Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
Here is the interview, and below is my introduction to it. https://live.
I will try to be very brief about what many of us think is going on, which I failed to explain before James Corbett and I got into the weeds:
A relatively simple and relatively inexpensive way to gain power and authority over much of the world—without firing a shot—could be accomplished through a binding international treaty that transfers sovereignty over certain matters (such as the response to a public health emergency) from individual nations to an international body like the WHO.
Remember that economic winners and losers, school and business closures, vaccine passports, dangerous vaccines etc. were all ushered in under the guise of a deadly pandemic. Declaring a pandemic is the preferred way to make over a society, and have the people cooperate enthusiastically.
To further this ambition, the WHO is taking two steps. One step is to AMEND its International Health Regulations (IHRs), last amended in 2005. Surprisingly, the US State Department has previously claimed that the 2005 Regulations have the legal force of a treaty, though they were never ratified and adopted as such. That could provide the method by which new amendments are claimed to have the validity of a treaty—without any Americans voting for them.
But in case the IHR amendments don’t work, the WHO also claimed the world needed a pandemic treaty in late 2021. This could do the same thing as the International Health Regulations amendments—transfer control of the conduct of pandemics to the WHO while reducing human rights.
The IHRs need only a simple majority to pass in the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the WHO. A Treaty would be harder to pass. Maybe that is why it is no longer being called a Treaty, but instead an “Accord” or “Instrument.”
Versions of what is being negotiated were leaked, which is what gave everyone the creeps. And the latest version of the IHR Amendments was just released 2 days ago. James Roguski has been working to explain what the proposed changes mean and writes about it at jamesroguski.substack.com
I urge you to subscribe.
The newest IHR Amendments proposal removes the word “non-binding”—seemingly changing the IHRs from a recommendation to having the status of law, requiring nations to comply.
The words “human rights, “fundamental freedoms of persons” and “dignity”, which have very specific meanings and a long history in international law, and grant all of us rights, have been omitted and replaced with words like “equity” “inclusivity” and “diversity” which are undefined and grant us no rights in international law. So this is clearly an attempt to usurp rights previously granted, and replace them with meaningless jargon.
There is emphasis, which the WHO is already putting into place, on preparedness for pandemics. WHO is turning into a pandemic preparedness agency, and the new WHO is proposed to cost about 15 times more ($60 billion) than current WHO operations cost (<$4 billion), according to Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who I wrote about a couple months back.
There will be new disease surveillance activities required of nations. Etc. Etc.
These provisions are not final; negotiations are proceeding; and there are many many more changes I have not mentioned.
But as I tried to explain above, there are potential ways that the President of the US might be able to get around having these documents reviewed and ratified by the Senate, allowing them to be treated as if they are international regulations to which the US is bound.
The fact that 2 separate methods are being negotiated should clue you in that this is a deliberately confusing situation, designed to fool the public about what is going on. I anticipate that final wording will be sprung on us, without giving us much time to analyze and respond before the World Health Assembly votes on one or both measures.
There are several possible responses:
Defund the WHO. Trump did this, and there was a bill introduced during the last Congressional session to do so.
Exit the WHO. Like Brexit.
Have a bill introduced in this Congress that requires that new IHRs and pandemic instruments be handled like other treaties if they are to have the force of law. In other words, they absolutely must go through the Senate and receive a 2/3 vote there before they can bind the US to their provisions.
I will be writing more about this in future. Please go to my older substacks for information on One Health. One Health is a cockamamie concept dreamed up to help gain control of the earth’s resources under the guise of health. Probably all you need to know is that Peter Daszak was one of its major proponents, and the CDC another.
Source: Meryl's COVID Newsletter
No comments:
Post a Comment