On September 13 in the EU Parliament, another set of presentations were made at the invitation of MEP Christine Anderson of Germany and some of her colleagues, listed below, who have been doing a sterling job of alerting the EU public to the tyranny that has been going on. The video of the presentations is found above.
————
Dr. Peter McCullough (2:36 minutes to 18:45) There have been 2 waves of injury to the world (SARS-CoV 2 & the vaccine) – the role of the WHO appears to be adverse in both of these cases;
WHO is part of a globalist NGO-govt. syndicate (actors are all named); many of these conspired in 2020 to cover up what they knew;
WHO has deceived the world and impeded doctors’ ability to treat patients effectively;
we’re going on 3 years now and there is nothing to relieve human suffering on this; most deaths were preventable;
the vaccines have ‘ravaged the population in the world’ (2/3 of the world took them);
the genetic design of the vaccine has been a disaster; everyone agrees about the heart damage done by them – many young people are having cardiac arrests ‘due to the vaccine until proven otherwise’;
neurological damage is the 2nd domain;
3rd, blood clots ‘like we’ve never seen before’ which won’t dissolve up to 2 year with conventional blood thinners;
4th, immunological disorders; cardiac arrests have happened up to TWO YEARS after the shots; 74% of deaths after vaccination are due to the vaccine;
in myocarditis cases, 100% of deaths are due to the vaccine; there have been 3 false narratives,
the latest being that it is Covid, not the vaccine, that is killing people; vaccines are ‘causing this enormous wave of illness’;
one study says that 30% of vaccinated people have experienced NO side effects; less than 70% are getting some symptoms, with a small percentage getting dramatic illnesses – some batches are ‘high risk’ (small % estimates range thus,
4.2% – 7.7% – 15%); no-one should take another shot – they should be removed for ‘excess risk of death’ – many groups are coming out, based on the evidence, saying this; they are not safe for human use;
yet WHO is still standing behind these vaccines; all major stakeholders should pull out of the WHO.
Dr. David Martin (30:24 minutes to 54:56)
👉🏼👉🏼 ‘For 110 years, we the people of the world have been lied to …’ 👉🏼👉🏼 ‘I’m done being polite’ 👉🏼👉🏼 ‘This (WHO) is a criminal cartel’ 👉🏼👉🏼 ‘We did not have a pandemic, we had genocide’
MEP Christine Anderson concluding remarks (1:12:28 to 1:18:25)
In four days’ time, on Wednesday September 20th, our representatives meeting at the United Nations will sign off on a ‘Declaration’ titled: ‘Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.’
This was announced as a “silent procedure”, meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text. The document expresses a new policy pathway for managing populations when the World Health Organisation (WHO), the health arm of the UN, declares a future viral variant to be a “public health emergency of international concern”. The WHO noted in 2019 that pandemics are rare and insignificant in terms of overall mortality over the last century. Since then, it decided that the 2019 old-normal population was simply oblivious to impending annihilation. The WHO and the entire UN system now consider pandemics an existential and imminent threat. This matters, because:
They are asking for far more money than is spent on any other international health program (your money);
This will deliver great wealth to some people who now work closely with WHO and the UN;
The powers being sought from your Government will reimpose the very responses that have just caused the largest growth in poverty and disease in our lifetimes; and
Logically, pandemics will only become more frequent if someone intends to make them so (so we should wonder what is going on).
Staff who drafted this Declaration did so because it is their job. They were paid to write a text that is clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless. They are part of a rapidly growing industry, and the Declaration is intended to justify this growth and the centralisation of power that goes with it. The document will almost certainly be agreed by our Governments because, frankly, this is where the momentum and money are.
Whilst the Declaration’s 13 pages are all over the place in terms of reality and farce, they are not atypical of recent UN output. People are trained to use trigger words, slogans and propaganda themes (e.g., “equity”, “empowerment of all women and girls”, “access to education”, “technology transfer hubs”) that no one could oppose without risking being labelled a denier, far-Right or colonialist.
The Declaration should be read in the context of what these institutions and their staff have just done. It is difficult to summarise such a compendium of right-speak intended to veil reality, but it is hoped this short summary will prompt some thought. Wickedness is not a mistake but an intended deception, so we need to distinguish these clearly.
Fomenting darkness behind a veil of light
Put together, the following two extracts summarise the internal contradiction of the Declaration’s agenda and its staggering shamelessness and lack of empathy:
In this regard, we:
PP3: Recognise also the need to tackle health inequities and inequalities, within and among countries…
PP5: Recognise that the illness, death, socio-economic disruption and devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic…
‘Recognition’ of devastation is important. SARS-CoV-2 was associated with mortality predominantly within wealthy countries, where median age of Covid-associated death was between 75 and 85 years. Nearly all of these people had significant co-morbidities such as obesity and diabetes, meaning their life-expectancy was already restricted. Most people contributing significantly to economic activity were at very low risk, a profile know in early 2020.
These three years of socio-economic devastation must, therefore, be overwhelmingly due to the response. The virus did not starve people, as the Declaration’s writers would like us to believe. Deteriorating disease control was predicted by WHO and others in early 2020, increasing malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malnutrition. Economic disruption in low-income countries specifically results in more infant and child deaths.
In Western countries, adult mortality has risen as expected when screening for cancer and heart disease are reduced and poverty and stress increase. Knowing this, WHO advised in late 2019 to ”not under any circumstances” impose lockdown-like measures for pandemic influenza. In early 2020, under the influence of its sponsors, it advocated them for COVID-19. The Declaration, however, carries no note of contrition or repentance.
Undeterred by incongruity, the Declaration goes on to describe COVID-19 as “one of the greatest challenges” in UN history (PP6), noting that somehow this outbreak resulted in “exacerbation of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty”. In fact, it acknowledges that this caused:
(a) negative impact on equity, human and economic development across all spheres of society, as well as on global humanitarian needs, gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, the enjoyment of human rights, livelihoods, food security and nutrition, education, its disruption to economies, supply chains, trade, societies and the environment, within and among countries, which is reversing hard-won development gains and hampering progress (PP6)
To restate the obvious, this does not happen due to a virus targeting sick elderly people. It occurs when children and productive adults are barred from school, work, healthcare and participation in markets for goods and services. Economic, social and health catastrophe inevitably results, disproportionately harming poorer people and low-income countries, conveniently far indeed from the halls of Geneva and New York.
No, we were not all in this together.
Not all were negatively impacted by this catastrophe. People and corporations who sponsor much of the WHO’s health emergency work, and that of its sister organisations such as CEPI, Gavi and Unitaid, did very well from the policies they advocated so strongly. Software and Pharma companies made unprecedently high profits while this mass impoverishment played out. The international agencies have also gained; construction and recruitment are strong in Geneva. Philanthro-capitalism is good for some.
The main aim of the Declaration is to back the proposed WHO International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments and treaty (PP26), key to ensuring that viral outbreaks that have such small impact can remain highly profitable. An additional $10 billion dollars per year in new financing is requested to support this (PP29). There is a reason why most countries have laws against scams. The UN and its agencies, fortunately for its staff, are outside of any national jurisdiction.
