Dr. Kat Lindley is the President of the Global Health Project. Bret Talks to her about the state of the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty.Find Dr. Lindley on X: @KLVeritas (https://twitter.com/KLVeritas)*****Sponsors: PaleoValley: Wide array of amazing products, including SuperFood Golden Milk and beef sticks. Go to https://paleovalley.com/darkhorse for 15% off your first order.Sole: Carefully designed, personally moldable footbeds for healthy feet. Go to https://yoursole.com/dar...
I have the distinct pleasure of sitting this afternoon, or for her this evening, with Kat Lindley.
Kat Lindley is the president of the Global Health Project.
She is also a family physician from Texas, as you will detect from her accent.
Cat and I have become friends in the COVID dissident movement, and Cat has been a leader, along with David Bell and Meryl Nass, of the fight against the WHO's Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and international health regulations.
Cat, welcome to Dark Horse.
Thanks for having me, Brett.
So the occasion of our gathering today is that there have been some changes with respect to the WHO pandemic treaty and international health regulations.
It looks to the untrained eye like we have gained some major concessions.
There are some big changes afoot at the World Health Organization and we both thought it would be worthwhile to look at what has changed and what we think it means.
So Kat, do you want to lay out what has changed at the World Health Organization?
Sure.
I would like to start by saying that what we've seen in past months is actually a great movement of people who have listened to some of us and started being concerned with some of the things that have been discussing at the World Health Organization.
So we've seen this increased narrative of, you know, potential disease X, avian flu, and things like that, all while these two documents have to be negotiated, renegotiated, and all that.
So recently, this past week, we have seen a new, you know, recommendations, the new negotiations on the pandemic treaty and the amendments to international health regulation.
Overall, when you look at it, and for those who are on Twitter and have seen a lot of people saying how they've taken different language out, we are winning, and sure, I truly believe that the power of people has made this happen.
But what I would like everyone to realize is while language has changed, some has been diluted, and we'll talk about it The essence of both documents is still there.
They're still trying to put us in these perpetual states of pandemic over and over again, still trying to introduce this notion of having vaccines in 100 days with zero to limited liability, new unlicensed products, surveillance.
Everything is still there, just shuffled around with a lot of legalese behind it.
So I would also urge the same caution.
I do think we are winning, and I think that this is a major success, but I would ask people not to take their foot off the gas.
The message is exactly the opposite one.
What we are looking at is one more mechanism by which whatever the global authoritarians are, they are looking to evade the protections that are offered by, for example, the United States Constitution.
And so the mechanism here is a ruse whereby our Elected representatives sign on to a treaty and international health regulations that then tie their hands in the future if the WHO decides to declare a pandemic.
And the way this was initially written The WHO could declare a pandemic over anything.
It could declare a pandemic over the threat of climate change, and it would be given absolutely draconian powers then to dictate what would happen to the citizens of the sovereign nations of the world.
What we have seen now is that much of the most offensive structure has been removed from these documents.
We are clearly supposed to be breathing a sigh of relief, but given that it was the governments of the World Health Organization, That we're effectively asking to have their own hands tied.
The fact that what was obligate language is now discretionary should provide very little comfort.
We should still expect to see, if this treaty passes and these international health regulations are passed, we should expect to see those same authoritarian Moves made in the future, albeit with slightly greater complication.
So I think I join you in hoping that people will see this as a reason actually to redouble our efforts rather than to pay attention to other things.
This is a moment at which to recognize that we have demonstrated that we have power in this international arena.
I completely agree.
You know, for example, this pandemic treaty, the One Health is still there, and One Health is essential for them to be able to achieve all this, because One Health essentially gives them power over every aspect of life on Earth.
The document itself, Pandemic Treaty, is very vague.
It says, you know, there's going to be this framework on convention and then the new bureaucracy that's called Conference of the Parties.
And this Conference of the Parties will be set up within a year.
We don't know who's going to be a part of it.
And then there are going to be different rules that they can take up to May of 2026 for them to come up with, and then people will know what's in it.
So it kind of reminds you of that, you know, play that we had in the United States with Obamacare.
You have to sign it now, but, you know, you'll find out later what's in it.
So we have to be very careful, like you said, to keep on putting pressure on our member states to actually Ask.
They want to know what's in it now, not find out a year from now or two years from now.
Yes, we've seen numerous games played.
We've seen it become difficult to look at the current proposal.
