Don’t just reject the Pandemic Treaty – Get US Out! Of the WHO

The Pandemic Treaty presents the greatest threat to freedom that the world has ever faced. Public health is being used as a tool for total control. This is not a public health issue but an instrument to introduce Chinese-style totalitarianism through the United States and worldwide.

In my opinion, the world has gotten along just fine without a Pandemic Treaty. I don't think we really need a Pandemic Treaty. We can count on people to respond, especially the generosity of the United States to help where it's needed, but we certainly do not need a Pandemic Treaty that gives so much power and control to the World Health Organization.

. . .  Once we have ceded our sovereignty it will be difficult if not impossible ever to get it back. (Emphases added.)

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and President of Women's Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Taskforce, at the February 5th press conference on Capitol Hill.

A treaty by any other name is still a treaty

Littlejohn pointed out that although the World Health Organization (WHO) doesn't want to classify this agreement as a treaty, as it believes the US Senate would need to ratify it if it were called a treaty, it is, in fact, a treaty.

The WHO refuses to call the Pandemic Treaty a treaty. It calls it an agreement an accord a framework anything else, likely because it does not want it to be submitted to the treaty process in the United States and worldwide.

Regardless, the Pandemic Treaty is a treaty. the Oxford Reference Dictionary defines a treaty as an international agreement in writing between two states or a number of states. Clearly, the pandemic treaty is a treaty and as a treaty, it can only take effect in the United States with the advice and the consent of the Senate. (Emphases added.)

That the WHO is trying to avoid using the word treaty is obvious from the title of its webpage about the treaty: “Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord.”^[1] However, the WHO does state that

Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding. (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, according to the International Law Library on Treaties, an agreement doesn't have to be called a treaty to be a legally binding treaty.^[2]

{A} 'treaty’ means 'an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation. (Emphasis added.)

So, no matter how one parses it, the implications are still the same —  the so called Pandemic "Treaty" would need to be agreed to by the Senate.

In fact, 46 senators co-sponsored Senator Ron Johnson's bill declaring the WHO Pandemic Preparedness “Treaty” to be a treaty as the term is used in the Constitution thus requireing two-thirds of the Senate to approve befor the United States would be obligated to follow the provisions of th agreement.

“Chinese-style” totalitarianism or “Chinese” totalitarianism?

The February 5 press conference on Capitol Hill at which Littlejohn spoke was convened by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) to alert Americans that the WHO's pandemic treaty is the greatest threat to United States sovereignty. In publicizing several elements of the proposed treaty he considers problematic, Smith opined that the treaty favors China at the expense of the United States.

China's influence over the WHO was solidified by the fact that both the current and previous director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus^[3] and Margaret Chan,^[4]respectively, were put into this office by China.

Tedros is beholden to China. Tedros had previous ties with China when it  supported his bid for WHO director-general:^[5]

Tedros apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and, after meeting with Xi in January, has helped China to play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the COVID-19 outbreak,” . . .

Tedros’s close relationship with China isn’t new.

He worked closely with China during his time as Ethiopia’s health minister, and China backed Tedros’s 2017 bid for WHO director-general, media outlets noted at the time. (Emphasis added.)

Tedros won the election despite widely covered accusations that he covered up three different cholera epidemics as health minister in Ethiopia. Though he goes by “Dr. Tedros,” the WHO chief isn’t a medical doctor but has a PhD in public health.

As director-general, Tedros lived up to China's expectations:

Just months after taking over at the WHO, Tedros tapped former Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe, a notorious human rights violator, to be a UN Goodwill ambassador and only backed down after an international outcry.

“Diplomats said [Mugabe’s] appointment was a political payoff from Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus — the WHO’s first African director-general — to China, a long-time ally of Mugabe, and the 50 or so African states that helped to secure Tedros’s election earlier this year,” Sunday Times columnist Rebecca Myers wrote in October 2017.

“Chinese diplomats had campaigned hard for the Ethiopian, using Beijing’s financial clout and opaque aid budget to build support for him among developing countries,” she added.

Washington Post columnist Frida Ghitis similarly noted at the time that China “worked tirelessly behind the scenes to help Tedros defeat the United Kingdom candidate for the WHO job, David Nabarro. Tedros’s victory was also a victory for Beijing, whose leader Xi Jinping has made public his goal of flexing China’s muscle in the world.” (Emphases added.)

Margaret Chan was hand-picked by China for the position of WHO director-general: ^[6]

[A] Hong Kong-born doctor with a Canadian passport met Hu Jintao, then the president of China. Mr. Hu told Margaret Chan that Beijing was interested in her as a potential director-general of the World Health Organization.

