Monday, December 18: Watch WHO Debate!

WHO’s Two-Step Global Power Grab

The World Health Organization is trying to take over the world now In an unprecedented power grab, with two major initiatives most people don’t know about. These steps will quietly give the WHO total control of the health policies of every nation and total control of every person:

WHO Pandemic Treaty: The newly drafted WHO Pandemic Agreement “WPA” (referred to until October of this year as the “Pandemic Preparedness Treaty” “PPT”). If adopted, will position the WHO as sole authority regarding anything related to health and welfare. The final vote will be in May 2024. GOP fires warning shot at Biden over ‘deeply flawed’ WHO treaty on pandemic response.
International Health Regulations (IHR) Amendments: President Trump withdrew the US from the WHO. However, the Biden administration not only re-instated the US, but also proposed 12 regulations in December 2021 that will allow the WHO to establish very draconian policies that supersede any nation’s decisions. The WHO would become an unelected world government with the freedom to impose total slavery for as long as it wants. There will be no science and no democracy! Acceptance of these changes is assumed unless nations opt out by December 1, 2023. Yet, there has been little discussion of this threat to national sovereignty! While the treaty must be approved by Congress, the IHR Amendments do not.

While a growing number of nations are now opposing the treaty before the vote in May 2024, few people are aware of the IHR amendments which are being pushed through secretly. The WHO’s position is that the secret amendments are automatically approved unless nations opted out by December 1. However, the Netherlands and 12 members of the European Parliament have notified the WHO that the amendments are not accepted without approval by their parliaments – which has not happened.

Bill Gates’ Global Coup Via WHO

Bill Gates, who is not a doctor (and didn’t even graduate from college), said in 2020 that the world could not go fully back to normal until almost all 7+ billion people got the rushed, poorly tested, gene-altering COVID shots – which he later admitted were his best investment. The corporate media present Gates as a “great humanitarian” and never mention his enormous conflicts of interests.

Gates controls the World Health Organization and CEPI through his two organizations Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI which make him the biggest funder of the WHO. So, the WHO’s global coup d’etat hides the fact that Gates is becoming an unelected global dictator even more than he was during the COVID “pandemic”.

WHO Plans To Override National Sovereignty

In the video below, Dr. Tess Lawrie of the World Council for Health explains that all countries should exit the WHO now.

The Parliamentary debate is happening on MONDAY!

The WHO wants to control our health. Dr Tess Lawrie, from the World Council for Health, joins me to share important information about the debate in Parliament on Monday.

In the video below, Dr. Astrid Stuckeberger who worked at the World Health Organization, and attended an unusual WHO meeting in November 2021 says the plan under discussion was how to use a WHO Constitution to override the sovereignty of each nation. She says the plans of the globalists are so evil that she questions if those people are even human!

Dr. Stuckeberger explains that Article 21 of the WHO Constitution allows it to change the definition of a “pandemic” and of a “vaccine” – as was done in 2020 for COVID. It’s a crazy-making dimension as the WHO, in effect, says as Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland “Words mean whatever I say they mean’” . When Alice replied “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Humpty Dumpty set her straight with “The question is which is to be master – – that’s all.” Few people would choose to be governed by Humpty Dumpty. Yet, the WHO is creating just such an insane world now.

THE HIGHWIRE WITH DEL BIGTREE – DR. ASTRID STUCKELBERGER EXPOSES GLOBALIST AGENDA 1/26/23

Dr. Stuckeberger explains that if two thirds of the WHO member states agree to changes in conventions or procedures, the conventions apply to all member nations. So, if 30% of nations don’t agree, they are still obligated to comply. That means that tiny nations can force huge nations into compliance – or a minority of the world’s population can force the majority to adopt policies they disagree with.

Dr. Stuckeberger points out that in 2006 Bill Gates, who is not a doctor (he didn’t even graduate from college), created the GAVI Alliance in Switzerland. In 2009, he signed an agreement with Switzerland that gives GAVI total immunity and the status of a nation. She points out that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was a board member of GAVI from 2008-2009 before he was elected in 2017 for a 5-year term as Director General of the WHO.

Del explains that the WHO will override the US Constitution. Dr. Stuckeberger discusses the US Proposals to Amends the International Health Regulations which the Biden administration submitted on June 22, 2022 destroy national sovereignty. Those amendments now apply to every nation that did not opt out by December 1, 2023. However, since there has been almost no discussion of them in the media, most nations were not aware of them – and don’t know that they are now subject to them.

Del discusses Dr. Stuckeberger’s infographic below.

IHR Amendments Create Global and Regional Dictators

WHO, Sinister developments 9/29/23

In the shocking video below, Roguski explains the many ways in which the IHR Amendments subvert democracy and allow the WHO Director General to become a world dictator and also creates regional dictator whenever they decide to declare an “emergency”. Reguski says the only way to solve these problems is to exit the WHO. Trump withdrew the US by July 2021 – but Biden was in office then. Also see Screw The WHO.

WHO Power Grab 5/31/23

Serious concerns about the new WHO treaty and International health regulations.

WHO’s Global Coup

Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? 12/11/23

The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:

“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO,”

referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to.

A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:

The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertaketo enact.
The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.

Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics.

The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here.

The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making

Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.

The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18):

require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.

These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health.….

The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty

The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies.

If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.

The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign.

The Need for Clarification

The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day).

So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.