Cobra meeting held to discuss plan of action if it comes to the UK (assuming it hasn't already). This is another consequence of globalisation and mass immigration, people with diseases from all over the world travelling all over the world, what could possibly go wrong?
Hope you’re ok prawn?
The thing about all this is there’s not much we can do.
I haven’t changed my mind on the covid bollocks and this treaty is extremely scary but for suggesting it’s intended use, isn’t for what it’s intended you’re a nutter.
We have fewer than 100 cases of monkey pox, if that’s what it is, yet the media, who (although they’ve said not to panic), and the WEF are going on and on about it yet no mention of the cancer, missed diagnosis etc etc.
Interesting as well there’s so many smallpox vaccines about, the best psychic in the world mr gates saying the next pandemic will be a smallpox variation - odd eh.
The conspiracy theorists predict a monkeypox/covid manipulated variation for further lockdowns - let’s hope it’s far far fetched and wrong.
I'm good tah! You?
It's looking like the treaty is window dressing and things are moving alot faster behind the scenes than the 2024 treaty deadline.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-far-reaching-us-proposals-to-amend-the-international-health-regulations-at-the-upcoming-75th-world-health-assembly-a-call-for-attention/
Above is hyperlinked
Also Dr. Gates is setting up G.E.R.M
https://www.gatesnotes.com/How-to-Prevent-the-Next-Pandemic?WT.mc_id=20220501100000_HTPTNP-Launch_BG-TW_&WT.tsrc=BGTW#Article1
“The team’s disease monitoring experts would look for potential outbreaks. Once it spots one, GERM should have the ability to declare an outbreak and work with national governments and the World Bank to raise money for the response very quickly. Product-development experts would advise governments and companies on the highest-priority drugs and vaccines.”
Gates continues, saying that the team would coordinate with various countries to determine “how and when to implement border closures and recommend mask use.”
What a bright future!
Don't worry, resisting this are groups such as True Inter National Freedom Of Internet Links (T.I.N.F.O.I.L) and Honesty And Truth (H.A.T.) - using Wikipedia And Youtube Only Fact Finding (W.A.Y.O.F.F.) which will see the real agenda reach the light of day
Another interesting look at the monkey pox outbreak. Which has never really been a problem as it doesn't (didn't?) Spread easily and was mild. No problems in 2018 etc.
We have this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35436552/
"However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health"
Now we have this list of type 1 interferons:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_type_I
The type-I interferons (IFN) are cytokines which play essential roles in inflammation, immunoregulation, tumor cells recognition, and T-cell responses. In the human genome, a cluster of thirteen functional IFN genes is located at the 9p21.3 cytoband over approximately 400 kb including coding genes for IFNα (IFNA1, IFNA2, IFNA4, IFNA5, IFNA6, IFNA7, IFNA8, IFNA10, IFNA13, IFNA14, IFNA16, IFNA17 and IFNA21), IFNω (IFNW1), IFNɛ (IFNE), IFNк (IFNK) and IFNβ (IFNB1), plus 11 IFN pseudogenes.[1]
and then this study which finds interferon-β to be pretty significant in the halting the virus.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22225589/
Again could be nothing. If you're objective you would say it's worth a look?
We have this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35436552/
"However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health"
Now we have this list of type 1 interferons:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_type_I
The type-I interferons (IFN) are cytokines which play essential roles in inflammation, immunoregulation, tumor cells recognition, and T-cell responses. In the human genome, a cluster of thirteen functional IFN genes is located at the 9p21.3 cytoband over approximately 400 kb including coding genes for IFNα (IFNA1, IFNA2, IFNA4, IFNA5, IFNA6, IFNA7, IFNA8, IFNA10, IFNA13, IFNA14, IFNA16, IFNA17 and IFNA21), IFNω (IFNW1), IFNɛ (IFNE), IFNк (IFNK) and IFNβ (IFNB1), plus 11 IFN pseudogenes.[1]
and then this study which finds interferon-β to be pretty significant in the halting the virus.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22225589/
Again could be nothing. If you're objective you would say it's worth a look?
Which specific part of the treaty enables the WHO to do the things you claim? I must have missed it when I read it as I didn't see anything within it giving them anything even near the powers you are claiming.
Which specific part of the treaty enables the WHO to do the things you claim? I must have missed it when I read it as I didn't see anything within it giving them anything even near the powers you are claiming.
If you do decide it's not in your best interests, there is a petition here:
https://www.rebelnews.com/tags/world_economic_forum
Which specific part of the treaty enables the WHO to do the things you claim? I must have missed it when I read it as I didn't see anything within it giving them anything even near the powers you are claiming.
You haven't read it very carefully then. A convention is binding in international law. Therefore, a signatory is handing over control to the WHO under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, which provides the World Health Assembly with the authority to adopt conventions or agreements on any matter within WHO’s competence.
The aims section talks about responding to challenges which include limited robust data; difficulties in sharing pathogens and associated data; lack of cooperation and coordination between governments; and states being overly focused on national protectionism, reflected in measures such as export bans, border closures and ongoing inequities in vaccine distribution, to the detriment of ‘global’ health.
So if Britain says, we don't want a lockdown because it will throw 5m people into poverty the WHO can step in and say, that is protectionist, get back on your sofas. Britain buys 30m vaccines, you have to give half to Belarus, its equitable etc etc.
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
The IHR 2005 adopted by 194 member states of the WHO allow the WHO to declare Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) if it decides that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state, but still recognises the sovereignty of member nations. On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General – even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20th January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
The sanctions are the most alarming part to me. Economic? Wouldn't happen in a democracy? Trudeau already proved that it can. Could these be localised sanctions on individuals?
