by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., Childrens Health Defense:
This is part two of a two-part series on how the World Health Organization’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations could strip nations and people of their health decision-making sovereignty. Read part one here.
As the World Health Organization (WHO) prepares to convene its annual World Health Assembly May 21-30, controversy continues to swirl over two proposed instruments on the agenda: the pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Much of the criticism levied against both instruments pertains to how they may threaten national sovereignty.
But experts told The Defender the proposals also threaten personal medical sovereignty, including the doctor-patient relationship, medical freedom and personal autonomy.
“These instruments would inject themselves and interrupt the doctor-patient relationship,” said attorney Reggie Littlejohn. “The WHO will be saying what treatments are the ‘correct’ ones and what treatments are the ‘incorrect’ ones, and that … is an abrogation of sovereignty.”
Littlejohn, who is co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, told The Defender, “An unelected bunch of foreign bureaucrats should not be telling the U.S. or any other country how to handle our health issues.”
According to Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant and former director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund:
“It’s exactly what we saw in COVID, where for the first time that I’m aware of, governments banned perfectly safe medications.
“It’s not the first time we’ve had vaccine mandates, but it’s the first time we had an essentially population-wide mandate, and it’s the first time that we have seen safe medicines being banned, doctors prohibited from doing what they may consider best for the patient.”
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who is a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said the proposed IHR amendments include a provision allowing the WHO’s director-general to “convene an emergency committee” that could instruct countries to withhold specified treatments.
And according to Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, state and local officials in the U.S. would be obligated to follow the WHO’s diktats.
By circumventing the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “State and local officials would be obligated to obey whatever decisions were coming out of this new body set up by the pandemic treaty. And that could go all the way down to issuing orders for your primary care physician that they would be obliged to obey,” Boyle said.
Bell said this would put doctors in the position of following the instructions of “government and higher up,” and being “instruments of them, rather than dealing with a patient in front of them as a doctor-patient relationship is supposed to, where you look at the patient and make decisions based on discussion with the patient.”
“It makes doctors organs of the state and of the WHO rather than being independent entities that are dealing with a patient’s healthcare,” Bell added.
Dr. Katarina Lindley, president of the Texas Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and director of the Global COVID Summit, told The Defender “One of the reasons I’m against the One Health, one world agenda is I don’t believe in ‘one size fits all’ … even during COVID or just the regular disease process … you have to tailor the approach to treatment based on a patient.”
Dr. Karladine Graves, a family physician, said the WHO’s authority to dictate medical advice is compromised by its ties to Big Pharma. She said:
“The WHO is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry as well as private groups such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Should the WHO treaty and IHR amendments be passed, no longer will the WHO be an advisory body to all 194 countries belonging to the UN, but rather, it will be a governing body without accountability which will mandate all healthcare protocols as well as medications only available through its direction.
“It means private physicians will have no alternative using any other treatments than those ‘approved’ directly by the WHO … Patients will have no say in their medical care and possibly availability to care.”
Lindley warned that the proposed WHO instruments could lead to a wide range of mandates, including “border closures, approving only certain treatments, possible new vaccinations, digital passports and all this.”
Similarly, Bell warned that the instruments could result in coerced or forced vaccinations, telling The Defender that the “purely enforced compliance with a medical procedure” seen during the COVID-19 pandemic “is what we will expect with the pandemic treaty to keep happening.”
WHO proposals tied to push for global digital ID
According to Boyle, while the WHO claims that the pandemic treaty will not be voted on by the World Health Assembly until May 2024, “We don’t know if that’s true or not. The latest version of the treaty I looked at could be ready to go at the end of the month. We just don’t know.”
Boyle said the IHR amendments “definitely will be ready by the end of this month.”
Author and podcast host Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, said, “There’s a number of things that have been very concerning, especially the fact that we haven’t had a proper level of transparency.”
“By and large, they have been quite determined to conceal it, which raises questions about their motivations,” Gaffney added. “What we’re dealing with is … a concerted effort on the part of all the parties that I mentioned … to really replace the U.S. as a sovereign nation with a new global order they’re marketing under the euphemism of ‘global governance.’”
In this new global order, said Gaffney, “we would just be another sort of component … and our sovereignty, constitution and freedoms would all be subject to the permissions of others. And those permissions would surely be circumscribed, if not substantially denied, on the basis of things like a world ID.”
According to Gaffney, a digital global identification system “would be advanced as a vehicle for monitoring public health worldwide” but would in fact “achieve a surveillance operation of our people, among others, the world over.”
Read More @ ChildrensHealthDefense.org