Based on their sponsors’ assessments, the staff of these agencies are doing their job well. For the rest of humanity, their work is an unmitigated disaster. In 2019 they said never lock down, then spent 2020 defending top-down lockdowns and mandates. For three years, they theatrically pretended that decades of knowledge on immunity, disease burden and the association of poverty with mortality did not exist. Now they write this UN Declaration to fund their industry further through taxpayers they so recently impoverished. Once tasked to serve the world’s vast populations, particularly the poor and vulnerable, the UN vision has been consumed by public private partnerships, the allure of Davos and a fascination with high-net-worth individuals.
When words are used to obscure actions
While the Declaration underlines the importance of educating children during pandemics (PP23), these same organisations backed school closures for hundreds of millions of children at minimal risk from COVID-19. Among them, several million more girls are now being farmed off to nightly rape as child brides, others in child labour. Women and girls were disproportionately removed from education and from employment. They weren’t asked if they supported these policies!
The girls are being raped because the people paid to implement these policies did so. They know the contradiction, and the harm. But this is a job like many others. The only unusual aspects, from a business standpoint, are the sheer amorality and lack of empathy that must be engaged to excel in it.
To justify wrecking African children’s lives, the UN claims out that the continent has “over 100 major public health emergencies annually” (OP4). Africa has a rising burden of endemic diseases that dwarf mortality from such outbreaks – over half a million children die every year from malaria (increased through the COVID-19 lockdowns) and similar burdens from tuberculosis and HIV. By contrast, total COVID-19 deaths recorded in Africa over the past three years are just 256,000. The 2015 West African Ebola outbreak, the largest such recent emergency pre-Covid, killed 11,300 people. MERS and SARS1 killed less than 1,000 each globally. However, induced poverty does cause famine, raises child mortality and wrecks health systems – is this the health emergency that the UN is referring to? Or is it simply making things up?
Through the IHR amendments, these agencies will coordinate the locking down, border closures, mandated medical examinations and vaccination of you and your family. Their Pharma sponsors reasonably expect to make several hundred billion more dollars from these actions, so we can be confident that emergencies will be declared. By claiming 100 such events annually in Africa alone, they are signalling how these new powers will be used. We are to believe the world is such that only the abandonment of our rights and sovereignty, for the enrichment of others, can save us.
The UN and WHO do recognise that some will question this illogic. In PP35, they characterise such scepticism as “health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatisation”.
The WHO recently publicly characterised people who discuss adverse effects of Covid vaccines and question WHO policies as “far-Right”, “anti-science aggressors” and “a killing force”.
This is unhinged. It is the denigration and hate speech that fascist regimes use. The reader must decide whether such an organisation should control his or her freedom of expression and decide what constitutes truth.
It is not helpful here to give details of all 13 pages of right-speak, contradiction and fallacy. You will find similar rhetoric in other UN and WHO documents, particularly on pandemic preparedness. Straight-talk is contrary to business requirements. However, the first paragraph in the Declaration’s ‘Call to Action’ sets the tone:
We therefore commit to scale up our efforts to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and further implement the following actions and express our strong resolve to:
OP1. Strengthen regional and international cooperation, multilateralism, global solidarity, coordination and governance at the highest political levels and across all relevant sectors, with the determination to overcome inequities and ensure the sustainable, affordable, fair, equitable, effective, efficient and timely access to medical countermeasures including vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and other health products to ensure high-level attention through a multisectoral approach to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics and other health emergencies, particularly in developing countries;
There are 48 more. You paid taxes so that someone could write that!
Those millions of girls suffering at night, the hundreds of millions of children who had their futures stolen, the mothers of those malaria-killed children, and all suffering under the increasing burden of poverty and inequality unleashed by this farce are watching. The Declaration, like the IHR amendments and pandemic treaty it supports, await the signatures of the Governments that purport to represent us.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
The pandemic is over, but the virus is still dangerous: Reports of the new variant EG.5.1. seem to confirm this analysis. EG.5.1. (Eris) has been considered a “variant of interest” since 9 August. According to the WHO, the phenotype does not differ fundamentally from other Omicron lineages and does not require special public health measures …
With the announced end of the pandemic, virtually all mandated protective measures have been lifted in Germany. The most important instrument in the fight against Covid-19 is thus the immunisation of the population through infection or vaccination.
The World Health Organisation WHO has upgraded the new Covid mutationEG.5. This variant, called “Eris,” now belongs to the “variants of interest.” …
As WHO Covid expert Maria Van Kerkhove explained in Geneva on Wednesday, more severe outcomes have not been observed with Eris, but vaccination confers less protection than with other virus variants. …
Even though the new variant is unlikely to cause severe disease, the [German vaccine regulatory authority] STIKO still recommends getting vaccinated – above all to avoid possible long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to protect employees in medical and nursing care.
The pharmaceutical company Moderna has announced that its updated Covid vaccine according to an initial study is effective against the Eris sub-variant. The company now expects to launch the new vaccine in time for the autumn vaccination season. Approval from vaccine regulators however is still pending.
Moderna, like vaccine manufacturers Novavax and Pfizer, has developed versions of its vaccines with Biontech SE that target Eris subvariants. Shortly before, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer had reported that its revised vaccine had been effective against Eris in a study with mice. …
Most recently, it was suspected that the cinema hype surrounding the feel-good film “Barbie” and the gloomy biopic “Oppenheimer” may have caused many infections. At the same time, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) recorded an increase in the number of reported Covid infections. Experts, however, see no reason for concern so far.
Is Covid on the attack again? There are indications that the virus is once on the rise once more. …
British doctors are already calling for a return to masking. [Relentless virus charlatan and deranged hypermasker] Trisha Greenhalgh suggests that, “in view of the spread of new variants,” masking in high-risk situations should be considered.
The [virus surveillance] of the Federal Ministry of Health shows that the numbers are also on the rise in Germany. … “Eris” is already responsible for every fourth corona infection, according to new figures from the RKI. “The number of Covid-19 cases reported to the RKI .. seems to be related to the increasing circulation of this ‘variant of interest’,” the Robert Koch Institute says.
The increase in the case numbers – at least in Great Britain – coincides with the opening of the blockbusters “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” in British cinemas, which has given rise to talk of the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon. It is well known that larger crowds in enclosed indoor spaces are associated with an increased risk of corona infection. So is it time for a mask renaissance?
In the USA, more and more voices calling for one. [Relentless virus pest] Eric Feigl-Ding … used the hashtag #MaskUp on Twitter to call once again for protecting oneself from Covid infections with masks. Health Minister Karl Lauterbach shared the post, warning that the latest Covid data from New York is “worrying.” …
“There is still a risk that a more dangerous variant will emerge, which could lead to a sudden increase in cases and deaths,” emphasises WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Not only adapted vaccines that take the new variants into account, but also wearing a mask would then help to protect oneself and others, Frankfurt virologist Martin Stürmer told Spiegel.
