2022-04-01
First a disclaimer - despite the date, this is not an April Fool's article. If only it were!
We have mentioned this impending bid for world domination by medical fiat before, but this Epoch Times article does a good all-round job of providing the details such as are available, so it's a worthy inclusion.
Highly recommended.
"the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation"
"The pandemic treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens, and would erode democracy everywhere"
Given that there is almost nothing democratic about the WHO, that must be the understatement of the year.
The "treaty gives the WHO 'an inordinate amount of power to make decisions in sovereign countries as to how people live and how they deal with pandemics, from lockdowns to mandates over treatment' "
"The reason for this reluctance to declare the pandemic over is likely because the WHO hopes to gain the power to mandate vaccine passports and COVID jabs worldwide. It’s already working on the creation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity program"
Of course, the WHO was not necessarily the primary instigator of lockdowns in 2020, and prior to 2020 had been opposed to lockdowns. Their position now is ambivalent:
"Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death"
"Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID‑19 transmission by limiting contact between people.
However, these measures can have a profound negative impact on individuals ... including people in poverty ... who most often ... depend on daily labour for subsistence.
WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time"
Of course, even though unelected, they are still politicians and depend upon securing a critical mass of support from a wide variety of countries for this proposed treaty, so it's understandable that they will choose forms of words that currently offend the least number of nations. Sitting on the fence comes with the territory.
But do we really want our future pandemic response dictated by such a body on a one-size-fits-all basis? The Covid experience has shown quite starkly that the response of different regions of the world was very different - and those regions that were "deprived of vaccines" (Africa, India, etc) did very well thank you in comparison with the vaccine-obsessed western world, egged on by the WHO.
And of course, the WHO conclusively fails the test that the late great Tony Benn set for any democratic form of government: "tell me how I can get rid of you".
Quoting from the same WHO web page:
"WHO is hopeful that countries will use targeted interventions where and when needed, based on the local situation"
Quite so.
So why exactly do we need this proposed treaty?
