The Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) reassures us that the WHO’s ‘pandemic accord’ (or ‘treaty’) won’t reduce the sovereignty of Member States. The WHO trusts that these words will serve as a distraction from reality. Those driving the perpetual health emergency agenda are planning to give WHO more power, and states less. This will happen whenever WHO designates a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC), or considers we may be at risk of one.
The WHO’s proposed treaty, taken together with its ‘synergistic’ amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), aim to undo centuries of democratic reform that based sovereignty with individuals, and by extension their state. The discomfort of facing this truth and the complexities it raises is providing the cover needed to push these changes through. This is how democracy, and freedom, wither and die.
Why it’s hard to acknowledge reality.
Our society in the West is built on trust and a feeling of superiority – we built the institutions that run the world and they, and we, are good. We consider ourselves humanitarians, the public health advocates, the unifiers, and anti-fascist freedom-lovers. We consider our system is better than the alternatives – we are ‘progressive’.
It takes quite a step for comfortable, middle-income, Left-leaning professionals to believe that the institutions and philanthropic organisations we have admired all our lives might now be pillaging us. Our society relies on having ‘trusted sources’, the WHO being one of them. Among others are our major media organisations. If our trusted sources told us we were being misled and pillaged, we would accept this. But they are telling us these claims are false, and that all is well. The WHO’s Director General himself assures us of this. Anyone who thinks rich corporate and private sponsors of WHO and other health institutions are self-interested, that they might mislead and exploit others for their own benefit, is a conspiracy theorist.
We are all capable of believing the rich and powerful of past ages would exploit the masses, but somehow this is hard to believe in the present. For proof of their benevolence, we rely on the word of their own publicity departments and the media they support. Somehow, malfeasance on a grand scale is always a figment of history, and now we are smarter and enlightened.
Over recent decades we have watched individuals accumulate wealth equivalent to medium-sized countries. They meet our elected leaders behind closed doors at Davos. We then applaud the largesse they bestow on the less fortunate, and pretend all this is fine. We watch as corporations expand across national borders, seemingly above the laws that apply to ordinary citizens. We allowed their ‘public-private partnerships’ to turn international institutions into purveyors of their commodities. We ignored this descent because their publicity departments told us to, becoming apologists for obvious authoritarians because we want to believe they are somehow doing a ‘greater good’.
Whilst a schoolchild might see through this facade to the conflicted greed beyond, it is much harder for those with years of political baggage, a peer network, reputation and career to admit they have been duped. The behavioural psychologists that our governments and institutions now employ understand this. Their job is to keep us believing the trusted sources they sponsor. Our challenge is to put reality above right-think.
The remaking of WHO
When the WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health issues, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralising power for a greater good. Those who considered themselves superior would run the world for those less worthy. The WHO once claimed to follow a different line.
Since the early 2000s WHO’s activities have been increasingly dictated by ‘specified funding’. Its funders, increasingly including private and corporate interest, tell it how to use the money they give. Private direction is fine for private organisations promoting their investors’ wares, but it is obviously a non-starter for an organisation seeking to mandate medicines, close borders and confine people. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and human nature will recognise this. But these powers are exactly what the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new treaty intend.
Rather than consider alternate approaches, WHO is seeking censorship of opinions not fitting its narrative, publicly denigrating and demeaning those who question its policies. These are not the actions of an organisation representing ‘we the people’, or confident in its ability to justify its actions. They are the trappings we have always associated with intellectual weakness and fascism.
WHO’s impact on population health
In its 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations, WHO stated that “not in any circumstances” should contact tracing, border closures, entry or exit screening or quarantine of exposed individuals be undertaken in an established pandemic. It wrote this because such measures would cause more harm than good, and disproportionately harm poorer people. In 2020, in conjunction with private and national sponsors, it supported the largest wealth shift in history from low to high income by promoting these same measures.
In abandoning its principles, WHO abandoned millions of girls to nightly rape through child marriage, increased teenage pregnancies and child mortality, reduced childhood education, and grew poverty and malnutrition. Despite most of these people being too young to be troubled by Covid and already having immunity, they promoted billions of dollars of mass vaccination whilst traditional priorities such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS deteriorate. Western media have met this with silence or empty rhetoric. Saving lives does not turn a profit, but selling commodities does. The WHO’s sponsors are doing what they need for their investors, whilst WHO is doing what it needs to keep their money flowing.
