The World Health Organization has become extraordinarily conflicted, primarily through its funding, and by serving corporate masters, it fails miserably at promoting global health, writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. He writes (abridged):
What is the World Health Organization, and what is it for, really? In the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) video above, Dr. Meryl Nass interviews investigative journalist James Corbett of The Corbett Report about the weaponization of the WHO. Nass also published a Substack with additional background information for this episode.
The WHO is actually a specialized agency within the United Nations. It was initially established in 1948 to “further international cooperation for improved public health conditions,” but we can now see that the long-term goal of the WHO is to serve as a foundation or hub for a one world government under the auspice of coordinating and ensuring global biosecurity.
This becomes self-evident when you review the proposed amendments1 to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and the new pandemic treaty, which Nass and Corbett review in the featured video.
I also provided details about the treaty in “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty.” Below, I will primarily focus on the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Health Regulation Amendments Will Legalize Tyranny
In a December 16, 2022, Substack article,2 James Roguski also reviewed how a temporary crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) — which, by the way, is long since over — is being used by the WHO to seize permanent power.
Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:
Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms — The first principle in Article 3 of the original IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now, health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only.
What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick, or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things.
Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best” for the collective.
Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed.
Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of individual rights and freedoms.
Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO — The director-general will have sole power to declare the beginning and end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures and vaccine requirements), and the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what drugs are to be manufactured and used.
These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws within member states, including the U.S. Constitution.
The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as “legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.
Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all other laws and Constitutional rights. Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data, “where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts. Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words, censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what “truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must enforce compliance. Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of “health certificates,”6 i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport, in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social credit score.
In short, it will usher in a surveillance and forced compliance system. The G20 also recently declared that digital vaccine passports standardized by the WHO will be part of international pandemic prevention and response moving forward.
The Trail of Corruption
Ever since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been infiltrated by industry. From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, industry has historically dictated the WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.7
In April 2020, then-President Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to the WHO,8 but then directed the U.S. funding for WHO to GAVI, which is a Gates controlled charity that likely just sent the funds to WHO. President Joe Biden restored U.S. funding once he took office.9
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary International.
Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget10 — that Politico in 2017 wrote a highly-critical article11 about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:
“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”12 “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.
A ‘One World’ Health Plan
In October 2022, the WHO announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which is made up of:
- The WHO
- The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
- The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
- The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH)
Beyond the amendments to the IHR, this initiative will also expand the WHO’s powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a centralized global superpower.
Decentralized health care and pandemic planning make sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being implemented.
While the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments expand and centralize power over human health with the WHO, the One Health Joint Plan expands the WHO’s power to also address “critical health threats” to animals, plants and the environment.
When you add that together with the planned elimination of human rights, you can see how the One Health Joint Plan can be used to enforce climate lockdowns, for example, or travel restrictions to protect wildlife or the environment. To learn more about this plan, see my previous article, “WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan.'”
Read the full article here.