The WHO is commiting a power grab
And unless we want a post-democratic world government, we need to stop them
Our rights and national sovereignty are about to be handed over to The World Health Organization (WHO) in an unprecedented way at the next World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva, Switzerland next week. And as always, the MSM is silent as the grave.
Some months ago, the Biden Administration proposed several far-reaching amendments to the 2005 ‘International Health Regulations’ that will be voted on next week. The World Health regulations are an instrument of international law put forward by the WHO and are legally-binding on 196 countries (aka the entire world). The IHR defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events & emergencies, meaning the WHO decides how our respective countries respond in ‘a time of crisis’.
I decided to take a look at the amendments proposed and saw two incredibly visible trends that were hardly surprising.
1. In the case that provisions were added, they always gave the WHO - and in particular General-Director dr. Tedros who's in China's pocket - substantial additional powers.
2. In the case that provisions were scrapped, these always regarded safeguards to State Parties' rights to take their own decisions.
In short: national sovereignty everywhere around the world is under attack by these amendments put forwards by the USA.
But let’s go over some of these amendments in detail for a moment.
As can be seen in the highlighted text in Article 5 'surveillance’, the WHO will be monotoring health threats around the world and shall be developing early warning criteria for every country in the world for how to handle these 'risks'.
This might sound noble, but it is not.
In the article 6 'Notification', it's now added that when the WHO informs a country that they are at a 'potentional risk of a public health emergency', this country is obliged to hand over its public health information including ''genetic sequence data'' within 48 hours.
But when is a country at 'risk of a public health emergency'? And who decides that, by which criteria? Surely, you'd think the national parliaments where the people we democratically elected to represent our interests reside, would have something to say?
Well, you'd be wrong.
Looking at article 12, dr. Tedros, the Director-General decides when there is a health emergency. And even when ''an event has not (!) been determined to meet the criteria for a public health emergency" the Director-General STILL has the right to issue a 'public health alert'.
So this one man, who nobody voted for, now gets to decide - together with his unknown team of experts in this new 'Emergency Committee' - whether your country has a 'public health emergency', without having to abide any criteria.
These amendments to the IHR in conjunction with the new 'WHO pandemic treaty' that's currently being drafted, virtually give the WHO full control over our societies' response in the case of a 'new pandemic'. And that’s not something we want, for multiple reasons. One being that this is the start of a post-democratic society and a world government, of course. And let’s also not forget who will be ruling. The second largest financial donor to the WHO is who? You guessed it, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. You know, the man who wants the whole world to be vaccinated with vaccines that he coincidentally has major stakes in. That’s right.
If you want more information on that and the other major stake holders that will be in charge over our lives through the ‘WHO pandemic treaty’ please watch my latest appereance on the Mark Steyn Show, where we discussed it in detail:
So what now?
Well, do. not. comply.
Or prepare for a world where the WHO & dr. Tedros the China-shill will have the power to impose lockdowns, mandatory shots and tracking apps on us. Because that’s exactly what these new international treaties are going to make possible. And fact that they're already talking about a 'new pandemic' as if it's a given; tells you all you need to know.