The World Health Organisation’s bid for control will affect you
Why we should be very worried about its ambitious global agenda and its vested interests
As our 2023 election nears, it is now crucial that politicians and voters wake up to what’s going on with the World Health Organisation.
The WHO has two big projects underway - an international treaty and proposed amendments to international health regulations.
Discussions on the treaty - they now call it an ‘accord’ - took place during a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) this month.
At the same time, a WHO working group is considering more than 300 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005). Second meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)
The amendments will be presented to the World Health Assembly in 2024, and will, together with the treaty, provide a set of global health agreements.
This WHO ‘one-world health’ drive is seen as a massive power grab, described by critics as a self-perpetuating pandemic industry, with major internal conflicts of interest, funded by the world’s taxpayers.
Key points to note are provisions that will
expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies and solidify the WHO Director General’s ability to independently declare emergencies.
change existing rules affecting individuals from non-binding to binding, including border closures, travel restrictions, quarantine, medical examinations and medication of individuals, including injection with vaccines or other pharmaceuticals.
The Drafting Group of the INB will meet in June to continue negotiations.
Once adopted by the World Health Assembly, the treaty will be put to countries for ratification.
Unlike New Zealand lawmaking, where elected representatives vote on laws, the WHO lawmaking process involves mostly unelected diplomats voting on international instruments.
New Zealand is among 16 countries that made submissions to the IHR amendments.
Note:
Sir Ashley Bloomfield (remembered for his ruthless refusal of vaccine exemptions), is now co-chair of the WHO’s IHR Working Group. Bloomfield was the Director General of Health and the public face of the government’s COVID policy.
Andrew Forsyth - the NZ Ministry of Health’s manager of Public Health Strategy - is a member of the WHO’s IHR Review Committee.
At present there is no dialogue. No information. Questions put to Andrew Forsyth and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins remain ignored.
Politicians seeking your vote should be able and willing to answer all these questions:
Is Aotearoa/NZ committed to the proposed pandemic treaty and the proposed amendments to International Health Regulations (2005)?
Will NZ citizens be given a voice prior to the country becoming a signatory?
What is the process relating to NZ’s commitment to the treaty and health regulations? (Is legislation required?)
Should we have a referendum to gauge public opinion?
Under the proposed regulations, will doctors be told what they may prescribe and what they will be prohibited from giving a patient when the WHO declares a public health emergency?
Will the treaty provisions interfere with our national sovereignty in the case of declaring and managing a health emergency?
Will New Zealand be able to back out of the treaty at a later stage or under another government?
Will the WHO gain control over national health policy, and enforcement mechanisms?
The WHO relies heavily on private donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Should there be limits on private funding to the WHO?
Will new International Health Regulations be legally binding?
This last question requires a straight reply. It’s difficult to make sense of the legalities.
The WHO states that the regulations make up an ‘instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries’.
The amendments require that member states recognise the WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health emergencies of international concern. And that they undertake to follow the WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.
Yet, confusingly, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says of the treaty: “It’s essential to emphasise that this accord is being negotiated by countries, for countries, and will be adopted and implemented by countries, in accordance with their own national laws. It will not give WHO any powers to do anything without the express permission of sovereign nation states. The claim by some that this accord is an infringement of national sovereignty is quite simply wrong: WHO Director-General's keynote speech at the Thomas Francis Jr. Medal in Global Public Health award ceremony – 13 March 2023
Public trust
The WHO knows its plans are seen as a power grab. So it has strategies for ‘strengthening public trust’ - in other words censorship, surveillance and propaganda.
Article 17 of the draft treaty states that the parties commit to tackle ‘false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation’, through promotion of international cooperation:
“That is development and implementation of educational and public awareness programmes on pandemics and their effects, by informing the public, communicating risk and managing infodemics through effective channels, including social media.”
The WHO intends to conduct ‘regular social listening and analysis, to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation’, to counteract what it deems to be misinformation, disinformation and false news.
In the meantime, WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) ignores all data relating to vaccine injuries. It mentions ‘cost effectiveness’, ‘other health or programmatic priorities’ and ‘opportunity costs’. There is no mention of healthy young people dying suddenly and unexpectedly, sudden deaths of athletes, cardiac arrests, brain bleeds, shingles, rashes, tremors. Nothing about myocarditis, blood clots, menstrual problems, excess death statistics: SAGE updates COVID-19 vaccination guidance
In spite of this deafening WHO silence about adverse effects, the world is waking up to the hazards of the mRNA vaccines.