The number of laboratory-confirmed Corona cases in Germany is rising again – but at a relatively low level. This development has been ongoing for around a month, reports the Influenza Working Group at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) … According to the report, about 2,400 confirmed cases of Covid-19 were reported nationwide last week. This is more than double the number reported in the week ending 9 July, when there were about 1,000. …
According to the RKI report, the activity of acute respiratory diseases in general in the population was “at a low summer level.” … “Anyone with symptoms of an acute respiratory infection should stay at home for three to five days and until the symptoms have clearly improved,” advises the RKI. …
Despite all of this obnoxious verbiage, absolutely nothing of virological note is happening in Germany. Official Covid testing has been all but abolished here, forcing our journaloids to unearth statistics from RKI influenza surveillance – something they refused to do during the pandemic itself, because the flu people routinely posted data that undermined their panic narrative. Here, I’ve circled in red the scary RiSE iN InFEctiOnS from the latest RKI report that we’re meant to be worried about:
This microscopic uptick is dwarfed by the February/March wave that peaked between weeks 8 and 13. Our media luminaries took next to no notice of this frightening late-winter surge, and as I type this, Covid diagnoses have not even re-achieved their June levels. The difference between the state of things now and the state of things in February is not the unremarkable Eris variant. XBB was also debuting across Europe early this year, driving the post-February case peak, and nobody cared. The only thing that is different now, is the proximity of the autumnal vaccination liturgy and the prospect of new, updated vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Novavax. That is why we are hearing about variants and masks and Long Covid all over again. It is also why many of these articles contain buried within them somewhere the advice to line up for the shiny new anti-Covid juice this Fall. This whole thing is, very plainly, a psy-op, if a very low-effort one.
There are several patterns in the German reporting that are worth noting. First of all, the latest hysteria was unleashed on 17 August, prompted by a report on Eris from the German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur. Particularly in the realm of routine reporting, the news agencies are a powerful coordinating force, and their influence here means that the full media panic machine is not engaged. We’re looking instead at pieces thrown together by low-level staff desperate to fill column inches. Second, all the German stories are firmly downstream from Anglophone sources, going so far as to recycle from British tabloids the improbable theory of a “Barbenheimer” wave (it is painful even to type this stupid word). Third, at least German health authorities – Karl Lauterbach excepted – resolutely refuse to provide virus doom quotes. Thus the Frankfurter Rundschau had to appropriate the tweets of Anglosphere mask hysterics like Greenhalgh and Feigl-Ding to make Eris sound scary.
I know there are rumours that American authorities are planning to bring back mask mandates and other restrictions in the coming months, and I’ll be honest: We should be so lucky. If the pandemicists try to kick up another round of non-pharmaceutical interventions this fall, they’ll be flirting with self destruction. There are important prerequisites for virus panic: You need a plausibly novel pathogen, the risk of which can be exaggerated. You need a prevailing sense of stability, with nothing else much going on, because the public health interventions themselves have to seem new. Risk, excitement and the prospect of a break from routine are important enticements. That’s all gone now. Covid is not a new scary virus anymore; nearly everyone has had personal experience with it. Solid majorities everywhere have learned to hate lockdowns, despise masking and avoid the mRNA vaccines. The pandemicists need a plausibly new virus to reopen the circus, and they need a lot of people to forget about what a misery the last pandemic response was. They’ll have another chance in ten or fifteen years, I’d guess. Then, it’ll be time to worry.
With the WHO hurtling towards adoption of the ‘Pandemic Treaty’, as well as revisions of its International Health Regulations (IHR) which some knowledgeable observers regard as even more consequential, a leading theory among opponents appears to be that the changes will consolidate the power of the WHO bureaucracy and hence of private interests which allegedly control the latter.
But, prima facie, the theory makes little sense. The WHO is, after all – like, say, the UN or the World Trade Organisation – an international organisation, in which negotiations take place among member states and decisions are made by them. Private sources can contribute as much funding as they like, and this may well give them influence, but it will not give them a seat at the negotiating table or a vote. Without precisely state sponsorship, a project like the Pandemic Treaty and the related revisions of the IHR could not even get off the ground.
And, lo and behold, if we go back far enough – before hardly anyone will have ever even heard the expression ‘pandemic treaty’ – we discover that the treaty did indeed have a state sponsor and that, unsurprisingly, the state in question is the very same state which, if albeit unbeknownst to the broader public, was the driving force behind the WHO’s COVID-19 ‘pandemic response’: namely, Germany.
But the article is not in fact about how the WHO wants to prevent a future pandemic, but rather about how Germany wants the WHO to prevent a future pandemic. Thus, the accompanying blurb reads: “How can a catastrophe like the Corona pandemic be prevented in the future? With a UN treaty, Germany and other countries believe. At the WHO meeting, they want to break the resistance of other countries.”
The article goes on to narrate how Germany and its allies wanted to use the WHO’s annual assembly, which was being held remotely that year and which began on that very day, in order to “fire off the starting pistol for an international pandemic treaty”.
And so it would come to pass. By the end of the yearly event, a few days later, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a somewhat rag-tag band of two dozen other world leaders would publish a joint statement calling for the conclusion of a pandemic treaty. The signatories included many frankly minor figures like the Prime Ministers of Fiji and of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as heads of international organisations – like none other than WHO Director-General Tedros – but also somewhat weightier figures like then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron.
“States have to commit to cooperating and to the implementation of jointly established rules,” Spahn told the dpa. “So as not to remain at the level of pious wishes,” the article continues.
A legally binding treaty is planned: whoever takes part has to abide by it. A form of compulsion is supposed to come into being: practically only rogue states could then afford not to cooperate and they would have to count on international condemnation.
Speaking of private versus state interests, by this time, in mid-2021, Germany had shot past the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to become the WHO’s largest funder, nearly quadrupling its contribution overnight in a funding effort which the dpa report explicitly links to its desire to lead the world in pandemic prevention and response. Germany’s contribution thus reached nearly $1.15 billion for the 2020-21 funding period (as can be seen here).
All of the additional funding was, of course, voluntary (Germany’s assessed contribution as member state represented a mere 5% of the total), and nearly all of it was earmarked precisely for the WHO’s COVID-19 response budget. As in previous years, the bulk of Gates Foundation funding, by contrast, continued to be devoted to polio eradication. (See flowchart here.)
Thus, more to the point, if Germany’s total contribution to the WHO budget easily surpassed that of the Gates Foundation, its specific contribution to the COVID-19 response budget dwarfed that of the Gates Foundation. The below graphs generated from the WHO database clearly illustrate this fact for 2020, with Germany’s $425 million contribution leading the pack by a wide margin and the Gates Foundation’s mere $15 million trailing even the likes of Yemen!
In 2021, Germany would continue to lead the pack, with the European Commission, under former German Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen, now upping its game and finishing (a distant) second. The combined pledges of Germany ($406 million) and the Commission ($160 million) would represent around half of the WHO’s total COVID-19 response budget. The Gates Foundation contribution would fall to just $10 million. (See the WHO database here, selecting ‘SPRP 2021’, and for further discussion, my earlier article here.)