Enabled by this:
https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/covid-19-who-commissions-t-systems-648634
Couple that with the Bank of International Settlements estimate, 90% of nations planning CBDC (central bank digital currency). There is a "programmability" aspect that rarely gets discussed when the fluffy benefit pieces are set out. Hypotheticals, you're deemed overweight by your GP, you can't spend any more money on crisps or beer this month. You've used too much fuel this month, can't spend anymore at the petrol station. You're in lockdown? Can't spend any money here as your 5 miles from home. I'm not saying that is what/how they will be used, it makes it 100% possible and easy, even if you believe that this government or this entity wouldn't do that. What about the next one?
"Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/21/bank-england-tells-ministers-intervene-digital-currency-programming/
Bank for International Settlements head Agustin Carstens about CBDC and control
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNnTuK5JJU
It's all there it's all real. The only thing you can do is call me a nutter cos I don't believe it's in my or my children's best interests- that's subjective. I think it's nuts to think anything good can come out of this- subjective.
Edited to add if you want to read the Telegraph article turn off JavaScript or use archive.is or something similar.
The IHR 2005 adopted by 194 member states of the WHO allow the WHO to declare Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) if it decides that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state, but still recognises the sovereignty of member nations. On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General – even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20th January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
The sanctions are the most alarming part to me. Economic? Wouldn't happen in a democracy? Trudeau already proved that it can. Could these be localised sanctions on individuals?
Enabled by this:
https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/covid-19-who-commissions-t-systems-648634
Couple that with the Bank of International Settlements estimate, 90% of nations planning CBDC (central bank digital currency). There is a "programmability" aspect that rarely gets discussed when the fluffy benefit pieces are set out. Hypotheticals, you're deemed overweight by your GP, you can't spend any more money on crisps or beer this month. You've used too much fuel this month, can't spend anymore at the petrol station. You're in lockdown? Can't spend any money here as your 5 miles from home. I'm not saying that is what/how they will be used, it makes it 100% possible and easy, even if you believe that this government or this entity wouldn't do that. What about the next one?
"Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/21/bank-england-tells-ministers-intervene-digital-currency-programming/
Bank for International Settlements head Agustin Carstens about CBDC and control
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNnTuK5JJU
It's all there it's all real. The only thing you can do is call me a nutter cos I don't believe it's in my or my children's best interests- that's subjective. I think it's nuts to think anything good can come out of this- subjective.
Edited to add if you want to read the Telegraph article turn off JavaScript or use archive.is or something similar.
I've read the amendments you linked to already. I didn't call anyone a nutter by the way. I asked you to point out, from the document you posted yourself, which of those amendments gives the WHO the power to do any of the things you are saying. No answer is forthcoming, possibly because none of them do. They can declare a health emergency, individual countries don't have to agree. The worst they could do would be to recommend that other countries implement pandemic checks on goods/people going to an effected country. Doing so would however be up to those countries, not the WHO.
Theres no mention of sanctions in the article 12 amendments. None at all. Where is that coming from?
They have zero power to implement lockdowns or health passports. Even if they somehow did they have no means of enforcement aka they would need countries governments to go along with it and practically implement those measures, something unlikely to happen if it was wildly unpopular. But as I say, they don't have that power anyways. I think a lot of decent people are been taken for a ride by mainly American conspiracy grifters, right wingers and Russian misinformation.
Theres no mention of sanctions in the article 12 amendments. None at all. Where is that coming from?
They have zero power to implement lockdowns or health passports. Even if they somehow did they have no means of enforcement aka they would need countries governments to go along with it and practically implement those measures, something unlikely to happen if it was wildly unpopular. But as I say, they don't have that power anyways. I think a lot of decent people are been taken for a ride by mainly American conspiracy grifters, right wingers and Russian misinformation.
Did you read this part?
Explanation of changes: The proposed new text is shown in bold underline, and proposed deletions to existing text is shown in strikethrough. All other text would remain unchanged.
Explanation of changes: The proposed new text is shown in bold underline, and proposed deletions to existing text is shown in strikethrough. All other text would remain unchanged.
Yep
If I could copy it over with the underscores and cross outs included I would highlight the relevant parts I'm not that savvy maybe someone else can?
Try a screenshot and upload it as a picture.
Probably sometime later tonight.
Turn off JavaScript to get past the story block
https://m.theepochtimes.com/proposal-of-sanctions-on-countries-disobeying-who-pandemic-response-rules-concerning-author_4405091.html
Screenshot that show various parts in which state party has been removed and replaced with committees, some comprised of NGO'S and collection of state parties rather than the party concerned. That is not sovereignty. Your previous post, what you laid out as the intentions you see. That is all possible to do in its current state, so why would they need these amendments?
This part makes sanctions possible:
https://m.theepochtimes.com/proposal-of-sanctions-on-countries-disobeying-who-pandemic-response-rules-concerning-author_4405091.html
Screenshot that show various parts in which state party has been removed and replaced with committees, some comprised of NGO'S and collection of state parties rather than the party concerned. That is not sovereignty. Your previous post, what you laid out as the intentions you see. That is all possible to do in its current state, so why would they need these amendments?
This part makes sanctions possible:
Well you are obviously seeing something I'm not as nothing in there says anything about sanctions. I think you are Interpreting where it says they will encourage the state to accept an offer of help as meaning if they don't they will be sanctioned. But it does not say that and is not the case. It clearly says if a state does not respond to an offer of help they will take that as a rejection for the purposes of sharing information with said state. Nothing about sanctions at all. They do not have this power. People are being manipulated into thinking they do by people with other agendas.
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Online Users