Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

‘The treaty is done’: WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now

Published

7 months ago

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.

Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” – or “pandemic treaty” – and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least.

The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland.

The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.”

But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”

“Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).

READ: 24 Republican governors tell Biden they will resist ‘unconstitutional’ WHO pandemic treaty

The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. …

The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.

The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.”

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender:

It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations.

This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.

The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.”

Opening the World Health Assembly on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus suggested efforts to finalize the two proposals will continue.

“We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, in remarks quoted by The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.”

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom – an organization working to defeat the WHO’s proposals – celebrated the news and suggested the WHO’s efforts have failed irreversibly.

“The treaty is done,” Nass wrote on Substack. “Nothing in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week.” She characterized the news as a “first round” win “in the war of democracy versus one-world government.”

WHO proposals ‘rolled out through lies and stealth’

Negotiations failed despite efforts by Tedros and others to persuade negotiators and WHO member states to agree on the two texts in time for a vote at the World Health Assembly.

At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January, Tedros warned of the pandemic threat posed by a yet-unknown “Disease X” and said the pandemic agreement “can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because this is about a common enemy.”

In March, over 100 former world leaders, including former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair – a proponent of “vaccine passports” and digital ID – signed a letter urging WHO member states to finalize negotiations on the “pandemic agreement.”

Biden administration officials negotiating on behalf of the U.S. also pushed for the two documents to be finalized.

Loyce Pace, assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told The Times. “Those of us in public health recognize that another pandemic really could be around the corner.”

In December 2023, Pace testified before Congress in support of the two documents. “It’s only a matter of time before the world faces another serious public health threat,” she said, noting the U.S. role in drafting some of the proposed IHR amendments.

But according to Nass, the entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through “lies and stealth.”

“Globalists created legal documents replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions,” she said. “But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it.”

Nass wrote that the “consensus” on the IHR proposals delivered to the World Health Assembly are “the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones.”

There is one exception, Nass said. Referring to Article 5 of the IHR amendments, she noted that “the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation.”

“Nearly all governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us,” Nass said. “So, while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything.”

She also noted that while consensus was reached on Article 18, the implementation of “health passports” and other similar documents during a health emergency is now a “recommendation” instead of a requirement. Definite language – such as the word “shall” – has been removed from the text.

‘They are not going to go away’

Other legal experts and health freedom advocates welcomed the news but said the WHO will likely continue pushing for the two proposals.

Australian attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens, who helped advocate for New Zealand’s rejection of a previous set of IHR amendments last year, told The Defender, “I don’t know that we should be celebrating the failure to reach agreement at this stage as a milestone.”

Journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “Member nations and the WHO have not given up. To the contrary, they have every intention of continuing in their attempts to finalize the negotiations.”

“Now is not the time to celebrate,” Roguski continued. “Now is the time to come together in order to take focused and massive action.”

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “According to my information, if the pandemic agreement fails, then they can continue negotiations later this year, with the view of trying again at next year’s World Health Assembly.”

Terhorst added:

We were informed that the World Health Assembly will not vote on the Pandemic Agreement this week, but the member states will vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations. They are negotiating as we speak in Geneva and they are working towards a deal at the end of this week, probably Saturday, June 1, 2024.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.  So we are by no means out of the danger zone. To the contrary.

“Given the WHO/World Health Assembly is a law unto themselves, and they desperately want these treaty reforms to pass, then the mandate to continue and finalize their negotiations may be extended,” Ashby-Koppens said.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender the WHO’s proposals were “the first time … that globalists spent an enormous amount of time, effort, money and brainpower to construct a worldwide totalitarian police state under the guise of protecting public health.”

Boyle said:

The WHO won’t back down from its proposals easily. They are not going to go away. They have come this far, and they will keep at it until they get their objective by hook or by crook. The only way to protect ourselves from these globalists is to pull out of the WHO.

But Nass believes the WHO may encounter difficulty in bringing back its proposals, telling The Defender it would be “unlikely to get far with either document unless they are pared down to what does not actually matter much to any nation.”

“I expect they will patch together a few [proposals] and vote yes and claim victory. But their major desires are all smashed,” Nass said. “They needed secrecy and ignorance, and they lost those advantages.”

Experts told The Defender a key factor in the WHO’s failure to achieve consensus on the two proposals was opposition from several nations – and by people worldwide.

“People and politicians around the world were educated about what was really being negotiated, what was really in the documents,” Nass said.

On Saturday, CHD participated in a rally against the WHO proposals, across from the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Watch Mary Holland speak at the New York rally here.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

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 / 18 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 19 hours ago

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

National / 19 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