Moreover, Germany was not only massively funding the WHO’s COVID-19 response. It was also uniquely well-positioned within the organisation to influence the development of the Pandemic Treaty and the revisions of the International Health Regulations.
Thus, the dpa report notes that “a WHO expert commission led by Lothar Wieler, the Head of the Robert Koch Institute,” had recommended the quick dispatch of “crisis teams” to the area of a “pandemic outbreak”. This procedure is supposed to be “anchored in the treaty”, i.e., to be mandatory whether a country wants to receive such ‘crisis teams’ or not.
A commission led by Lothar Wieler, the Head of the Robert Koch Institute? The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is none other than the German public heath authority. Wieler’s leading such a commission is as if Rochelle Walensky would lead a WHO expert commission while still heading the CDC or, say, Anthony Fauci would lead a WHO expert commission while still heading NIAID.
Wieler, who has since stepped down from his position as head of the RKI, chaired the WHO’s ‘Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 Response’, which undoubtedly played a key role in developing the proposed revisions of the IHR. This is perhaps the commission to which the dpa report is referring.
Wieler is also a long-time champion of the so-called ‘One Health’ approach, focusing on ‘zoonotic’ or animal origins of human diseases, which is at the very heart of the proposed Pandemic Treaty. (See the ‘zero draft’ here and the Wieler-edited volume here.) Wieler is a veterinarian, incidentally.
As further evidence of Germany’s commitment to ‘pandemic prevention’, the dpa report also points to a German Government grant of €30 million ($33m, £26m) to the WHO to create a “pandemic early warning centre” in Berlin. The €30 million would soon become $100 million (€90m, £77m) and the ‘early warning system’ would become the Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, which was inaugurated in Berlin – just three months later! – on September 1st 2021, by Chancellor Merkel and WHO Director-General Tedros.
Although the hub is commonly described as a WHO centre, it is in fact run as a full-fledged partnership between the WHO and none other than the German public health authority, the RKI. On that same September 1st 2021, Wieler and Tedros marked the creation of the partnership with a celebratory elbow-bump, as can be seen in the above picture taken from the RKI tweet here.
No constitutional guarantee = free speech at the pleasure of politicians. But even the USA is at risk from attempts to shut down free speech.
The Issue
Misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy.
In January 2023, the Minister for Communications announced that the Australian Government would introduce new laws to provide the independent regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), with new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation.
The new powers will enable the ACMA to monitor efforts and require digital platforms to do more, placing Australia at the forefront in tackling harmful online misinformation and disinformation, while balancing freedom of speech.
The proposed powers would:
enable the ACMA to gather information from digital platform providers, or require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation
enable the ACMA to request industry develop a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which the ACMA could register and enforce
allow the ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard (a stronger form of regulation), should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms.
The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services.
The ACMA powers will strengthen and support the existing voluntary framework established by the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation (the voluntary code), and will extend to non-signatories of the voluntary code.
We want to hear your feedback on the proposed legislation. It’s easy to have your say—simply read the exposure draft Bill and the supporting documents and:
Make a submission below by clicking the ‘Have your say’ button.
The Guidance Note for the exposure draft Bill provides an explanation of the key parts of the Bill. For a short explanation of some of the Bill’s key elements, please see the fact sheet.
The Australian Government will introduce legislation this year to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online.
The legislation will provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to hold big tech companies to account for harmful content on their platforms.
The new powers follow the release of a report by ACMA on the adequacy of digital platforms’ disinformation and news quality measures, including the effectiveness of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation which was launched by industry in February 2021. The report highlights that disinformation and misinformation are significant and ongoing issues.
The growth of disinformation and misinformation erodes trust in democratic institutions and causes harm to individuals and businesses. Digital platforms must take responsibility for what is on their sites and take action when harmful or misleading content appears.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, rampant disinformation and misinformation on social media undermined public health efforts to contain and treat the virus. More than 4 in 5 Australians reported having experienced COVID-19 misinformation in the 18 months to June 2021.
The new powers include:
Information gathering powers which will incentivise greater platform transparency and improve access to Australia-specific data on the effectiveness of measures to address disinformation and misinformation
Additional powers to register and enforce industry codes or make industry standards to encourage platforms to be ambitious in addressing the harms of disinformation and misinformation. These will provide ACMA with the ability to hold platforms to account should their voluntary efforts prove inadequate or untimely.
A Misinformation and Disinformation Action Group will be established, bringing together key stakeholders across government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on emerging issues and best practice responses.
The Government will consult on the scope of the new powers ahead of introducing legislation into the Parliament in the second half of 2022.
Although the draft laws seem a little vague about what the government believes constitutes disinformation, there seems little doubt climate skepticism will be included in the scope of these new laws. Federal Climate Minister Chris Bowen has indicated he thinks climate skeptic narratives are “fundamentally dishonest”.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen criticises ‘right-wing commentators’
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen has taken aim at “right-wing commentators” in Australia.
Australian “right-wing commentators” are pedalling a “fundamentally dishonest narrative” about the energy crisis in Europe, a Labor cabinet minister has said.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he’d “seen plenty” of these people attempting to blame energy shocks in the wake of the Ukraine war on a too-rapid transition to renewables.
“The price of gas in Europe is around nine times that of renewables, and yet some geniuses argue the problem is too much reliance on renewables,” Mr Bowen said on Monday.
“This is the latest catchcry of those who seek to deny and delay action in Australia, like we haven’t had enough denial and delay in Australia over the last ten years.”
The obvious premise behind these laws, that the government or government appointed experts have the wisdom to decide what constitutes disinformation, is absurd.
Look at the embarrassment Facebook faced when they had to backflip on censoring Covid lab leak theories, after Fauci hinted that a lab leak was a possibility.
Update on May 26, 2021 at 3:30PM PT:
In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps. We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge.
Were people wrong to suggest Covid might have leaked from a lab, until Fauci gave permission to discuss this possibility?
Imagine a future where people like Fauci or Bowen decide what constitutes a legitimate public conversation, in all aspects of public life. Because that is where Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Europe, and perhaps even the USA are headed, if we don’t start pushing back against these ill considered attempts to constrain our freedom.
Companies like Facebook are dancing a fine line between legitimate content moderation and editorialising. Nobody wants social media sites full of obscene and criminal sexualised underage material, with anti-censorship laws so strict that social media companies are powerless to remove such filth. Yet at the same time there are legitimate arguments that heavy handed social media censorship is already impeding the right of US citizens to enjoy their constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Social media companies are very much the town square of today’s world. This especially applied during the recent Covid lockdown, when people were prohibited from socialising in person – an issue which I believe has not received sufficient recognition.
Of course, US citizens enjoy protections which Australians do not. Australians, unlike Americans, have no constitutional free speech guarantee, so we are a lot more vulnerable to these kinds of encroachments on our freedom.
Australians have been invited to comment on these proposed laws. I urge all Australians to respond, and to contact your federal MP and Senators, to tell them exactly what we think of politicians trying to constrain our freedom to share our opinions with our fellows.
The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) proposed Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will hand the international health body unprecedented powers to declare pandemics, lockdowns and vaccination mandates, with the force of international law, leading experts have told MPs.
