
Countries adopting the proposed IHR amendments will accept WHO recommendations as obligatory. The list of potential demands covered in the IHR includes border closures and refusal of individual travel, isolation of “suspect” persons, mandated medical examinations and vaccination, exit screening and requirements of proof of testing. These are all on the table when the WHO unilaterally declares such interventions necessary because of a “risk” to other countries.
There are no clear criteria for establishing such a “risk”. The WHO Director General will not even have to consult and obtain wider consent.
A self-perpetuating funding black hole
The planned pandemic bureaucracy is likely to feature a snowball effect. Biennial assessments by the WHO will likely result in demands on individual nations to improve their pandemic readiness. That means more money. Intensive surveillance, meanwhile, will continually unearth new virus variants. Rather than allowing these variants to fade away, the WHO will sequence them, name them and create panic where none was justified. Cue the same sorts of ruinous measures we have seen in response to Covid. Mainstream media will surely oblige by selling scare stories.
Although the WHO recorded just one mild pandemic per generation for the past 100 years, this system makes the proclamation of frequent emergencies inevitable. Such ‘success’ will be essential justification to maintain funding.
What governments should do
The international community can benefit from coordination over public health. But that is not what CA+ proposes. This is a draconian measure aimed at taking away national sovereignty. It gives vast powers to a single organisation with troubling funding arrangements and a track record for causing terrible damage. Legislators should reject these proposals, refuse to send taxpayer money to the WHO and reject the notion of public health by dictate.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organisation partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.
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.
Pandemic Treaty is legalised tyranny. Sadly, puppet Sunak has already got his fountain pen out, itching to sign.
****
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Another whackjob nutbar conspiracy theory coming true.
Just a cockup however.
No evil, demonic, fascist intent.
Just hard working experts saving the world.
Experts. Who approve mRNA shots in 6 month old babies. Those guys?
Really? So you are content that the WHO could mandate that you take whatever medical treatment they demand? Bodily autonomy is perhaps THE core human right – the state STOPS at my skin. The WHO agreement will throw this away. Maybe you like being a slave? For that is what this will make you.
I’d rather assumed he/she(?) was taking the p***.
Are we now on daily login?
That happened to me a while back. Seemed to happen more with my phone for some reason. Touch wood it’s all back to normal as it’s a pain in the arse, but at least now we don’t have to click on multiple pictures of dodgy fire hydrants or traffic lights! lol Morning to you, btw.
Seems fairly random to me. Sometimes go for weeks without logging in, others times I need to log in more often.
I have to sign in most days.
Excellent piece from Prof Fenton et al, supporting what we sceptics have been banging on about since the start. Flu never did disappear did it? But now the sneaky b’stards want those deemed ”high risk” to rock up for a double-whammy of Covid plus flu jab. Insane!
”Despite the similarity of the symptoms of flu with those of SARS-CoV-2 it was, at least initially, the infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 that differentiated it from the flu – its novelty was dependant on its perceived elevated lethality. However, over time the infection fatality rates for SARS-CoV-2 have converged on that for the flu and now the deadliness of one is indistinguishable from the other. Why then do we, three years later, do we consider SARS-CoV-2 to be more novel than flu or any other respiratory viral infection?
Given that the symptoms of both overlap to an extent which makes each completely indistinguishable from the other based on clinical presentation, legitimate questions have been raised as to the circumstances that led SARS-CoV-2 to be identified as a novel virus in the first place.
Given we cannot trust PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2, why should they be accepted as proof of the absence of flu? The evidence suggests that influenza and SARS-CoV-2 do not significantly interfere with each other, and given no false positives for flu were reported at all, how else can we explain the disappearance of flu except by changes in the PCR testing process?
These are no doubt controversial conclusions but, given the evidence, a reasonable question to ask is: Was covid-19 disease actually entirely new, or is it simply caused by misattributing flu, or the myriad of other causes of respiratory illnesses, as SARS-CoV-2? Or is there some other unknown mechanism that generates one or the other or indeed both?”
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/peek-a-boo-flu
SARS-Cov-2 was obviously a cure for flu
‘What governments should do’
Britain’s government should bring back the Common Cold Unit and put Professor Carl Heneghan in charge of it.