The new powers of WHO
The IHR amendments will reduce the sovereignty of any WHO Member State that fails to actively reject them, giving a single person (the Director General) direct influence over health policy and the freedom of its citizens is indisputable. It is what the document says. Countries are required to “undertake” to follow the WHO’s “recommendations”, which are no longer simply suggestions or advice. Whilst the WHO does not have a police force, the World Bank and IMF are on board, and control much of your money supply. The U.S. Congress passed a bill last year recognising that the U.S. Government should address countries that do not comply with the IHR. We are not witnessing toothless threats; most countries, and their people, will have little choice.
The real power of the WHO’s proposals is in their application for any health-related matter they proclaim to be a threat. The proposed amendments state this explicitly, whilst the ‘Treaty’ expands the scope to ‘One-Health‘, a hijacked public health concept that can mean anything perceived to be affecting human physical, mental or social well-being. Inclement weather, crop failures or the promulgation of ideas that cause people stress – everyday things that humans have always coped with, now become reasons to confine people and impose solutions dictated by others.
In essence, those sponsoring WHO are manufacturing crises of their own desiring, and are set to get wealthier from other’s misery, as they did during Covid. This under the guise of ‘keeping us safe’. As WHO implausibly insists, “no one is safe until all are safe”, so removal of human rights must be broad and prolonged. Behavioural psychology is there to ensuring we comply.
Facing the future
We are building a future in which compliance with authoritarian dictates will win the return of stolen freedoms, whilst censorship will suppress dissent. People who wish to see evidence, who remember history or insist on informed consent will be designated, in WHO parlance, far-Right mass killers. We have already entered this world. Public figures who claim otherwise are presumably not paying attention, or have other motivations.
We can meekly accept this new disease-obsessed world, some may even embrace the salaries and careers it bestows. Or we can join those fighting for the simple right of individuals to determine their own future. At the very least, we can acknowledge the reality around us.
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 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.
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.
Might there be any countries for which the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
Wouldn’t that be most countries outside Europe?
I suppose the questions might be:
Does the conflict lead to increased exports?
Does the conflict lead to opportunities to take advantage of a distracted West?
Well, how about those that will benefit form selling Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)? According to the Beeb world propaganda radio, most of the plant for processing LNG is in eastern England, with pipelines across to Belgium & the Netherlands. Apparently even Australia is a potential source, also Canada, as well as the middle east. So, it’s likely that a fair bit will arrive here by sea, then converted to gas and exported to the mainland.
I’m not sure what the currency is, but spot the cash flow into HMG.
I think that may be the wrong question.
It assumes that the actions of countries are taken for the benefit of those countries, meaning, the people of those countries. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the state power of countries is hijacked by interest groups who use it for their purpose and benefit.
So the more accurate question, I think, may be: are there those for whom the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
I am ever more certain that thinking of countries as monolithic units with a common interest only serves to confuse and muddle any attempt to understand what is really going on.
No…the fact that the EU is the second biggest economy after the USA, and is now an economic basket-case…can’t possibly help the US…..?
….and that the USA has become the largest LNG exporter in 2022, driven by European demand….…can’t possibly help the US…?
…and that the same US just might have had a teensy-weensy involvement in fomenting said conflict?
Just coincidence…LOL….!
A case of the US economy tanking & taking out the European one so that the NWO can be more easily installed.
Quite possibly, there were several scenarios when planning this campaign with Ukraine falling quickly being just one of them. But Moscow were negotiating from day one with not unreasonable demands well short of requesting full capitulation of Kiev.
Without negating the bravery of ordinary ukrainian soldiers, the task set for the russian military was extremely difficult. It had to target military objects, spare civilian lives and infrastructure trying not to alienate Ukrainian population while undertaking full scale military operation. Russia couldn’t just carpet bomb starting with Kiev thus decapitating the country. You also can’t dismiss ruinous errors and corruption on the russian side.