Speaking to U.K. lawmakers at a meeting of the Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), Dr. David Bell, a former WHO scientific and medical officer, and Professor Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds and Director of the World Health Organisation Collaborative Centre on Health Systems and Health Security, said that the changes would fundamentally alter the relationship between WHO and member states and put vital health programmes at risk.
Dr. Bell explained that the two agreements, as currently drafted, will hand the WHO the authority to order measures including significant financial contributions by individual states, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency of its own declaring.
He said:
The WHO was established in 1946 with the best of intentions, to help coordinate responses to major health issues and advise governments accordingly. Over the decades we have seen a significant change in direction as funding streams have shifted to private ‘specified funding’, particularly from private donors. This has led to the WHO becoming a far more centralised and externally-directed body in which private and corporate funders shape and direct programmes. What we have also seen shifting is the definition of a health emergency, making it extremely broad. It is a worrying background against which the IHR amendments and the Treaty are being negotiated.
These pandemic instruments are founded on a fallacy regarding the frequency and impact of pandemics and would, if ratified, fundamentally change the relationship between the WHO and national governments and their citizens. Of particular concern are the amendments to the IHR which constitute a dangerous increase in power and authority bestowed on just one person. The Director-General would be able to proclaim health emergencies, whether real or potential, on any health-related matter that they, influenced by their private and corporate funders, say is a threat. The WHO would be able to issue legally-binding directions to member states and their citizens. In light of the catastrophic harms the WHO’s policies have caused during this pandemic, probably greater than the virus itself, the potential economic and health-related harms of such power cannot be overstated. There is a vast pandemic industry waiting for these buttons to be pushed and I am in no doubt that policymakers should reject WHO’s pandemic proposals.
Professor Brown and his research team has been advising the WHO and others on the $31.1 billion a year plan for pandemic preparedness and whether it is defensible or even feasible. Vital public health programmes are suffering globally as a result of the misguided shift to focus on post-Covid pandemic preparedness, he warned.
The post-Covid policy environment has triggered a remarkable grab by various institutions to capture the pandemic preparedness and response agenda and its corresponding financial capacities. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the policy processes in terms of the representativeness of the emerging pandemic preparedness agenda. One particular concern involves the $31.1bn per year price tag, particularly the more than $24bn a year required from low-and middle income countries. The concern is whether this number is appropriate or even feasible. Nations need to be able to address their individual public health needs, to encourage better population health and resilience and the sort of sums they will be required to contribute to pandemic preparedness could threaten to divert resources from where they are most needed. We already saw this happen during the pandemic and there is evidence to suggest this has continued.
For example, tracking Overseas Development Aid for health from 2019 to the present shows that vital and established preventive public health programmes have suffered globally as a result of policy shifts to Covid and post-Covid pandemic preparedness and response. Evidence shows that malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, reproductive health and non-communicable diseases have been impacted by resource shifting. Overseas Development Aid saw a 34% decrease in funding for basic health and a 10% decrease for basic nutrition in developing countries. The fear is that emerging pandemic preparedness instruments will be a continuation of this trend, which will have significant population health effects.
Listening to the speakers, APPG Co-Chair, Conservative MP and former Government minister Esther McVey said:
In April, I spoke at the Westminster Hall debate on this topic [and] much more parliamentary scrutiny and debate is needed. As the COVID-19 Inquiry begins to hear evidence, how we prepare for future pandemics must be carefully considered. We have heard concerns about the expansion of the WHO’s powers, the encroachment on national sovereignty and the rights of the individual and the sheer cost of the plans. These are vast amounts of public money to prepare for pandemics when we have a proportional, evidence-based pandemic plan, formulated to prevent the avoidable suffering and loss we have now experienced. The Government abandoned those plans in early 2020, despite knowing the likely outcomes.
The Treaty and IHR amendments could cement a disastrous approach to future pandemics. It seems unwise to give an unelected and largely privately-funded supranational body power over sovereignty and individual rights with seemingly no oversight. My constituents are concerned, not least because the WHO has a poor track record when it comes to pandemics. I question whether we want to hand such authority to the WHO, whose focus in recent decades has moved away from its laudable founding principles, to blunt instruments such as lockdowns and a one-size fits all approach to public health with the terrible consequences we are now seeing.
APPG Co-Chair, Labour MP Graham Stringer MP, added:
I am opposed to these plans as they could represent a huge expansion of the WHO’s powers, to the detriment of public health. The authority it could gain would surely pressure countries into complying with diktats of its choosing. We saw the unaccountable and extreme influence of China on the WHO when it refused to investigate the Wuhan laboratory and the origin of SARS-CoV-2. It’s also worrying to see the increase in commercial interests within the WHO.
We experienced the WHO’s unscientific volte face on mask wearing, despite there being no strong evidence that they had suddenly become effective. It was an entirely political decision, much like many of the decisions taken by the U.K. Government, often in the absence of any real parliamentary scrutiny. We appear to have learnt nothing from that experience, in terms of both the eye-watering cost and the vast collateral damage, which the Treaty and amendments seem set to enshrine in the WHO’s principles. If these plans come to be, we would be handing over powers to an organisation with less clinical and scientific expertise than our own.
It may not be clear how the WHO will enforce these powers but we know the potential is there as we lived through it, and not just with Covid but also swine flu previously. The ease with which unelected bureaucrats can dictate damaging public health policy and erode democracy, civil liberties and individual rights is something we never want to happen again. This is why these plans demand robust debate, and an open review in Parliament and in public. As Sweden did during the pandemic, and is an example to us all, we must make our own decisions about how we manage public health threats in this country.
We are told that, in a world of multiplying health emergencies, it has become necessary to give up some independence in return for safety. It is a tribute to those backing this agenda through the World Health Organisation (WHO) that this message continues to gain traction. If humans are important, then we should also understand its flaws, and decide whether they matter.
1. The World Health Organisation is not independent, and is significantly privately directed.
Early WHO funding was dominated by ‘assessed’ contributions from countries, based on their national income, and the WHO decided how to use this core funding to achieve greatest impact. Now, WHO funding is mainly ‘specified’, meaning that the funder may decide how and where the work will be done. The WHO has become a conduit through which a funder can implement programmes from which they stand to benefit. These funders are increasingly private entities; the second largest funder of the WHO is the foundation of a software entrepreneur and Pharma investor.
In ceding power to the WHO, a state will be ceding power to the funders of the WHO. They can then profit by imposing the increasingly centralised and commodity-based approach that the WHO is taking.
2. People in democracies cannot be subject to dictatorships.
The WHO rightly represents all countries. This means that member states run by military dictatorships or other non-democratic regimes have an equal say at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s governing body.
In ceding power to the WHO, democratic States are therefore sharing decision-making power over the health of their own citizens with these non-democratic states, some of which will have geopolitical reasons to restrict the movement of a democratic state’s people and harm its economy. While equal say in policy may be appropriate for a purely advisory organisation, ceding actual power over citizens to such an organisation is obviously incompatible with democracy.
