by Brownstone Institute, Childrens Health Defense:
Nothing in the documents for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed new treaties oblige the WHO to differentiate its binding directions for their impact on children, thus allowing for mass testing, isolation, travel restrictions and mandated vaccination — potentially with experimental products — for healthy pediatric populations.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
By Molly Kingsley
Human history is a story of forgotten lessons.
Despite the catastrophic collapse of European democracy in the 1930s, it appears that the tale of the 20th century — in which citizens, cowed by existential threats, acquiesced in the rejection of liberty and truth in favor of obedience and propaganda, while allowing despotic leaders to seize ever more absolutist powers — is perilously close to being forgotten.
Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to the apparent nonchalance which has greeted two international legal agreements currently working their way through the World Health Organization (WHO): a new pandemic treaty and amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), both due to be put before the governing body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly, in May next year.
As concerned scholars and jurists have detailed, these agreements threaten to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the WHO, national governments and individuals.
They would hardwire into international law a top-down supranational approach to public health in which the WHO, acting in some cases via the sole discretion of one individual, its director-general, would be empowered to impose sweeping, legally binding directions on member states and their citizens, ranging from mandating financial contributions by individual states; to requiring the manufacture and international sharing of vaccines and other health products; to requiring the surrender of intellectual property rights; overriding national safety approval processes for vaccines, gene-based therapies, medical devices and diagnostics; and imposing national, regional and global quarantines preventing citizens from traveling and mandating medical examinations and treatments.
A global system for digital “health certificates” for verification of vaccine status or test results would be routinized, and a bio-surveillance network whose purpose would be to identify viruses and variants of concern — and to monitor national compliance with WHO policy directives in the event of them — would be embedded and expanded.
For any of these sweeping powers to be invoked, there would be no requirement for an “actual” health emergency in which people are suffering measurable harm; instead, it would be sufficient for the director-general, acting at his or her discretion, to have identified the mere “potential” for such an event.
It is hard to overstate the impact of these proposals on member states’ sovereignty, individual human rights, foundational principles of medical ethics and child welfare.
As currently drafted, these proposals would deny U.K. sovereignty and governmental autonomy over health and social policies and, through the indirect impacts of forced lockdowns and quarantines and because each member state would be required to commit a staggering minimum of 5% of national health budgets and an as yet unspecified percentage of GDP toward the WHO’s pandemic prevention and response, also over critical aspects of economic policy.
The proposed new powers would cut across not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
They would signal a new watershed in our understanding of cornerstone human rights: an express amendment to the IHR deletes language currently reading: “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” to replace it with a nebulous confirmation that “the implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence.”
Provisions requiring (my emphasis) — in particular — the WHO to develop fast-tracked regulatory guidelines for the “rapid” (aka relaxed) approval of a broad range of health products including vaccines, gene-based therapies, medical devices and diagnostics threaten, in the view of legal jurists, “long fought-for standards of medical law aiming to ensure safety and efficacy of medical products,” and should be of particular concern for parents.
Indeed, nothing in these documents would oblige the WHO to differentiate its binding directions for their impact on children, thus allowing for indiscriminate measures including mass testing, isolation, travel restrictions and vaccination — potentially of investigational and experimental products fast-tracked to accelerated approvals — being mandated for healthy pediatric populations on the basis of a real or “potential” health emergency declared unilaterally by the director-general.
As if this weren’t troubling enough, what makes it more so is that, as Thomas Fazi writes, “the WHO has fallen largely under the control of private capital and other vested interests.”
As he and others explain, the evolving funding structure of the organization and in particular the influence of corporate organizations focusing on pandemic response solutions (predominantly, vaccines), has steered the WHO away from its original ethos of promoting a democratic, holistic approach to public health and toward corporatized commodity-based approaches which “generate profit for its private and corporate sponsors” (David Bell).
Over 80% of the WHO’s budget is now ‘specified’ funding by way of voluntary contributions typically earmarked for specific projects or diseases in a way that the funder specifies.
“History can familiarise, and it should warn,” states the prologue to Timothy Snyder’s book, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.”
If only we were minded to be taught, there would be lessons to be learned of how far down the path of tyranny pandemic authoritarianism has already taken us and of how, if the WHO’s plans proceed, the COVID-19 pandemic may yet signal just the beginning.
“Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy,” cautions lesson one, and indeed it now would seem that voluntary obedience is given so heedlessly by global citizens in 2020-22 — to wear masks, to be locked down, to accept novel vaccinations.
Read More @ ChildrensHealthDefense.org