Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty

Published

7 months ago

7 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D.  

The Biden administration signaled its support for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new pandemic treaty expected to be finalized at its World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the final week of May.

Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the United States at the meeting, stated that “America is committed to signing the treaty that will ‘build a stronger global health structure,’” wrote John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor, in the City Journal.

Adoption of a legally binding pact governing how countries around the world are to respond to future outbreaks like the recent COVID-19 pandemic has been the goal of WHO-directed negotiations since 2021. The WHO, a United Nations-sponsored organization, came under sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus.

On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states sent President Biden a letter saying they oppose the accords which will turn the WHO into the “world’s governor of public health.”  The letter says giving the WHO such authority violates the U.S. Constitution, and could lead to censorship of dissenting opinions, undermine Constitutional freedoms, and give the WHO power to declare any “emergency” besides health including climate change, gun violence, and immigration.

Missteps on COVID-19

In a post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, WHO’s Emergency Committee issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), stating, “The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation of China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency and, it is to be hoped, success.”

The WHO’s initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19 concluded it was improbable that the virus resulted from experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though it later acknowledged that it could have come from a lab leak at Wuhan. The WHO’s investigation, which was thwarted by Chinese officials, ultimately reached no conclusion. President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, a decision reversed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

More Smoke and Mirrors

Further undermining the WHO’s credibility in setting policies on managing a future pandemic, the group decided to include Peter Daszak, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, in its initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance prominently featured in an investigation by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic into the government’s funding and lack of oversight of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, for which EcoHealth received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health.

In an interim report released on May 1, 2024, the subcommittee said there is “significant evidence that Daszak violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth. Given Dr. Daszak’s apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements, the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President.”

After the release of the report, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) told the Washington Examiner, “The World Health Organization covered up the Chinese Communist Party’s role in developing and spreading COVID-19 and has since failed to hold them accountable for the global pandemic that killed millions, upended our daily lives, and destroyed thousands of small businesses.”

Public Fed Up

The WHO’s shaky record on COVID, including its close ties to China and Peter Daszak, have taken a toll on the public’s willingness to accept its leadership in any future pandemics.

A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Center for Security Policy, released on April 17, found that 54.6 percent of likely voters oppose tying the United States to a WHO pandemic treaty, and just 29.0 percent favor such a move.

Agreements Bypass Congress

While providing few details, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges we have faced and all the solutions into one. That agreement could help us prepare for the future in a better way.”

The “treaty” the Biden administration is eager to sign will likely be an executive agreement, like the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which was not presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification but contained “commitments” President Barack Obama pledged to honor.

Also in the works in Geneva are amendments to International Health Regulations, which Congress would not approve or disapprove.COVID

WHO’s Power Grab

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS), sent a letter to President Biden signed by all 49 Republican senators, expressing their concern about the powers that could be handed to WHO, on May 2.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter states.

Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who has attended UN-sponsored conferences around the world for over 30 years, says the WHO is a destructive force.

“WHO’s performance during COVID-19 was a lethal combination of incompetence and dishonesty,” said Rucker. “The organization failed to protect public health and went to extraordinary lengths to cover up China’s role in fostering gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Ratification of any WHO pandemic treaty would be nothing short of a travesty.”

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 19 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 20 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 20 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

MAiD

Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely

Published on December 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Of the 662 people who were not in danger of death but succumbed to medical assistance in dying last year, 47.1 percent cited as reasons for wanting to die ‘isolation or loneliness.’

Official government data shows that about half of Canadians who are not terminally ill yet wanted to end their lives via state-sanctioned assisted suicide did so last year because they said they were lonely.

According to data published by Health Canada on December 11 in its fifth annual report on medical assistance in dying (MAID), 15,342 people were approved for and died by euthanasia in 2023.

A total of 14,721 of these deaths were in cases where illness or disability were likely down the road or considered “reasonably foreseeable.” These are called Track 1 MAiD deaths.

However, 662 deaths were people who were not dying. Of these Track 2 deaths, 47.1 percent cited as reasons for wanting to die “isolation or loneliness.” By comparison, about 21.1 percent of Track 1 deaths reported the same feelings for wanting to die by doctor-led suicide.

The report stated that “social isolation and loneliness are shown to have a serious impact on physical and mental health, quality of life, and longevity.”

Of the Track 2 deaths, 35.7 percent lived alone, compared with 30.2 percent of Track 1 deaths. Of Track 1 deaths, the average age was 77.7 years. The average age of Track 2 deaths was 75.

Of note is that this year’s Health Canada report on MAiD is the first to include so-called “verbal” requests from individuals as official. Previously, those who wanted to die via assisted suicide had to submit a form to Health Canada in order to be officially recorded as a request to die by suicide.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal government legalized MAiD in 2016, the deadly program has continued to relax its rules on who is eligible for death.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, 1 in 20 Canadian deaths in 2023 came from assisted suicide.

Last week, LifeSiteNews reported how a senior Canadian couple said that a hospice care center presented euthanasia to one of them as an option because they could not afford increased care costs on their fixed income.

Canadian pro-life leaders have criticized the Trudeau government’s continued push for expanding MAiD.