3. The WHO is not accountable to those it seeks to control.
Democratic states have systems through which those allowed to wield power over citizens wield it only at the citizens’ will, and are subject to independent courts for malfeasance or gross and harmful incompetence. This is necessary to address the corruption that always arises, as institutions are run by humans. Like other branches of the United Nations, the WHO is answerable to itself and the geo-politics of the WHA. Even the UN secretariat has limited influence as the WHO operates under its own constitution.
No one will be held accountable for the nearly quarter million children that UNICEF estimates were killed by policies that the WHO promoted in South Asia. None of the up to 10 million girls forced into child marriage by the WHO’s Covid policies will have any path for redress. Such lack of accountability may be acceptable if an institution is simply giving advice, but it is completely unacceptable for any institution that has powers to restrict, mandate or even censor a country’s citizens.
4. Centralisation through the WHO is poor policy by incompetent people.
Before the influx of private money, the WHO’s focus was high burden endemic infectious disease, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. These are strongly associated with poverty, as are those arising from malnutrition and poor sanitation. Public health experience tells us that addressing such preventable or treatable diseases is the best way to lengthen lives and promote sustainable good health. They are most effectively addressed by people on the ground, with local knowledge of behaviour, culture and disease epidemiology. This involves empowering communities to manage their own health. The WHO once emphasised such decentralisation, advocating for the strengthening of primary care. It was consistent with the fight against fascism and colonialism within which the WHO arose.
Centralised approaches to health, in contrast, require communities and individuals to comply with dictats that ignore local heterogeneity and community priorities. Malaria is not an issue to Icelandic people, but it absolutely dwarfs Covid in Uganda. Both human rights and effective interventions require local knowledge and direction. The WHO pushed mass Covid vaccination onto sub-Saharan Africa for nearly two years through its most expensive program to date, while knowing a large majority of the population were already immune, half were under 20, and deaths from each of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDs absolutely dwarfed COVID-19 mortality.
The WHO’s staff are rarely experts. Experience in the 2009 Swine flu and West African Ebola outbreaks demonstrated that. Many have spent decades sitting in an office with minimal experience in programme implementation or practical disease management. Country quotas and the nepotism associated with large international organisations mean that most countries will have far greater expertise within their borders than exists in a closeted bureaucracy in Geneva.
5. Real pandemics are not common, and are not becoming more common.
Pandemics due to respiratory viruses, as the WHO pointed out in 2019, are rare events. They have occurred about once per generation over the past 120 years. Since the advent of antibiotics (for primary or secondary infections), mortality has dropped dramatically. An increase in mortality recorded during COVID-19 was complicated by definitions (‘with’ versus ‘of’), the average age of death was over 75 and death was unusual in healthy people. The global infection mortality rate was not greatly different to influenza. Tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and most other common infections kill at a much younger age, imparting a greater burden in life years lost.
In summary
It makes no sense to grant a foreign-based, unaccountable institution powers that contradict democratic norms and good public health policy. More so when this institution has limited expertise and a poor track record, is directed by private interests and influenced by authoritarian governments. This is obviously counter to what a government in a democracy is supposed to do.
This is not a matter of domestic political rivalries. However, the public relations departments of the prospective beneficiaries of this perpetual health emergency project would like us to believe it is. We are currently funding the dismantling of our own independence and ceding our human rights to a small group that stands to benefit from our impoverishment, financed from a war chest accrued through the pandemic just ended. We don’t have to. It is as straightforward to see through this as it should be to stop it. All that is needed is clarity, honesty and a little courage.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
Lockdown measures could be imposed on the U.K. by the World Health Organisation (WHO) during a future pandemic under sweeping new powers, Government ministers fear. The Telegraphhas the story.
Member states would be obliged to follow the agency’s instructions when responding to pandemics, including by introducing vaccine passports, border closures and quarantine measures, under a draft update to its regulations.
A new ‘pandemic treaty’ under discussion would also force Britain to spend 5% of its health budget on preparing for another virus outbreak.
Ministers are understood to be alarmed by plans to increase the WHO’s powers enabling its governing body to require countries to hand over the recipe of vaccines, regardless of intellectual property rights, and to counter misinformation.
Conservative MPs have written to ministers to warn of an “ambition evident… for the WHO to transition from an advisory organisation to a controlling international authority”.
In their letter, seen by the Telegraph, they urge the Foreign Office to block powers that “appear to intrude materially into the U.K.’s ability to make its own rules and control its own budgets”.
Responding to the concerns on Thursday, Andrew Mitchell, a Foreign Office minister, told the Telegraph that he would block any law that prevents the U.K. from setting its own health policy.
“The UK is supportive of the pandemic treaty currently being negotiated by national governments, which could speed up the sharing of data on new pandemic threats so we are able to respond quickly in the event of future pandemics,” he said.
“We’re clear that we would never agree to anything that crosses our points of principle on sovereignty or prevents the U.K. from taking decisive action against future pandemics.”
The rule changes have been proposed as part of plans to update the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHRs) in light of the coronavirus pandemic and establish a new Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.
The treaty was first proposed by world leaders including Boris Johnson in 2021 during the pandemic and was originally designed to improve alert systems, data-sharing and the production of vaccines to “foster an all of government and all of society approach”.
But among 300 proposed amendments to the IHRs are changes to make the WHO’s advice “binding” and introduce a new requirement for countries to recognise it as the global authority on public health measures.
The plan would require member countries to “recognise WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response… and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response”.
If passed, the change would mean the WHO could enforce border closures, quarantine measures and vaccine passports on all member countries, including the U.K.
A draft of the treaty itself would commit member states to spending 5% of their health budgets, plus a proportion of GDP, to pandemic preparedness.
Six Conservative MPs led by Esther McVey have written to Andrew Mitchell to call for a Commons vote on the draft treaty and regulations before they are signed.
The letter has also been signed by Sir John Redwood, David Davis, Philip Davies, Sir Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger.
UsForThem’s Molly Kingsley has warned in particular about the WHO’s move to become the global authority on ‘misinformation’. She told the Telegraph: “We should all be concerned about the WHO being ordained as an arbiter of pandemic truth, especially given its poor record during the pandemic, such as its claim that Covid was definitively zoonotic in origin and its April 2020 denial of the role of natural immunity in protecting against infection.”
Good to see MPs and the mainstream media finally catching up on the dangers of these changes. Have they only just got round to reading them?
However, they appear to have missed the memo from the WHO making clear that the idea that the new pandemic treaty and regulation changes will “cede power to WHO” is, according to WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “misinformation” and “fake news”.
His reasoning goes that it is countries who will decide the wording and scope of any global agreement on how to tackle the next pandemic, “and countries alone”. Hence there is no ceding of sovereignty.
Erm, but that doesn’t change what the treaty says, which is that any signatories to the treaty are required to follow the instructions of the WHO during a public health emergency. Oh, and also that it’s the WHO that unilaterally decides when something is an emergency, or even just a potential one.
No obvious dangers in that arrangement.
Stop Press: If you can’t get behind the Telegraph’s paywall, the Mail has the same story.