Never before had a Chinese person led a major United Nations organization. Two years before Beijing would play host to the Olympics, the top seat at the WHO was a prize for a country seeking influence at the pinnacles of the global establishment. Dr. Chan, a physician who completed her medical studies at the University of Western Ontario before going on to serve as Hong Kong’s Director of Health, fit the image of a globetrotting leader of Chinese ethnicity.

In late 2006, she won a resounding victory after a leadership campaign heavily backed by China, which included Mr. Hu writing a personal letter of recommendation. Shortly after her victory, she met Mr. Hu in Beijing, where the Chinese president promised to support the WHO and strengthen co-operation with the organization. (Emphases added.)

During her decade-long tenure as director-general, Chan fulfilled China's expectations:

Dr. Chan went on to lead the WHO for a decade, a time in which she reshaped the organization and nurtured its relationship with China, a connection that has come under intense scrutiny in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Emphasis added.)

Chan, not Tedros, was the first to use pandemic-mongering as a means of precipitating global social and economic change in the name of disease prevention.

As such, Tedros's first pandemic (we know there will be others since he's already told us so) seems to have been orchestrated according to Chan's Chinese “playbook.”

Creating a pandemic of pandemics

Why have we had so many “pandemics” over the past few decades and why are we told that there are many more to come?

In the last hundred years, there hasn't been a true pandemic since the Spanish Flu, even though there were more minor ones declared.^[7] which did not live up to the pandemic designation. HIV/AIDS, for instance, which has been listed as a pandemic is acquired and spread through drug and substance abuse.^[8] Since the early 20th century, hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, and standard of living have improved, factors known to reduce the spread of disease.

Margaret Chan had presided over several pandemics, although they would not have been pandemics had she not changed the definition of a pandemic. For that matter, COVID-19 wouldn't have (at least initially) qualified as a pandemic either without the definition change.^[9]

Chan’s role in declaring the swine flu a “pandemic, ”Michael Fumento discussed in his 2009 opinion piece for Forbes,^[10] in which he explained that the WHO, having changed the definition of pandemic to eliminate the requirements of great morbidity and mortality, was able to announce a swine flu pandemic despite it not being a true pandemic at all.

In a description of what happened, in which one could almost swap “COVID-19” for “swine flu,” he wrote;

As evidence continues to mount that swine flu is more of a piglet than a raging razorback, why isn't curiosity mounting as to why the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic? And definitions aside, why does the agency continue to insist we're going to get hammered? The answers have far less to do with world health than with redistribution of world wealth.

. . . because WHO dubbed this a “pandemic,” vaccination plans, emergency response measures and frightening predictions have been based on comparisons with true pandemics that by definition were especially severe. That includes the August report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology with its “plausible scenario” of “30,000 – 90,000 deaths” peaking in “mid-October.” (Emphases added.)

Fumento exclaimed about the WHO’s propensity for pandemic-mongering:

. . . why the agency hyped avian flu in the first place . . . why it exaggerated HIV infections by more than 10 times . . . why it spread hysteria over Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). That disease ultimately killed a day's worth of seasonal flu victims before vanishing . . .

A global, social, and economic revolution

To what end were the exaggerated warnings?

Margaret Chan used pandemic-mongering to set up the WHO as an agent of social and economic change. Hence, the power grab. In doing so she denied the real impact that wealth and modernization have on health and living conditions in favor of China's Marxist/communist ideology of redistributing wealth. Fumento explained how she used pandemics, particularly SARS, to grab more power for the WHO so as to reshape the world:

. . . the SARS scare was enough, leading to a broad expansion of WHO powers, including a degree of direct authority over national health agencies. It's now using that to leverage more authority and a bigger budget. No shocker there.

What may be surprising is that it wants to use that power to help bring about a global economic and social revolution —and that Director-General Chan was so blunt about it in a speech in Copenhagen last month. (Emphasis added.)

Chan used the opportunity to promote her vision:

She said "ministers of health" should take advantage of the "devastating impact" swine flu will have on poorer nations to tell "heads of state and ministers of finance, tourism and trade" that:

—The belief that "living conditions and health status of the poor would somehow automatically improve as countries modernized, liberalized their trade and improved their economies" is false. Wealth doesn't equal health.

—"Changes in the functioning of the global economy" are needed to "distribute wealth on the basis of" values "like community, solidarity, equity and social justice."

