THE World Health Organisation (WHO) has launched a plan for a so-called Pandemic Treaty which would give it unprecedented, undemocratic jurisdiction over its 194 member nations, including the UK.
Under the treaty, the WHO could order mandatory vaccines, digital health IDs, lockdowns, isolation, testing regimes, no-jab-no-job rules, or anything else it decided as policy, irrespective of dissenting voices. If the UK signed up, the Government would lose any sovereign power to decide this country’s fate in the event of another pandemic, or other health issues.
A deadline for submissions for ‘consultation’ passed last week, but the invitation for video and written comments was launched only the previous weekend – and with barely a whisper. There was no worldwide public announcement.
Dr Tess Lawrie, co-founder of worldcouncilforhealth.org who campaigns for a better approach to health care, made her submission by Zoom link and said later: ‘It was a farce. How could something of such magnitude be organised so hastily and undemocratically?
‘Most of the participants were from the WHO itself or from industry. It was more like a procurement meeting. There were very few people representing countries or communities. I was terribly despondent afterwards.’
Dr Lawrie adds more on her own substack: drtesslawrie.substack.com
She writes: ‘Throughout this pandemic, the WHO has demonstrated its incompetence . . . It has withheld safe and established older medicines, ignored the experiences of frontline doctors, disregarded evidence from low, middle and high-income countries and taken no heed of the values and preferences of people affected by their recommendations.
‘It has ignored the huge numbers of adverse reactions on its own database and has failed to issue warnings about the gene-based vaccines. It has also advertised that the mRNA vaccines are as safe as normal vaccines – and this is simply not the case.
The treaty will be discussed and voted upon at the World Health Assembly in 2023, with a view to introduction in 2024. It can be passed on a majority – and, if adopted, all member countries would be bound by it. Democratic processes could therefore be over-ridden by the WHO, an organisation part-funded and influenced by unelected parties.
Another leading critic, Dr Joseph Mercola, writing in Global Research, says: ‘The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates.
‘For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.
‘Another concern is the fact that when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity.
‘Its power is already very significant and the goal to turn the WHO into a global health dictatorship is virtually written into its constitution. Also, remember that the WHO removed the specificity of mass casualties from the definition of a pandemic, so now a pandemic can be just about any disease that occurs in multiple countries. Even obesity could theoretically qualify. So the WHO could claim power over health care systems in any number of ways, given the chance.’
The WHO argues that a global policy will be fairer. According to Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, ‘me-first’ approaches ‘stymie the global solidarity needed’ to address global threats. It was an argument backed in a submission by Dr Mark Eccleston-Turner, senior lecturer in global health law at King’s College, London, who said: ‘High income nations need to make meaningful, binding commitments that they will not engage in vaccine nationalism, hoarding the very limited supply of vaccines to the detriment of low income nations.’
The treaty also carries a further threat to freedom of speech, as it would give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. In other words, whatever the WHO decided was The Science would be deemed ‘information’. Any questioning voice, any debate, any alternative view, however erudite and qualified, would be ‘misinformation’ and hidden from the public. It is a template that has been well-trialled over the past two years.
This first appeared on News Uncut on April 13, 2022, and is republished by kind permission.