In the video above, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, reviews the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which is the instrument that empowers the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
If these amendments go through, however, the WHO will be empowered to do a whole lot more than that. It will become the de facto governing body of all member states, including the U.S.
Now, according to so-called “fact checkers,” the WHO will have no authority to dictate U.S. health policy under the amended IHR or the proposed pandemic treaty, nor will nations be stripped of their sovereignty.1 But they’re completely wrong. The only reason they’re denying these truths is because they don’t want the public to pressure government to reject these proposals, as they should.
As noted by Campbell and others, including bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, Ph.D., and researcher James Roguski,2 the pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are obviously written by experts in both national and international law and appear “airtight.”
There’s simply no doubt that, as currently written, these instruments will be legally binding and will supersede local and national laws. They even include enforcement tools to ensure that member nations comply with the WHO’s edicts.
Another false propaganda angle is that these instruments only apply to infectious disease pandemics, but that isn’t true either. Areas of life that are being added in under the umbrella of “health” include climate, food production and even poverty, so the WHO will be able to claim sole global authority over anything to do with those issues as well.
In his video, Campbell goes through several of the proposed IHR amendments, and how they will impact national sovereignty and public health decisions. The article-by-article compilation of the proposed amendments3 can be found here.
Strikethroughs in the text indicate that the text is to be deleted, and the additions or revisions are underlined in bold. The following are some of the most disconcerting amendments, copied with the deletions and insertions of text showing.
New IHR Will Be Binding and Can Apply to Anything
Article 1 Definitions — “‘standing recommendation’ means non-binding advice issued by WHO for specific ongoing public health risks pursuant to Article 16 regarding appropriate health measures for routine or periodic application needed to prevent or reduce the international spread of disease and minimize interference with international traffic;
‘temporary recommendation’ means non-binding advice issued by WHO pursuant to Article 15 for application on a time-limited, risk-specific basis, in response to a public health emergency of international concern, so as to prevent or reduce the international spread of disease and minimize interference with international traffic.”
Since the word “non-binding” is removed, this means that any recommendation from the WHO will be binding and member states will be required to follow the WHO’s recommendations.
Article 2 Scope and Purpose — “The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk
all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, livelihoods, human rights, and equitable access to health products and health care technologies and know how.”
This really opens the door for the WHO to take over for just about any reason. It doesn’t even have to be a real public health threat. It could be a potential, unproven or suspected threat.
Human Dignity, Rights and Freedoms Will Not Be Factored In
Article 3 Principles — “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of personsbased on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.”
In other words, bodily autonomy and personal choice are being replaced by one-size-fits-all medicine that has no regard for human dignity, human rights or fundamental freedoms. The right to so much as an opinion will also be removed on the national level.
Article 10 Verification — “If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours , WHO mayshall , when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.”
So, if the WHO suspects that an outbreak within a nation might pose an international threat, but the nation in question doesn’t want to collaborate with the WHO, the WHO will immediately tell the other members about the suspected threat, which will put pressure on the uncooperative nation, and the views of that nation will be deemed irrelevant.
Other amendments within this and other articles also specifically remove any involvement of the nation in the WHO’s decision-making. Article 13 below is but one example. As noted by Campbell, the director-general is repeatedly specified as the sole authority when it comes to making assessments and decisions. The director-general can also impose sanctions on nations that refuse to follow his dictates.4
How can a single person be given the authority to make decisions for the entire world? This kind of authoritarian top-down system can only damage public health, as public health is best served by local decision makers that have access to local data.
Director-General Can Act Unilaterally on Mere Suspicion
Article 12 Determination of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern, or Intermediate Health Alert — “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring, the Director-General shall notify all States Parties and seek to consult with the State Party in whose territory the event arises regarding this preliminary determination …”
The key problem here is the addition of “potential or actual.” The WHO can take over if the director-general has a mere suspicion that a health emergency might be brewing. The threat doesn’t have to be real or evident.
Article 13 Public Health Response — “At the request of a State Party, WHO shall collaboratearticulate clearly defined assistance to a State Party offer assistance to a State Party in the response to public health risks and other events by providing technical guidance , health products, technologies, know-how, deployment of civil medical personals, and assistance and by assessing the effectiveness of the control measures in place, including the mobilization of international teams of experts for on-site assistance …”
Again, input from the member state will not be accepted. It’s no longer about collaborating with the WHO on health emergencies. It’s about obeying it. The WHO will independently decide what’s to be done. The WHO may also send in its own medical personnel to address the situation.
Newly Added Articles
Several new articles have also been added to flesh out and describe the WHO’s authority, and what member states must do to comply with this new top-down order. Here are two telling ones.
NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response —“States [sic] Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”
In other words, member nations shall bow down to the WHO and do as they’re told. A newly added Article 53 goes on to detail how each member nation must implement a compliance committee to ensure the WHO’s directives are adhered to and executed.
New Article 13A Access to Health Products, Technologies and Know-How for Public Health Response — “1. Immediately after the determination of a public health emergency of international concern under Article 12, the Director General shall make an immediate assessment of availability and affordability of required health products and make recommendations, including an allocation mechanism, to avoid any potential shortages of health products and technologies …
3. States Parties shall provide, in their intellectual property laws and related laws and regulations, exemptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of intellectual property holders to facilitate the manufacture, export and import of the required health products, including their materials and components.”
So, once a PHEIC is announced, the director-general will lay claim to all medical resources within the member states. Other additions also spell out that the WHO will control:5
The local production of health products
Cell lines used in the production of biotherapeutics and vaccines
Biosurveillance
Censorship of “false and unreliable information” about public health events, preventive strategies and pandemic countermeasures
Intellectual property
Allocation of medical resources
Development of regulatory guidelines for the fast-tracking of health products
A global health database (which is required for the implementation of vaccine passports)
IHR Amendment Greenlights Conflicts of Interest
The amendments also plainly allow for conflicts of interest that might harm public health. Under Article 9, the WHO can declare a public health emergency based on information from undisclosed sources. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, or any number of other players with conflicts of interest.
As reported by The Defender,6 “One of the biggest changes the WHO has seen in its 75-year history is a shift from funding from sovereign nations to funding from private parties.”
At present, the majority of the WHO’s funding comes from Bill Gates, through donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Gates also funds the World Economic Forum, and his nonprofits are taking money from drug companies.
The IHR amendments open the door wide to mass medical experimentation on humanity without informed consent, and if the COVID pandemic is any indication, nothing good will come from that.
What this means is that Gates and drug companies wield enormous power over the WHO. It’s not even close to being independent. A majority of the WHO’s funding is also “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for particular programs. So, the WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most, and this also massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it.
There’s no getting around this point: The WHO is an organization that does whatever its funders want it to do, and that does not bode well for global health, considering medical errors are already a leading cause of death, and have been for decades. The IHR amendments basically open the door wide to mass medical experimentation on humanity without informed consent, and if the COVID pandemic is any indication, nothing good will come from that.