Is Ukraine holding for all this time against Russia a blessing or curse? One thing is certain – more Ukrainians will die. Will they be able to defeat Putin eventually as US wants them to? Not while Russia having nuclear weapons. Repel Russians from Ukraine? Maybe eventually in several years’ time. But was it what Ukrainians voting for Zelenskyy wanted? They wanted the end of Donbass war, but got full scale proxy war between nuclear powers in their country.
The response in Europe in particular to Russia’s Ukraine invasion was swift and highly coordinated.
“Sponataneous” expressions of support for Ukraine popped up on TV screens across Europe and in the UK almost instantly.
As far as I’m aware the sanctions imposed on Russia were not debated and decided in parliaments. They weren’t decisions taken by each individual country. They were decided at some supra-national level. The nominally elected heads of governments of our countries were gathered together and informed of what the “coordinated” response would be. And that was it.
This is the reality of our world. Decisions that have massive implication for our lives and our livelihoods are being decided by a group of people that we don’t really know who they are. We can speculate, but we don’t know.
In summary, the question of whether Ukraine was over estimated or underestimated is interesting, I suppose. But far more interesting is by whom?
I’m genuinely interested in finding out who makes the decisions of the British state (and all the other so called democratic states.)
WEF?
It’s an obvious candidate. But I think that at best the WEF is a rough approximation to the answer because the process by which the WEF reaches its well publicised and seemingly very transparent proclamations is rather opaque.
So when the WEF comes up with some dystopian insanity about the 4th industrial revolution, which really does seem to be reflected in actual policy implemented by many countries, who came up with it? Did Klaus Schwab? Was it a group of oligarchs who use the WEF and Schwab as a mouthpiece and. consensus building organism? Is there a board of WEF grandees that act in representation of a group of major corporations, institutions and perhaps some bigger countries?
Maybe the WEF is more like a system for producing groupthink. It gathers together people with influence, puffs them up telling them they are not just influential in their country or in their industry but on a global scale and then gets them talking to each other about the same things, climate change and controlling this and controlling that. They pepper in platitudes about making the world better and global responsibility to make themselves feel good about it all. And before you know it they’re all marching together like drones in the same direction.
What is undeniable is that the things the WEF says seem to be closely aligned with policy in western countries. How much the WEF leads and how much it follows is what isn’t at all clear.
And Bill Gates.
I agree with what you say…particularly in relation to the ‘spontaneous’ expressions of support…which to be fair just feels on the whole like horrendous one-sided propaganda….which media, anywhere, has discussed Russia other than as the bogey-man? Pretty much tells you there’s an ‘accepted’ agenda…
I know we have to unpick what we can from the media, but I don’t trust Reuters, anymore than I trust any MSM. Reuters has a ‘fact-checking’ partnership with Twitter and Facebook, we all know which way those lean…
They have ties with the WEF, Pfizer, and the Trusted News Initiative…well it’s not trusted by me…
I can’t disagree with any of that.
1) Russia expect good a quick win was the Straw Man of USA & NATO Countries propaganda. Russia made no such claim.
2) The ‘West’ didn’t under-estimate Ukraine, they under-estimated Russia – its willingness and ability to grind on, slowly, militarily and how adept it was at reorganising its economy.
‘… additional explanations. One is that European leaders didn’t expect Russia to respond by cutting off the gas supply…’
‘This seems extremely implausible, as it would imply our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs.’
Dear me!
Earth to Noah Carl. Earth to Noah Carl. On which planet have you been these last few years?
Implausible, because it implies that our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs? Well, indeed. Have you seen the shower of ‘leaders’ we have allowed to infest our governments? Half are pocket-lining, self-serving snakes who are taking orders from Brussels, the other half really are morons who think that being a good leader is promising to wipe everyone’s bum for them, then turning around to random businesses and individuals and saying ‘make it happen, I’ve got other things to do.’ And telling naughty Putin to just stop invading other countries, or else they will call him nasty names (not take him on in combat, of course).
The EU nations responded as one because Brussels instructed them to. This is the same Brussels that, under the authoritarian ‘green’ commissioner Timmermans, is literally telling people they just have to accept they will get poorer and will freeze and sit in the dark – all well awarding themselves a pay rise, natch.
