The World Health Organization doesn't care about your health
The global bureaucracy is negotiating a convention that is far more concerned about health equity, health security, and intellectual property.
No organization strings together convoluted and meaningless language better than the United Nations.
Take this beauty, for example:
The world together equitably: Achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
That’s a chapter title from the recent ‘Negotiating Text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (WHO Pandemic Agreement).’
Let’s unpack that chapter title for a second.
First — what does the World Health Organization (WHO) mean by “achieving equity?” They define health equity as “the absence of unfair, avoidable, and remediable differences in health status among groups of people.” Differences in health status can arise for many reasons. Who decides whether the reason is fair or unfair, avoidable or unavoidable?
The best WHO can do is say health equity is achieved when everyone can “attain their full potential for health and well-being.” That’s not particularly clarifying, is it?
Going back to that chapter title for a second, WHO proposes to achieve equity not only “in” and “for” pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, but “through” it.
What on earth could that possibly mean? Using pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response to bring about health equity would, by WHO’s definition, mean “putting in place policies and allocating resources so that the people with less resources and those who face exclusion and discrimination (on the grounds of race, sex, gender, age, disability, or income) see greater improvements in their health and living conditions faster than those who are better off.”
To many ears, that sounds like the classic theory of redistribution of wealth, only in this case, it’s redistribution of health. Communism is very likely what it is. Just ask James Lindsay.
Deeper inside the document we encounter this muddled gem:
“sustaining and strengthening capacities of the multidisciplinary workforce needed during inter-pandemic periods, and preparing for and ensuring surge capacity during pandemics”
So anytime we’re not in a panicked global health crisis will now be considered an “inter-pandemic period?” That is bone-chilling foreshadowing of a world in which central planners bring about endless pandemics in the interest of control and profits.
How about this one:
“multi-sectoral prevention of zoonoses and epidemic-prone diseases, and emerging, growing or evolving public health threats with pandemic potential, notably at the human-animal-environment interface”
Zoonoses are diseases transmitted from animals to humans. The WHO seems obsessed with this human-animal-environment interface, which is part of its sweeping “One Health” concept.
The idea is that humans, animals, and the environment are coming into closer contact because humans keep encroaching on natural habitats. This leads to cross-species transmission and the inevitable emergence of a multitude of deadly, infectious, ‘epidemic-prone’ pathogens.
Got it. So by WHO’s logic, the greatest potential threat has nothing whatsoever to do with the massive efforts underway in gain-of-function research or secret bioterrorism labs. No way lab-made pathogens will be the main source of the next killer pandemic. No chance. It’s got to be the chickens.
“What they should be negotiating, if they truly wanted to stop the next pandemic, is a termination of gain-of-function research,” says researcher
.“Stop going into bat caves, pulling out whatever it is you think you can find so you can bring it into a lab and change it on the computer to make something that is more deadly that you then inject into people. That’s a biological weapon. They’re presenting it as, ‘Oh, the next pandemic is going to come from animals.’ Yeah, if you go and take it from an animal, bring it into a lab, and make it more transmissible, and more deadly, you’re right… Stop doing that.”
The thing is, normal folks living their normal everyday lives in the normal world look at organizations like the WHO and United Nations and their output documents with little to no reverence or importance. And for 60 of the past 80 (or so) years of those organizations’ existence, normal people would be right in doing so. But somehow, in the last 20 years, nefarious actors (Gates, Big Pharma, and others) have been busy infiltrating and putting vast sums of money to work figuring out how to best manipulate language and control the mechanisms of a large and increasingly powerful bureaucracy, solely to their benefit. In their eyes, the entire world is a captive marketplace and the United Nations is the convening ground for its board of directors.
Yes, the linguistic tongue-twisters and mental gymnastics contained in these cryptic documents may seem so ludicrous as to be amusing, but the draft WHO text is no laughing matter. In fact, it is deadly serious. What’s at stake is a convention that, under Articles 19-21 of the Constitution of the WHO can be adopted with a 2/3 vote at the World Health Assembly. Once adopted, the convention would be legally binding without the approval of the U.S. Senate. No reservations may be made by a country and withdrawing from the convention could take years.
Roguski has made the negotiating text of the convention available for all to see, and you should definitely download and read it:
While the text is quasi-impenetrable, it is critical for us to at least try to understand what’s being proposed and then raise awareness, especially with our lawmakers.
We need our elected officials to ask why the document does not ban gain-of-function research, why it does not focus on health prevention and treatments (including repurposed and off-patent drugs), and why it does not explicitly address the sovereign right of doctors and patients to make their own health decisions. These are just a handful of the urgent problems that became evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Some other suggestions for what each of us can do come from
:Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO.
The Sovereignty Coalition’s Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.
Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster, which explains how the IHR amendments will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. See doortofreedom.org for more information.
Inter-pandemic period - funny how this language has the (intentional?) effect of making people feel like pandemics are a constantly looming threat. We are either in a pandemic - or between pandemics.