Joseph Fraiman, in a peer-reviewed study on serious mRNA vaccine side effects, says there is “no question” that serious adverse events were associated with the mRNA vaccines.
In South Africa an approach has been made to that country’s High Court, calling for an urgent judicial review of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine products. If successful, this could result in the removal of COVID mRNA vaccines from the South African market and also have global implications. This case is the first of its kind.
Dr Herman Edeling, a neurosurgeon, notes in the founding affidavit that the mRNA vaccine administered in South Africa should “never have been branded as ‘safe’ and ‘effective’”. Vaccine deaths are being hidden, suppressed and falsely recorded' - Dr Herman Edeling - BizNews.com
An article in ResearchGate concludes that it seems that the pharmaceutical
industry has gained control over the WHO system, leading to
extreme bias. The author recommend a fundamental revision of the WHO-system.
Researchers behind “The Vaccine Damage Project,” released this month, said they sought to “estimate the human cost,” including “deaths caused or hastened by the vaccines,” as well as “the impact on the overall economy of each aspect of the vaccine damage.”
American pulmonary and critical care specialist Pierre Kory says: “The ‘vaccines’ are toxic, lethal, ineffective and must be stopped. They damage the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, foetus, causing all sorts of harm in the body. CDC/FDA misinformation is causing death and injury. https://twitter.com/p_mcculloughmd/status/1638254229256011776?s=51&t=ATZ-y6OqXCS_ACHk7f-_MQ
In the US Governor Ron DeSantis swears off the WHO’s pandemic treaty: “I’m gonna talk to the legislature about maybe including a provision just expressly rejecting any WHO involvement in the state of Florida.”
A study in Slovenia suggests that, rather than “safe and effective”, COVID-19 vaccination has done irreparable harm to the health and the lifespans of billions of people worldwide: Forgotten “Primum Non Nocere” and Increased Mortality after COVID-19 Vaccination | Prime Scholars
At home New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out for Science (NZDSOS) has a list of objectives for 2023:
abandonment of the covid "vaccines"
health freedom for both patients and doctors
acknowledgement and compensation of the harms caused by the injections
investigation of the covid response
rebuilding our health system, and
restoring national sovereignty
Other Sources
WHO Director-General's keynote address to the American Society of International Law
What is meant by a ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?
Sir Ashley Bloomfield is Incorrect - Hatchard Report
The Most Dangerous International Treaty Ever Proposed ⋆ Brownstone Institute
https://www.bitchute.com/video/szuMnzyVj0Aa/
https://rumble.com/v19al9f-exposing-who-conflicts-of-interest-fahrie-hassan.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/hell-no-who-pandemic-treaty/5798100
https://ahrp.org/who-controls-the-who/
https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-doctor/
(http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78660/1/ee20.pdf?ua=1).
https://www.twn.my/title2/health.info/2015/hi151201.htm
https://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/girard.pd
____________________________________________________________________________
The WHO and sex education
By way of a side issue, the WHO is entering the field of sex education.
As a parent, how do you feel about the WHO encouraging the teaching of 0 to 4 year old children to masturbate as part of their pre-school education for the sake of ‘health-promoting lifestyles’?
Last month, the WHO Collaborating Centre (WHO CC) hosted a meeting that focused on the latest developments in sexuality education in the WHO European Region WHO CC
This is what is included in its standards for sexuality education for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists
For 0-4 year olds
enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body,
early childhood masturbation
discovery of own body and own genitals
the fact that enjoyment of physical closeness is a normal part of everyone’s life tenderness and physical closeness as an expression of love and affection
gain an awareness of gender identity
talk about (un)pleasurable feelings in one’s own body
express own needs, wishes and boundaries, for example in the context of “playing doctor”
The WHO says,“Without such knowledge, there is a risk that professionals will react in inappropriate ways, possibly harming the child and/or hindering his/her future healthy development. The Standards therefore inform professionals about how to deal with these phenomena in a high-quality sexuality education programme in a developmentally appropriate way.”
Newly released:
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WHO-IHR-2005-Amendments-and-Pandemic-Treaty.-Rejecting-Monopoly-Power-Over-Global-Public-Health.pdf