PHEIC Definition Expanded to Include Just About Anything
The amendments also radically expand the situations that can constitute a PHEIC. A PHEIC is currently defined as an “extraordinary event” in one country that constitutes “a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”
Amendments seek to expand and broaden this definition to include things like clusters of infection with potential but unverified human-to-human transmission. The actual risks of such clusters don’t even need to be evaluated. What’s more, the proposed definition of a PHEIC does not specify that it must involve “severe” or “life-threatening” disease, so it could be invoked for just about anything.
One of the amendments also suggests giving the director-general the ability to declare an “intermediate public health alert” when the situation doesn’t fully meet the PHEIC criteria. In such an event, the director-general and/or a regional WHO director would be able to declare a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC).7
As suggested by Campbell, to really understand what they’re trying to do here, browse through the Article by Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments8 for yourself. Most definitely, don’t believe the “fact checkers” who say there’s nothing to see here.
Treaty Will Expand WHO’s Power Beyond Pandemics
As mentioned earlier, when you add in the proposed pandemic treaty, the WHO’s powers expand even further, because in addition to expanding emergency powers during pandemics, the treaty also emphasizes the “One Health”9,10 agenda, and that covers just about everything you can think of.
As illustrated in the graphic11 below, the One Health agenda is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm.
This graphic below isn’t comprehensive. The scope of One Health, according to a One Health Commission document,12 also includes communications, economics, civil society, global trade, commerce and security, public policy and regulation, research, noncommunicable diseases, agricultural land use (which involves forcing farmers off their land), disaster preparedness and response, disease surveillance, the “human-animal bond” (whatever that means) and much more.
Under the new treaty, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and all local, state and federal laws. For example, under One Health, the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and implement climate lockdowns to address it.
One Health Is Part of The Great Reset Agenda
One Health basically mirrors The Great Reset agenda. It just uses a different name and justifies all these Great Reset changes as a means to “protect health.” Not surprisingly, One Health is financed and promoted by a long list of Great Reset backers, including the United Nations, the European Union and various U.S. federal agencies,13,14 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Wellcome Trust, UNICEF, CEPI, the World Economic Forum and the World Bank.
But while these entities are officially funding the pandemic industry, what’s really happening is they’re using taxes to fund wealthy people, who in turn exploit the poor. It’s as far from philanthropic as you can get.
Taxpayers are providing the money while private profiteers are deciding how that money is spent, and it’s being spent in ways that will benefit themselves. So, it’s a private-public “partnership” where the public is being robbed and all the benefits go to the private sector.
As reported by Paraschiva Florescu and Rob Verkerk Ph.D., with the Alliance for Natural Health International:15
“The One Health approach is aligned with WHO’s linear and reductionist thinking that seeks to distill all potential solutions to one view of the underlying science, one view on the necessary medicines, and only one truth.
This monolithic approach spells grave dangers for humanity given that it is bottom-up, decentralized, regionally specific approaches to complex health problems that have always been shown to work. Top-down, “one size fits all” approaches, especially ones twisted by conflicted interests, are doomed to failure.
Only those who fail to look at the wider scientific picture are prepared to convince themselves that the WHO’s first global attempt at managing a pandemic, involving masks, lockdowns and genetic vaccines, was a success.
At its core, the WHO’s extended powers will lead to even more censorship and will dismantle the notion of consensus science built on a transparent, scientific method …
Without an international uprising by the grassroots, these amendments will go ahead. Our silence and passivity are our consent. It is, without question, part of the slow descent into totalitarianism, taking us further and further away from principles and values that have characterized many civilizations over recent millennia, namely the right to liberty, the rights of the individual, and the importance of national sovereignty.”
To learn more, check out the Stop Vax Passports Task Force webinar on One Health,16 available on NTD.com.
Global Threat Detection Network Launched
Already, the WHO has launched a global threat detection network, the International Pathogen Surveillance Network (IPSN), to “help protect people from infectious disease threats through the power of pathogen genomics.”17 Apparently, it fully expects to be granted all the powers that the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty will impart.
This network will be used to collect and analyze pathogenic samples, which in turn will drive the WHO’s public health decisions. As described in a press release:18
“The IPSN, with a Secretariat hosted by the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, brings together experts worldwide at the cutting-edge of genomics and data analytics, from governments, philanthropic foundations, multilateral organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector.
All share a common goal: to detect and respond to disease threats before they become epidemics and pandemics, and to optimize routine disease surveillance …
COVID-19 highlighted the critical role pathogen genomics plays in responding to pandemic threats. Without the rapid sequencing of the SARS-COV-2 genome, vaccines would not have been as effective, or have been made available so quickly.
New, more transmissible variants of the virus would not have been as quickly identified. Genomics lies at the heart of effective epidemic and pandemic preparedness and response, as well as part of the ongoing surveillance of a vast range of diseases, from foodborne diseases and influenza to tuberculosis and HIV.”
The problem, of course, is that the COVID “vaccines,” developed at warp speed using genomic sequencing, were neither effective nor safe. Many have died within two weeks of getting their jab, and after several months, the effectiveness become negative. This is the technology they now want to use for everything. The risks moving this agenda forward are near-incomprehensible.
So, to summarize and recap, the globalist takeover hinges on the successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on. The funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the profits go to corporations and their investors.
Current Timeline
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time to reject them. Any nation that hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.
As it currently stands, the IHR amendments will be voted on in the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024. They only need a majority vote to pass. If that vote happens as planned, then the 10-month deadline for member states to reject the amendments will expire in March 2025, and the amendments will come into force in May 2025. If a member state opts out, then the current 2005 IHR version will apply to that state.
The WHO pandemic treaty will also be voted on by the WHA in May 2024. It requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and 30 member countries to ratify it. Thirty days after ratification, the treaty will take force for the countries that signed it.
Bill Introduced to Require Senate Approval, but Is It Enough?
Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is not entirely clueless about the ramifications of this treaty, and 17 Republican senators, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have introduced a bill to thwart the WHO’s power grab.19
The “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,”20 introduced February 15, 2023, would require a Senate supermajority (two-thirds or 67 senators) to pass the pandemic treaty.
However, according to Boyle,21 an expert on international laws and treaties, even this bill might not be enough to protect us were President Biden to sign the treaty. The reason for this is because the treaty is written “specifically to circumvent the Senate-approval process.”
A far more effective strategy, he says, would be for Congress to withhold its annual contributions to the WHO — and then withdraw the U.S. from the WHO altogether.
I believe it may be worth supporting all of these strategies. So, please, contact your representatives and urge them to support the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” to withhold funding for the WHO and, ultimately, support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.
Tonight on Real America! Founder of @ClimateDepot Marc Morano warns Americans on what may happen if the W.H.O. is correct in believing another global pandemic is coming soon. Tune in tonight at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific.@DanNewsManBallpic.twitter.com/F6pC3maiO3
Marc Morano manages CFACT’s award-winning ClimateDepot.com news and information service.
He is the award-winning producer, writer and host of CFACT’s Climate Hustle feature films.
Marc served as a reporter for “Rush Limbaugh the Television Show” and as a senior advisor to Senator James Inhofe.
He is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think,” and “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.”
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