We've seen name changes that make it hard to discuss, hard to search for changes that have been made.
All of this sleight of hand is obviously in service of creating authority in the World Health Organization that it has never traditionally had and must not have.
This is an unaccountable And even if it had succeeded in some way during COVID, the powers that it is seeking are unimaginable.
Given how it failed during COVID, it's really shocking that anyone would dare to make the argument to increase its power over the lives of citizens and sovereign nations.
Exactly and you know the amendments to international health regulation for example like you said the binding language has been struck out so they're not going to be giving us this binding obligatory advice but at the same time they will put pressure on the member states to comply Because they can do it through the World Bank and the IMF.
So we have to be very careful when we say, you know, we don't have to comply and things like that.
The language stays there.
They are still going to require the 100 day unlicensed products and vaccines to be implemented.
Surveillance is still there.
Like you said, the things have been shuffled, so censorship might not be in Article 44, but it's still there when you look for it, because it does ask for surveillance of the member parties and all that.
Yes, and I think the history of the proposal is telling.
The initial version of this proposal, and I will say I believe Heather and I got to an understanding of the seriousness of these questions late.
You were well ahead on this and you spotted the full danger of what the World Health Organization was up to earlier than we did, but even at the point that we caught up and started looking at the content, it was absolutely jaw-dropping.
Literally, including the right to decide what constitutes a pandemic, to issue draconian mandates in advance, to redistribute medical supplies around the globe, which to me raised the shocking possibility that if COVID were to happen again or something like it,
That the ivermectin debate might be neutralized by simply transferring the medication so that it was out of reach of people who disagreed with the official recommendations.
They could do that.
They literally carve out the right to mandate not only true vaccines, but in the copy that Heather and I first looked at, Gene therapies?
The WHO actually wanted the right to mandate on the citizens of the world the application of genetic therapies?
I find that beyond shocking.
And I think you really nailed the point.
Those first documents are the ones that we actually should go back to and look at them again.
Because as they've seen resistance around the world towards certain subjects, they kind of drop that language.
And then, you know, they write this whole huge sentence that's essentially saying the same thing, just in different wording.
And people need to be aware that their intention is the same.
The wording might have changed.
They put more legalese that I don't really understand very well, but the actual premise of the document stands and the premises for the World Health Organization, the Director General can still declare public health emergency.
Sure, he kind of has to go to the committee and make sure that there is some kind of agreement, but he gets to appoint the committee members.
So do you think there's going to be any resistance towards him declaring this public health emergency?
No.
We both know there won't be any.
And he can still issue the quarantine, isolation, tell us what type of diagnostic treatments, vaccines we have to recommend.
He can restrict travel into the area.
He can institute the, you know, there is still that vaccine passport language is a little bit different, but it's still there.
So we need to be, I 100% agree.
We need to celebrate our wins.
The fact that we put them on defensive and they have to defend all this, but we have to continue being very vigilant and aware that this is not something no one, no one really wants.
People don't want this for sure.
Our first sponsor for this episode is Paleo Valley.
Paleo Valley makes a huge range of products from supplements like fish roe and organ complex, grass-fed bone broth protein, and superfood bars.
Everything we've tried from them has been terrific.
We've spoken before about their beefsteaks, which are 100% grass-fed and finished organic and naturally fermented.
But today we're going to talk about their superfood golden milk.
Golden milk, also known as turmeric milk, is a delicious, nutritious hot drink rich in turmeric, usually made in a base of either milk or coconut milk.
Turmeric is a flowering plant in the ginger family and grows across much of tropical Asia.
As with ginger, the rhizome of turmeric has been used culinarily and medicinally across cultures for a very long time.
Modern research backs up ancient traditions, and we now know that turmeric is an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory among many other beneficial mechanisms of action.
A particularly delicious way to get turmeric in your diet is through golden milk.
Enter Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk.
Paleo Valley's delicious product has turmeric, of course, and also ginger, cinnamon, black pepper, coconut milk powder, a little bit of monk fruit to add sweetness, and several species of mushrooms, lion's mane, reishi, shiitake, and cordyceps.
It's gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, non-GMO, and it's delicious.
Paleo Valley doesn't cut corners.
They source only the highest quality ingredients, and they use whole ingredients, unlike many competitor products.
Their superfood golden milk has whole turmeric, not just curcumin, a component of turmeric, and whole certified organic mushrooms, not just the mycelium.