—"The international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs have not operated with fairness as an explicit policy objective."  (Emphases added.)

If the World Health Organization was really about health

While Chan's assertion that wealth doesn’t necessarily equal health may be true after a point  — according to a study, the US ranks last in health among the 11 wealthiest nations and doesn’t even make the list of the 20 healthiest nations^[11]  — what real effect would redistributing wealth have? Redistributing wealth creates socialism and authoritarianism, not better health outcomes.

If wealth doesn't equal health, then what would be the point of redistributing it and whom would she suggest be the beneficiaries?

Chan claimed that improved living conditions and health status of the poor won’t automatically improve as countries modernize, even though these factors have been shown to be intrinsically related to improved health outcomes:

. . . Those factors [that caused mortality to decline approximately 95% before vaccines were introduced] were improved hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, labor laws, electricity, chlorination, refrigeration, pasteurization, and many other facets that we now generally take for granted as part of modern life.^[12],[13]

Don't give medicine more credit than it deserves

Microbiologist René Dubois warned people not to attribute more to medical science than it deserves. In his book Mirage of Health,^[14] he averred that

. . . many forces are at work to produce the appearance of health, if not actual health. Over the past several centuries, man has progressively bettered a number of aspects of his life. Living accommodations are much better, not only because of the actual structure of the buildings, but with protection from the ill effects of environmental changes. One also considers that in some way the discovery of glass permitted man to live in a much brighter atmosphere, which is generally regarded as conducive to health. Clean air, good food, and changes in living environment were thought by Dubos to be of extreme importance.  . . .

…  improved nutrition and public health measures, particularly important for the young, were vastly more important in this period than medical interventions. (Emphases added.)

Manipulating the economies of countries, aka robbing the rich to give to the poor, won’t serve the best interests of the world’s citizens. Supporting underdeveloped countries that want to improve their infrastructure, improve hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition will help improve their health. For that, you don’t need to social engineer the world.

Questions to ask about Chan's vision for the WHO

Considering the purported responsibility of the WHO —

• Why is a health organization suggesting the redistribution of wealth based on "values ‘like community, solidarity, equity and social justice?’"
• What do fair business-related activities have to do with health and why does the WHO think it should be the body that makes those decisions?
• Is it reasonable to expect that there can be a global one-size-fits-all solution for anything, including healthcare and business practices, when each country has a unique culture, demography, geography, and mode of life, and that the world’s people are not homogeneous?

Director-General Tedros implements an even more aggressive version of Chan’s plan

With an understanding of what transpired during Chan’s tenure at the WHO and why, it becomes apparent that the COVID-19 “pandemic” didn’t bring anything new to light, rather it is the continuation, perhaps even culmination, of the WHO power grab Chan spoke of long before COVID-19 became a household word.

To maneuver the WHO in the direction outlined by Chan, Tedros rushed to declare COVID-19 a “pandemic;” shortly thereafter he declared that more pandemics are imminent and is using the excuse of lessons learned from COVID-19 as the rationale for pursuing the "Pandemic Treaty” among member states. Reporting on the director-general’s address to the World Health Assembly conference during which he spoke of the need for the treaty, NPR correspondent and editor Bill Chappell wrote:^[15]

The COVID-19 pandemic proves that the world needs a pandemic treaty, says WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. It's the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization. (Emphasis added.)

Like Chan who sought to use a declared pandemic for political purposes, Tedros is using the excuse of the COVID-19 “pandemic” as a means for the agency to grab even more power.

Check back as we continue our coverage of the WHO's China ties.  

Related articles:

• 'Greatest single threat to the sovereignty of our constitutional republic' - Congressmen warn about WHO treaty
• Emergency response or planned takeover? WHO Pandemic Treaty
• WHO vs First Amendment; White House to decide by May on ceding authority to global body
• Fact Check: Does leaked WHO document reveal hidden, scripted answers to vaccine deaths?
• Biden may bypass Senate for WHO power transfer
• Senators oppose Biden transferring pandemic powers to WHO
• 46 senators now support bill requiring senate approval for WHO pandemic 'treaty'
• Australian Senator attacks WHO for keeping 83 rapists and molesters on staff, all answering to terrorist chief
• Senate won't force Biden to bring WHO Pandemic Treaty to vote
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 3
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 2
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 1

June 2023 WHO pandemic treaty negotiations:

• Countries set out way forward for continued negotiations on global agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) session 1 - June 6, 2023
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) session 2 - June 6, 2023
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) closing session- June 16, 2023

‍