Why is Brussels doing this? Pressure from the US combined with a hare-brained idea that this will help them achieve their ‘green’ plan. Once people see how wonderful it is to take cold showers and play shadow puppets by candle light, they will embrace the green. The one thing these people most definitely do not have is a basic understanding of human affairs. I think they really were shocked when, after telling Putin for weeks they would not pay for Russian gas, Putin turned off the gas. What the hell did they expect? They kept saying that not only would they not pay for it, they wouldn’t buy it after they had filled up their stores for the winter. And then were surprised when he said ‘fine by me’.
Certainly both Putin and the EU underestimated Ukraine’s military capabilities.
‘One of the most curious aspects of the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine was how little effort the Kremlin had put into preparing its own population for what was about to be undertaken. The justification for the operation was made suddenly, over the course of about 10 days. In this it resembled the annexation of Crimea, despite being a much greater endeavour, suggesting that the Russian government wished to present it to the Russian public as a fait accompli.’
RUSI 22 Apr 22
The EU had, arguably still has, a complete blindspot regarding defence capability generally, particularly conventional defence in Europe, since its foreign policy has been dominated from 2005-2021 by a ‘peacenik’. The idea that economic ties between Germany and Russia would guarantee peace derived from the original concept of the EU as a construct to defang the Franco German struggles for supremacy in Europe of the recent past.
The fly in the ointment in all this has been the outstanding efforts of Britain, and, specifically, British Army trainers, as good as any worldwide, with recent combat experience, in training up the Ukrainian Army since 2014.
Swift and accurate target acquisition, using novel techniques, by well trained Ukrainian Forces has given Ukrainian artillery a force multiplying lethality.
If that has caught the world by surprise, it should not have. Montgomery instilled the need for intensive training into the British Army and that priority remains today. Consequently, they are very good at it.
But the British Ministry of Defence has, itself, been surprised by the failure of British and European conventional deterrence; Putin ‘going the full tonto’.
The lack of availability of significant European mechanised forces to protect EU members closest to Russia has contributed to the unmitigated disaster now in train in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, Poland, for example, is now intent upon purchasing 1000 tanks from South Korea, the only country able to supply that volume at relatively short notice.
What is the Ukrainian Army asking for, and they certainly appear to know what they are doing?
Tanks.
Britain’s modern tank numbers? That would be 148, available on a good day i.e. not really.
We have been caught napping, as we were in 1938.
The failure of conventional deterrence is always expensive. It is not yet clear that the political will exists in Europe, or Britain, to put a credible conventional deterrent back together again.
And yet that is the only thing that will guard against further military adventurism in Europe, as Poland, much closer to the action, with a legacy of suffering from just such historical occurrences, understands only too well.
It cannot be repeated too often; to the Russian mind, quantity has a quality all of its own. They, and others like them, will not be deterred by drones and cyber. By the time cutting edge systems can take effect, deterrence will have failed.
Deterrence is the key. If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
This is concerning….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-soldiers-told-ready-war-27791322
Especially as there is some information coming out that the ‘migrants’ being shepherded across the Channel are in fact UN militia currently being trained by the British Army in time for martial law to ensure full compliance with lockdowns, digital ID for rations etc
BE prepared!
https://rumble.com/v1ggt9v-britain-got-no-idea-what-coming-they-are-fast-asleep.html
What a pleasure it is to watch the gullible Brits swallow the ukraine/Russia fictionalised “war” and happily take it in the shorts by paying more for their energy this winter.. Ukraine, the third most corrupt country in the world and the Brits are doing their national duty and standing up for the “poor Ukrainians. Meanwhile zelensky, previously employed as a comedienne has a mega million dollar mansion on the beach in Florida and other properties. But the stoic Brits will do whatever they can to support ukraine against that bad man Putin. Has anyone even bothered to ask why exactly energy bills will be skyrocketing this winter. Anything to do with the US sanctions? Oh and don’t forget to take your next booster of the clot shot, guaranteeing ongoing mutation of the covid virus. The newest bivalent shot doesn’t even cover the current covid variant
but be sure to take it!!!