The WinePress highlighted the salient points of the updated proposals a little over a year ago, which is worth perusing if you are unfamiliar with the WHO’s proposals.
One of the explicit amendments spelled-out in the treaty reads:
“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”
“Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:
require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”
The treaty would also grant the WHO added abilities to tackle all forms of mis- and disinformation, so-called.
In short, David Bell for the Brownstone Institute, after carefully examining the text of the treaty, wrote last year:
The amendments to the IHR are intended to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, their country’s governments, and the WHO. They place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War Two regarding human rights and the sovereignty of States. In doing so, they signal a return to a colonialist and feudalist approach fundamentally different to that to which people in relatively democratic countries have become accustomed.
The lack of major pushback by politicians and the lack of concern in the media and consequent ignorance of the general public is therefore both strange and alarming.
It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution. It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition.
If these amendments are accepted, the people taking control over the lives of others will have no real legal oversight.
The people who will become subject to these powers, and the politicians who are on track to cede them, should start paying attention. We must all decide whether we wish to cede so easily what it has taken centuries to gain, to assuage the greed of others.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been urging its necessity in recent months, and has notably chided against those online who are claiming that it is a power grab and contains very draconian legislature.
SEE: WHO’s Dr. Tedros Blasts ‘Fake News, Lies, And Conspiracy Theories’ About The Pandemic Treaty & WHO’s Dr. Tedros Warns World Is Not Ready For Another Pandemic, ‘We Will Pay Dearly Next Time.’ Blasts ‘Conspiracy Theories’ About Pandemic Treaty
With the final vote roughly two months away the pandemic accords have quietly been updated again, as noted in a very detailed report by independent journalist James Roguski. Still, the main power-grabbing tenets of the treaty still remain, but some things have been reworded and watered down, making a few of the stipulations not as egregious as before.
Roguski captured a document of the specific changes, which supposedly have been distributed to member state delegates for deliberation, published by February 9th.
To keep things short and sweet, Reclaim The Net truncated the main and notable amendments made in this current round of negotiations:
Initially, the amendments were worded such to allow WHO to “strengthen” its own abilities when it comes to combating “misinformation and disinformation” – whereas now, the text says that WHO will “coordinate and support” locally on matters like risk communications, including “misinformation,” etc.
The other important point is vaccine passports, and which entity has the ultimate say in issuing and requiring them. On this, WHO still wants the ability to require these, as well as recommend to nation-states to carry out a number of “proof-reviewing” exercises.
These concern not only vaccine passports (“proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis”), but also proof of medical examinations and lab analysis, and, “proof of measures taken on departure or in transit to eliminate infection or contamination.”
Under the amendments, anyone who refuses to to be examined or vaccinated can be denied entry into a county.
Another point of interest – interpreted by some as a way to let private companies participate in both “the war on misinformation” and vaccine passports efforts is the provision that says non-state actors must comply “with health measures taken under these IHR.”
And WHO can still declare an “Early Action Alert” and a “Pandemic Emergency.”
And yet the WHO has tried to claim that the accusations levied against them and the treaty is “misinformation,” as seen in the closing remarks of a WHO session discussing some of the new amendments.
The final meeting is set for April 22-26th.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Going back to an article I wrote in February, addressing Tedro’s comments about the need for the treaty and so-called railing accusations made against it, I wrote:
“Okay, Tedros, if all of these accusations are baseless lies, and the “WHO will not even be a party to the agreement,” then what do we need you for? If all the pandemic agreement is is just nations collaborating and sharing data and treatments, then why can’t nations do that on their own if they so chose to? Clearly Tedros is lying. Why would he have to keep addressing this issue over and over again?”
“If you read through the salient parts of the updated treaty, as noted in this report, and more in-depth in my other one, it cannot be denied that this treaty overturns authorities to the Director-General: it plainly states that. Sure, the media and governments are going to pretend that it’s business as normal, but we’ll know better,” I added.
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, [3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psalms 2:2-3
We’ll see what comes of this in May. Here’s hoping that it does not pass; but, the Lord’s will be done (Acts 21:14).
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
It’s always the ones that can’t run their own life that want to run yours . . .
This is a message to the WHO; The Lord Jesus Christ is my Father and He owns me so:
Joh_10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh_10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
I am the Them in these passages!
Amen.