WHO Goes There

but the nations mustn't follow

Anarchy from Above, or constructing the Health Tyranny, continues apace internationally through the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty. As Steve Kirsch and others have reminded us, it must be actively resisted, though the window for this particular form of resistance—comment in the WHO consultation—has now closed.

No option was given, of course, for questioning or repudiating the creation of such a treaty, which is a transparent attempt to establish in perpetuity what even before covid they were calling the New Normal. One way of resisting, however, is to pressure politicians and officialdom in one's own country not to accept or join. Or to join only if the agreement includes provisions such as the following, which I recommended in the consultation.

The proposed treaty, if pursued at all, must:

(1) define "pandemic" to include severity (not merely transmissibility) criteria, such that severity is measured by fatality and permanent disability, detected at a high level internationally both by and within nations and by and within the WHO itself;

(2) forbid any international agency, including the WHO, from acting in any fashion that overrides or circumvents either national sovereignty or the principle of subsidiarity within nations;

(3) discourage extended use of emergency powers;

(4) discourage nations or regions from permitting public health authorities to take decisions encroaching on areas of the common life that lie outside their competence, for example in law or religion or the economy, or in specialized medical research and treatment;

(5) reaffirm the Nuremberg Principles and preclude all forms of medical experimentation without fully informed consent;

(6) recognize the principle of bodily autonomy, such that coercive measures are precluded, including mandatory vaccination and any treatment known or reasonably suspected to have serious adverse effects;

(7) recognize the right to earn a living and attendant civil liberties during a pandemic;

(8) contain transparency provisions that make it possible for publics to examine and contest the claims of those supporting special pandemic measures;

(9) provide for special scrutiny of industries profiting from pandemic measures;

(10) contain internal and external investigative provisions that make possible effective prosecution of anyone manipulating WHO decision-making, especially for purposes other than those clearly communicated to and agreed by the affected states and publics.

Submissions were limited to 250 words, but I couldn't resist proposing that unless even WHO people were succumbing in significant numbers to a pathogen, no pandemic should be declared. I should perhaps have added that much of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board must have succumbed as well.

Don't think me harsh, or merely rash, in that respect. The removal by the WHO of the severity criterion, just before the 2009 Swine Flu, was a dastardly bit of work in preparation for the present stage of construction, in which persecution of the unvaccinated—indeed, the dehumanization of all who refuse to submit to the Health Tyranny—has been tried out with considerable success; as has the iterative disruption of medical, political, and economic systems through wholesale abandonment of the ethical and legal principles on which they depend. Innocent people have paid a severe price, and functioning societies have been rendered dysfunctional. The toll is still rising.

Those who have orchestrated this are not our saviours but our tormenters. I agree with Kirsch. We must fight back. We must hold our leaders accountable. We owe that to those whose lives or livelihoods or liberties or natural immune systems have been wantonly destroyed, and to all those in this generation and the next who are in imminent danger of such destruction.