Then we might get more of the sense for which the Common Cold Unit was, rightly, famous:
‘It is therefore arguable that in the case of infections like coronavirus or rhinovirus colds, which are normally quickly self-limited, the best approach would be to relieve the patient’s discomfort and disability and leave their immune system to take care of the virus.‘
D.A.J. Tyrrell, Head of the Common Cold Unit, 1992
In truth the WHO has no control over us and this treaty doesn’t really change that. This is simply providing our government and other bodies with something to hide behind, should it suit them.
But certainly anything global beyond the most basic common sense e.g. ISO codes is to be treated by default as suspicious, probably evil.
Nothing to do with health and everything to do with power, control, money and (in the case of Governments) deniability.
“We were following The $cience.”
Insofar I recall this correctly, one health is supposed to mean health of humans, animals and the planet. The planet is a ball of stone with a mass of 5,972,000,000 trillion metric tons hurtling through space at a speed of 29.87 km/s and it has no health, especially none the WHO could somehow influence. That’s the good reason to reject this: It authorises the WHO to act to the detriment of living animals (humans being a primate species) if it believes this would somehow benefit the aformentioned ball of stone. What such a benefit could conceivably be is anybody’s guess.
The WHO is an evil supranational vampire body literally sucking the life out of world. The mRNA platform is a sick joke, literally, and Gates & Co should be in court.
Luckily we’ve got Jeremy ‘burner phone’ Farrar stepping up to save the world as the new WHO excess deaths czar or something. Best of British!
In other news: what’s VAIDS?
There should be a debate on a referendum after the online petition, but I doubt we will allowed a vote. There should be a referendum on any significant transfer of sovereignty. We lend our politicians these powers, they are not theirs to give away.
Great article.
And for me the biggest argument it is that supranational or national forced measures are causing massive harm at individual level, as we have seen with Covid. Public health should only ever inform, advise, support and re-assure.
On a side note One Health means something entirely different. In short it is collaboration between human-, animal-, and environmental health. These often work in silos and should work together as interventions in one area often have (unintended) consequences in other areas.
The fact that this differentiates between humans and animals should already ring a bell: Humans are a primate species. As opposed to other animals, they have the unpleasant ability of articulating their own wants. It’s better to claim to speak for polar bears because these are not going to voice contradicting opinions.
Environmental health is a completely ill-defined term. It’s based on the notion that someone knows what state a very complex system such as animal and plant life on earth, should really be in. What this someone believe to be the right state fot this complex system is then called healthy to express his deep-felt conviction that he is really omniscient and that all opinions except his own are seriously bad and must be eliminated to maintain a healthy state of affairs.
If WHO had its way we would be in lockdown over monkeypox. Our Government will sign the Treaty nonetheless. There are not enough independent minded MPs to block it. With phantom environmental emergencies to contend with too, it begs the question what are the advantages of having a population in a state of permanent fear? Ask yourself what vested interests stand to benefit? The very people that promoted the global panic in the first place
The WHO treaty will facilitate the introduction of digital IDs and CBDCs by enabling the shutdown of parts of the economy they want to destroy (small businesses) and help the parts they want go grow (global businesses). Rather than tackling inflation head on with interest rates, sparking a global recession and drawing attention to themselves the central bankers) are using mechanisms like the WHO treaty to do it under cover of fear-inducing “pandemics”. Listen to Catherine Austin Fitts:
https://theconsciousresistance.com/the-activation-23/
The WHO continues its anti-democratic agenda and is trying to change from an advisory organisation to a controlling one. It’s time we kicked the WHO into touch and set up a new organisation with a group of top scientists from like-minded countries who can advise governments with a full explanation of their advice, so governments can correctly balance health benefits against cost and other impacts. After recent events, it’s clear that science is not a single solution thing and democratic governments should have the option to use their own trusted scientists to analyse the recommendations from any organisation and make their decisions based on what is best for their country. It might also be better in the UK if ministerial appointments are decided by the education and knowledge of the minister about the subject they are supposed to be administering. Let’s not have another Hancock disaster.
There is absolutely no chance of having ministers with education and knowledgerelevant to the department they represent. The slithering serpents would not accept anyone who was vaguely qualified. Their own incompetence might be shown up.