CHD Convenes Experts to Dissect WHO’s Plans for a ‘Pandemic Industrial Complex’
A panel of experts on Thursday discussed the dangers of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” — widely known as the “pandemic treaty” — and amendments to the International Health Regulations, as part of the “WHO Virtual Roundtable” hosted by Children’s Health Defense.
A panel of experts on Thursday discussed the dangers of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” — widely known as the “pandemic treaty” — and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), as part of the “WHO Virtual Roundtable” hosted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
The WHO’s two proposed documents, which the agency claims are designed to prepare the world for a future pandemic, have been widely criticized as amounting to a “power grab.”
Critics say the agreement and amendments threaten national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech, and promote risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”
The WHO will vote on the proposals at the 77th World Health Assembly, May 27-June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Panel participants included CHD CEO Mary Holland, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), internist and founder of Door to Freedom Dr. Meryl Nass and clinician, physician and international public health consultant David Bell, M.D., Ph.D.
Award-winning filmmaker Jan Jekielek, senior news editor of The Epoch Times, moderated the discussion.
Describing the roundtable as “part of a much bigger civil society effort throughout the world to preserve human rights, democracy and our children’s future,” Holland told The Defender. “The WHO’s two treaties are stealth efforts to achieve a global coup d’état for one world government under the guise of public health.”
“Think of all the horrors that happened during COVID,” Holland said, referring to the “punitive measures” enacted during the pandemic. “Now consider that the WHO is asserting authority to impose precisely these measures everywhere in the world.”
‘The devil is in the details’
Opening the roundtable, Holland said, “While the goals of this treaty and these regulations may seem noble and may seem like common sense … the devil is in the details.”
If enacted, the documents will establish a “kind of quasi-international legal infrastructure for the kind of incredibly draconian measures that we saw during COVID.”
Nass told viewers, “Nobody knows what is in these documents because the WHO has completely lied about them over and over again. When you read the documents … it’s not about health at all. It’s really about accumulating power and centralizing it.”
Johnson said that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO seized “power they didn’t have” and did so “by using fear” to “grab power and take away people’s freedom.”
Holland said the WHO’s proposals violate the existing IHR, which stipulates (Article 55, section 2) that there has to be a four-month review period for amendments to the regulations.
Nass accused the WHO of seeking to avoid public review.
“There have been nine versions of the treaty and two or three versions of the amendments,” Nass said. “Neither document is in a final form yet, and they’re [voting] on them in 10 days. It’s an impossible situation, but they don’t want to delay.”
Holland said the IHR contains recommendations for medical exams, required vaccines, quarantine and contact tracing. “If the new amendments are passed, what are now recommendations could be transformed into binding measures,” she said.
‘A sovereignty grab’
The panelists agreed that the two documents pose a threat to national sovereignty.
“If the WHO can order your country to pass laws and order … what drugs it can use and what drugs it can’t use and what vaccines have to be given, there’s no question that that’s a sovereignty grab,” Nass said, noting that the proposals also call for a “compliance committee” to ensure nation states comply with the new rules.
Holland referred to Article 12 of the proposed treaty, which defines what constitutes a “health emergency.”
“There’s a single person who makes that determination: the [WHO] director-general,” Holland said. “There doesn’t actually need to be an emergency, just the ‘potential’ for one.”
Bell noted that while some question if the WHO’s proposals will force nation-states to cede sovereignty, “They’re handing over power on when a pandemic will be declared, and [on] a lot of the response to that pandemic. In most people’s parlance, that would be regarded as sovereignty.”
WHO proposals would lead to ‘huge surveillance network,’ fast-tracked vaccines
Holland said “another deeply concerning proposal” is Article 15 of the treaty, which provides Big Pharma, governments and the WHO “liability protection for their management and for so-called ‘novel vaccines.’”
Nass said this would also give the WHO “the right to restrict the drugs that we are allowed to have during a pandemic.”
The panelists said the proposals, if passed, also would sharply reduce personal liberties and freedom of speech. Nass noted that in the most recent versions of the documents, “the enforced digital passportshave become digital or paper [documents].”
Holland said Article 44 of the proposed pandemic treaty combats the dissemination of alleged “false and unreliable information.” She noted that it would be “the WHO alone that will decide what is indeed false and misleading or unreliable.”
According to Nass, along with surveillance of online speech, the documents also call for surveillance of medical records and surveillance of pathogens — the latter via gain-of-function research, genetic engineering and “a library for potential biological warfare agents, which they call potential pandemic pathogens.”
“They’re setting up a huge surveillance network where every country will be monitored to ensure that it is surveilling for viral variants,” Bell said.
The WHO’s director-general could then declare a pandemic emergency “based on risk,” followed by the imposition of lockdowns and development of mRNA vaccines in 100 days “to give people their freedom back.” The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, and the pharmaceutical companies are building the platform for rapid vaccine development, he added.
The proposals also call for a “One Health” approach, which Nass described as “a fundamentally different approach to the natural world [where] we’re as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans.”
Holland said that while One Health has “a nice ring to it,” it will result in “commodifying humans on the same plane as animals and plants … It looks like treating humans as a commodity, as cattle, as animals that you can tag. Then you can have a digital ID, you can lock them down, you can mandate them to take experimental drugs.”
‘A corporate authoritarian agenda’
Panelists said that the WHO’s proposals amount to a push for world government. Nass said the WHO has “a desire for global governance under the guise of health.”
Holland said the WHO and the World Economic Forum desire a “much more global governance kind of environment” by 2030.
COVID-19 pandemic measures were “globally coordinated [but] didn’t have a firm legal foundation,” Holland said, but the WHO’s proposals would provide that foundation.
“Essentially we are building this sort of pandemic industrial complex, which is going to concentrate wealth in a similar way that we saw in COVID,” Bell said. “The IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank are very strongly on board with this agenda … it’s a corporate authoritarian agenda and there is a lot of money behind it.”
According to Bell, much of the WHO’s funding comes from private sources and is “dominated by pharmaceutical corporations and by investors” — and by organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
The panelists said opposition to the WHO’s proposals is growing. Johnson cited an amendment (S.444) he introduced — and that every Senate Republican voted for — requiring the Biden administration to submit agreements with the WHO to the U.S. Senate for debate. Companion legislation (H.R.1425) is before the U.S. House of Representatives.
Johnson highlighted a letter he sent to President Joe Biden, signed by all 49 Senate Republicans, urging him to submit all agreements with the WHO to the Senate.
Nass noted that 22 state attorneys general sent a letter to Biden, asserting states’ rights over public health based on the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“Clearly baked into the U.S. Constitution is the notion that the president cannot get us into international entanglements without that legislative engagement,” Holland said, adding that the 10th Amendment states that any powers — including health — not specifically granted to the federal government, are left to the states or the people.
Nass noted that several state legislatures have passed, or are in the process of enacting, their own legislation blocking the WHO from having jurisdiction in their states.
“What this is, is basically people power,” Nass said,” noting that “tremendous numbers of constituents bugged their state reps.” She said several countries have also “passed bills and resolutions denying the WHO’s jurisdiction in their country.”
“Everything about this power grab is unconstitutional and illegal under U.S. law. We need to alert our lawmakers and opinion leaders of these serious dangers and to resist,” Holland said.
Johnson said, “Our eyes are open, and we can’t close them.”
Take action to stop the WHO power grab.
Watch the ‘WHO Virtual Roundtable’ here:
Suggest a correction
