WHO tar över Pandemihanteringen

Effektivisering av global pandemihantering. Det är inte konstruktivt att nationalstater kan inbilla sig att de är självständiga, de måste snarast lära sig att ta direktiv från globala myndigheter och agera blixtsnabbt på dessa utan att ifrågasätta. Kommer det en pandemi så gäller det att alla följer WHOs restriktioner, med vaccinpass, isolering och andra ännu strängare metoder som fängslande av oppositionella potentiella smittspridare på speciella platser.


Det fungerade dåligt pga att Sverige inte följde WHOs direktiv. Det kommer att bli ändring på det nu.

Man vari ligger "effektiviseringen"......och (återigen) till vems nytta

Dr. John Campbell postade den nyliga debatten i brittiska parlamentet om WHO som kom tillstånd genom en namninsamling med mer än 100.000 namn på listan. Tyvärr speglas återigen inte folkets intresse genom en närvarande politikerklass, där som här.

WHO debate, UK Parliament (2023-12-18)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4BjVEV0dnU

Mr. Philip Davies. Link to poorly attended UK Parliament debate on the International Health Regulations, Westminster Hall, Monday 18th December 2023.

Full transcript,

Spoiler

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...egulations2005

I also thank the 116,391 people who signed the petition, including 189 of my Shipley constituents, which helped secure this important debate.

In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Member mentioned in her opening remarks. I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an “overreaction and hysteria”. It is clear that this is—quite rightly, in my opinion—an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions.

So what are we dealing with here? We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies. The first concerns the amendments to the existing International Health Regulations 2005—the IHR—and the second is the World Health Organisation’s new pandemic treaty, which would support the bureaucracy and financing of the expanded IHR. Both instruments are designed to transfer decision-making powers to the World Health Organisation, with the admirable aim, no doubt, of improving how the world prevents and better prepares for disease outbreaks. However, in practice, what is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty. If the IHR amendments go through, countries will have undertaken to follow recommendations, not merely consider them: it is proposed to remove the word “non-binding” from article 1, while the regulations in article 42 are to be

“initiated and completed without delay”

by member states. Therefore, we can only assume that the intention behind the amendments is for them to be binding under international law.

I do not wish to over-egg the nature of the proposals, but I cannot help but be concerned by the thought of removing the word “non-binding”. There is much in the existing IHR that would suspend fundamental human and bioethical rights, such as requirements for vaccinations and medical examinations, and implementing quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons—in other words, mandates and lockdowns. It is all there in black and white under article 18. We may have become only too mindful of the harms of lockdowns, and I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the latest findings published by the Centre for Social Justice about the harms caused by lockdowns. That is not to mention the non-existent science used to enforce wearing a face mask—the covid inquiry has also uncovered the fact that that was based on absolutely no science whatsoever.

At the debate in April, we were told by the then Minister that it is “simply not the case” that

“the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 34WH.]

I think it is worth revisiting this question, because I am not clear how national and parliamentary sovereignty can be upheld if the proposals are agreed. I draw attention to draft new article 13A, which calls for member states to

“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”

and to recognise the World Health Organisation not as an organisation under the control of countries, but rather as the

“coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern”.

-

WHO debate, UK parliament (2023-12-18)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9rRbVycNQk

Mr. Andrew Bridgen. Link to poorly attended UK Parliament debate on the International Health Regulations, Westminster Hall, Monday 18th December 2023.

Om inte annat, se denna.

Full transcript,

Spoiler

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...egulations2005

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I, too, thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today. I would also like to thank Dr David Bell—someone who actually worked for the WHO for a number of years—for his briefings to me, and also the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse for his contributions to the information I have with me today.

I would like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both he and I spoke in the public petition debate on 17 April this year when we considered the pandemic treaty. It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel. My opening question is this: why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty?

In referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations currently being negotiated, the director general of the WHO has stated:

“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO.”

His statements are clear, unequivocal, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to. I remind the Chamber that this is the unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, and immune-from-prosecution-due-to-diplomatic-immunity director general of the WHO. All employees of the United Nations and the WHO enjoy those particular perks.

Any rational examination of the text in question shows that the documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function that countries undertake to enact. The WHO director general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.

The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision making, currently vested in nations and individuals, to the WHO when its director general decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is very unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when that has a major economic and geopolitical implication. The question of whether sovereignty is being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to legislators of democratic states such as ourselves. We have an absolute duty to be sure of our ground, and I systematically examine that ground here today.

Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important.

The IHR set recommendations under a treaty process that currently has force under international law. Those recommendations seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to co-ordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency occurs, such as the pandemic. Most are non-binding, and those regulations contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can currently recommend. That includes article 18, under which it can.

WHO update - Dr. John Campbell (2024-01-08)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHI0upEOJM

Mr James Roguski has been working on this flat out for the past couple of years. As a result, he is now one of the world’s leading authorities on this threat. I think he is a Watchman for our times.

Dr. John Campbell intervjuar James Roguski som enligt mig är väl påläst om det aktuella läget avseende WHO's pågående försök att tillskansa sig mer makt och kontroll över världens befolkning. Och hur WHO's tidigare tveksamma agerande 2022 inte direkt ingjuter något förtroende för processen.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty will change EVERYTHING, good thing it's in deep SH*T | Redacted News (2024-01-26)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex0TpTaR0KU

The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty may be falling apart at the seems. Dr. Tedros says that he is worried about lack of progress, which he blames on “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Or could it be because the pandemic treaty is a horrific power grab by an organization that failed miserably during the Covid-19 pandemic and failed to protect basic human rights during the Ebola pandemic in Congo? We've been over this at length and we're going to do it again until this thing goes away!

Inslag i Redacted om WHO's försök till "power grab", Slovakien verkar i vart fall vaknat till, omfattar så mycket mer än vad du tror, sevärt.

Det var så jävla komiskt att de fortsatte FLYGA IN flyktingar från jordens hörn trots pandemin var i full fart.

Globalisternas produkter och tjänster går inte hand i hand när alla ska tjäna pengar samtidigt

I princip får väl vardera land med självbevarelsefrift se till att man förblir självständig då. Det finns ingen giltig världsordning där FNs WHO är den överstatliga diktatorn. Denna vilar inte på demokratisk grund heller.

Det är ju helt absurt, dina drömmar.

Alla länder är involverade i den internationella ordningen och allt mindre självständiga. I den riktningen kommer det att fortsätta. Att WHO tagit över pandemihanteringen är ett utmärkt exempel på det. Att Sverige är med i NATO och EU är andra exempel. Snart tillkommer kärnvapenbestyckade amerikanska baser på "självständig" svensk mark. Inget kan vara mer demokratiskt än den internationella ordningen med FN i topp.

Dina nazistdrömmar om självständiga nationalstater är helt absurda.