Golden milk is understood to help reduce inflammation, enhance cognitive function, support immune function, improve digestion, and increase endurance.
Paleo Valley is passionate not only about human health, but environmental restoration and animal welfare as well.
They're a family-owned company.
Try Paleo Valley Superfood Golden Milk today.
You'll be glad you did.
Head over to PaleoValley.com slash Dark Horse for 15% off your first order.
Our second sponsor for this episode is Sol.
Sol footbeds are the original custom moldable insoles providing affordable pain relief since 2001.
Sol footbeds include a signature supportive arch that's great for any arch height.
If you have low arches or flat feet, you simply heat mold them in your oven to ensure a comfortable level of support.
I have discovered that since I've started wearing Sol footbeds, I miss them in any shoe that doesn't have them.
Sole footbeds are easily customizable using your oven at home and you can skip that step and they'll mold to your feet over a few days.
You get the benefits of personalized support at a small fraction of the price of doctor prescribed orthotics and they're made from recycled cork.
Sole footbeds reduce pain from plantar fasciitis and shin splints.
They promote neutral alignment and good posture and are particularly effective at preventing fatigue when standing or walking for long hours on hard surfaces.
Two-thirds of people who try Sol Footbeds come back for a second pair, and many have trusted Sol to keep their feet energized and pain-free for more than 20 years.
Sol also has a new product, the Jasper Chukka, that uses cork for the insole, natural rubber for the outsole, and merino wool and rescued bison fiber in the upper, that come together in a unique shoe.
Right now, Sol is offering $20 off a pair of Jasper Chukkas for first-time customers.
Simply go to yoursol.com slash darkhorse or enter the code darkhorse at checkout with a pair of Jasper Chukkas in your cart and save $20 on Sol's brand new shoes.
That's y-o-u-r-s-o-l-e dot com slash darkhorse.
They don't want it and the WHO has been counting on the fact that people will not pay attention and if they try to pay attention they will find it confusing and bureaucratic and they will think the World Health Organization doesn't really have any power and so they will just ignore it and that is the opposite of the right reaction and I would just add it occurs to me in talking to you and you will know more about this than I do as a physician but
That we are in the situation of a patient who has successfully driven an infection into retreat.
And the problem is if you decide, well, the infection is in retreat and you withdraw the antibiotic, what you've actually done is you have created a more powerful pathogen.
You have selected for that portion that is going to fly below the radar of the public.
And we can't do that.
We have to drive this infection out.
And that means we have to kill this off dead.
That is the only way to send the message that this was a completely unacceptable overreach from the get-go and that no part of it is tolerable to us, no matter how mild they make it sound.
We know what they're up to, as you point out, by looking at the earliest drafts and seeing the jaw-dropping powers that they were attempting to commandeer.
So I have to tell you, your example really makes me laugh because it's true.
You have no idea how many times I give someone an antibiotic or strep or whatever, and they're like, oh, I started feeling better within three or four days, so I stopped taking it, and then they come to me and I have to figure out, like, what I'm going to do next, and I have to do it for a longer period of time because they over-selected for this more dangerous pathogen.
And I agree.
I think that's exactly where we are.
I really – and I actually, you know, want people to pay attention to this fact that the treaty itself, they made it so vague.
Thank you.
They can make any decisions they want.
They can decide within one year who's going to be part of the Conference of the Parties.
Then the Conference of Parties has another year to set up the rules for the One Health.
So they can put anything they want in it because we signed for it, and you don't have any say.
So it's extremely important to remain vigilant, to keep putting pressure on our legislators, on our representatives of the World Health Organization, and say, essentially, we don't need this.
I'm one of those people that truly feels that we do not need World Health Organization.
I think we've all learned how much they failed and we've all seen what they're trying to accomplish.
The question is why?
Why do they need to be in charge of global health?
Countries have these good relationships with other countries.
If something happens, we have You know, our partners, we can call and say, we're seeing this, let's collaborate, let's create, you know, some kind of committee right now to deal with this specific issue.
We don't have to keep on giving them money and unlimited power to tell us how to conduct life on Earth.
Absolutely right.
And I would also point out that
One of the things, one of the painful lessons that I feel that I learned over the course of the COVID crisis was that public health and global health were being used as an excuse for changes that were frankly forbidden in the founding documents of the United States at the very least and that the mind has this intuitive idea
That there is an exception for an emergency.
Now, of course, the founding documents spell out no such exception because there must not be one.