Indeed, most Canadians fear the nation’s euthanasia regime unfairly targets those who are financially and socially vulnerable while still supporting the immoral practice in general.

In 2021, the program expanded from killing only terminally ill patients to allowing the chronically ill to qualify. Since then, the government has sought to include those suffering solely from mental illness.

The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection under the nation’s MAiD program since 2016 stands at close to 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone. Many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.

Canada had approximately 15,280 euthanasia deaths in 2023.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UNESCO launches course aimed at ‘training’ social media influencers to ‘report hate speech’

Published on December 13, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

UNESCO’s bills its new ‘training’ initiative as empowering participants to be more credible and resilient while simply turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism launch training courses, e-books, and surveys on disinformation and hate speech for influencers and content creators, big and small.

Last month, UNESCO published the results of a survey called “Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators” that concluded that among 500 content creators in 45 countries that had a minimum of 1,000 followers, 62 percent said they did “not carry out rigorous and systematic fact-checking of information prior to sharing it,” while 73 percent expressed “the wish to be trained to do so.”

And lo and behold! UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a re-education course to brainwash independent creators into thinking like unelected globalists and the legacy media, whose credibility are at an all-time low:

The journalism industry is on high alert as news audiences continue to migrate away from legacy media to social media, and many young people place more trust in TikTokers than journalists working at storied news outlets

“Respondents to the survey expressed interest in taking UNESCO’s free online course designed to equip participants with media and information literacy skills and knowledge,” the report states.

To get an idea of the make-up of those 500 content creators that were surveyed in the UNESCO study:

  • 68 percent were nano-influencers – those with 1,000 to 10,000 followers
  • 25 percent were micro-influencers – those with 10,000 to 100,000 followers
  • 4 percent were macro-influencers – those with 100,000 to 1,000,000 followers
  • 6 percent were mega-influencers – those with over 1,000,000 followers

Only 12.2 percent of the 500 people surveyed produced content under the category of “current affairs/politics and economy” while the majority covered “fashion/lifestyle” (39.3 percent), “beauty” (34 percent), “travel and food” (30 percent), and “gaming” (29 percent).

Equip yourself to combat online misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and harmful AI content. Collaborate with fellow journalists and content creators to promote transparency and accountability on digital platforms, empowering your audience with the media and information literacy skills they need to navigate today’s information landscape.

In addition to the survey and the online course called “Digital Content Creators and Journalists: How to Be a Trusted Voice Online,” UNESCO and the Knight Center also published an e-book in October called “Content Creators and Journalists: Redefining News and Credibility in the Digital Age.”

This pyramid of propaganda is billed as empowering influencers to be more credible and resilient, but these efforts are also aimed at turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

 

Despite their expanding outreach, many digital content creators who work independently face significant challenges including the lack of institutional support, guidance, and recognition. — UNESCO, Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators, November 2024

How can an independent content creator remain independent if he or she needs institutional support, guidance, and recognition?

This is an attempt by the United Nations to take independence away from the equation, so that its messaging becomes indistinguishable from mainstream, establishment narratives.

And between the survey and the e-book, there is not one, single, solitary example of disinformation or hate speech – save perhaps the claim that denying official climate change narratives is considered disinformation, but that’s highly debatable.

Threats to collective climate action are often perpetuated not only by individual creators but by industries, like fossil fuels, that actively shape public discourse to their advantage.

Speaking of climate change, the e-book contains a lengthy chapter called “Content Creators and Climate Change” that is entirely dedicated to pushing climate activism while claiming climate change disinformation is often perpetuated by coordinated campaigns from fossil fuel industries.

The UNESCO documents place heavy emphasis on disclosing who’s funding content creators while ignoring its partner, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP), and its alleged influence over UNESCO:

The Chinese Communist Party uses UNESCO to “rewrite history” and to “legitimize the party’s rule over regions with large ethnic minorities.”

When held to a mirror, UNESCO comes off as little more than hypocritical with massive conflicts of interests of its own:

One of the biggest ethical questions is knowing from where content creators derive their income.

 

At the same time, UNESCO points readers towards organizations like factcheck.org, which itself is funded by the likes of the U.S. State Department and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the latter of which holds approximately $2 billion of stock in COVID vaccine manufacturer J&J, according to U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie.

In January 2021, UNESCO, the WHO, UNDP, EU, and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas ran a similar type of propaganda campaign for so-called COVID vaccine disinformation training for journalists as they are now doing for so-called climate change disinformation for content creators.

Another goal of UNESCO and the Knight Center is to create an environment where content creators snitch on one another under the guise of “hate speech”:

Among those targeted by hate speech, most chose to ignore it (31.5%). Only one-fifth (20.4%) reported it to social media platforms. This indicates an area where UNESCO and its partners could provide valuable training for digital content creators on how to effectively address and report hate speech.

In other words, the U.N. is partnering with journalists to teach influencers how to become victims that need protection.

Hey! Content creators. Were you aware that any criticism against the propaganda that we’ve planted within you means that you were a victim of hate speech? No? Well, climb on board and let’s “effectively address and report hate speech!”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X