If there is one, then you can expect authorities to create emergencies in order to seize power.
And in this case, that's what we're seeing in the global organization around this pandemic preparedness treaty and international health regulations.
So let us leave open the possibility that the explanation for why an utterly humiliated organization like the World Health Organization would not be going back to the drawing board but would instead be seeking ever greater power, that the answer to that might be that health is really a tangential issue.
It's the excuse that is being used in order to concentrate power.
I agree.
And one thing that I've, I understand the need for public health.
I understand the need for cooperation.
But one thing that I've learned these past four years is that public health has been captured, and public health has forgotten that every life matters.
I understand statistics and all that, and you look at what's best, and how can we make sure that we have the best impact.
But at the essence, every single life matters, and we should never forget that.
Yes, absolutely right, and I agree with you.
I know many good people in public health, and it's even hard for them to understand that public health is now being worn as a disguise.
It's being used as a pretext for changes that really, not only do they have nothing to do with health, but they are anti-health.
They cause disease.
That's what we saw over the course of COVID was recommendations that increased the level of disease and the harm of disease that people were contracting.
So one must never empower something that is so callous about the harm to innocent people.
I agree.
And as we said during this conversation, I want everyone to really recognize that the job they've been doing over this past year and a half, the pressure they've put has worked.
And we need to continue putting this pressure we have Four weeks, maybe five weeks before that meeting in Geneva, and we need to make sure that our voices are heard, that we do not want this document, that we do not want our countries to be part of it.
And, you know, for someone like me, who has come from a communist country and, you know, realized how important the United States Constitution is the Bill of Rights and then seeing all of these things vanish little by little by little and our government stepping really on the freedom of the people.
It's been very difficult and now the idea that you're going to have this supranational agency go even above your government and make decisions for all of us.
We all have to just reject it.
There's really no other way out of this.
Whoever becomes a leader of this country in November, they really should consider completely exiting of the World Health Organization.
But one thing that makes me laugh, I don't know if you actually know, it actually takes about two, three years to exit the World Health Organization.
And I was joking with Meryl Nash because we just spent a few days in Italy meeting with different people there.
I said to her, you know what?
This is so ridiculous.
If I want to exit something, I'm just going to say bye-bye.
And I think that's kind of what we need to say to them.
Your rules and regulations do not apply to us.
We have our own constitution.
If we want to leave, we're going to leave and good luck to you.
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.
Now, I did want to try out a different perspective here.
Obviously, it resonates with what we've been saying, but the degree to which we have won a surprise victory here, it's incomplete, we need to finish the job, but the degree to which we have brought attention To this authoritarian overreach and raised enough alarm that the World Health Organization is now responding to us.
We have gone around our corrupt administration and we have brought this directly to the citizens of the world.
They have spoken loudly enough that the World Health Organization is now responding to us and attempting to remove the most egregious parameters so that we will Um, get into a false state of security.
Well, that is the indicator that we should demonstrate the full extent of our power.
We have discovered that we have power and we should now wield it in the interests of the citizens of the world.
And when we succeed, we should celebrate it.
This is our opportunity to understand that the consent of the governed still lives even if our administrations are trying to erase it.
I believe that 100%.
And I think the best thing that's happened these past several years is the fact that we're all connected around the world.
And we all share the same issues.
We have the same fears.
We have the same hopes.
We are all seeing our own governments really stepping over all of our rights.
You know, different countries have different rules and different constitutions.
But What we need to remember is, you know, whether you... I was in Croatia in December and I looked up their constitution.
They actually do have breaks in their own constitution to stop this, but they have forgotten that they have these things and the same thing for us.
You know, what we've seen is actually Louisiana, right?
How much You know, hope has Louisiana brought to everyone with that bill that they passed in the Senate that was actually bipartisan bill that says WHO is not going to have jurisdiction in the state of Louisiana.
Now you have Alabama carried on.
Tennessee is considering it.
South Carolina is considering it.
It's kind of almost like a fire because people essentially just they want to be free and they want to live Good life provide for their families and provide future for their children and that's something that unites us all It absolutely unites us all I've seen it in Eastern Europe as have you I've seen it in various states in the US which is tremendous and I am also now hearing reports of
this movement in Asia, in Japan, in fact.
You may know more about this than I do, but my understanding is that there has been quite a bit of discussion in Japan about this power grab by the World Health Organization.
And a friend of mine, Masako Kanaha, was to give a speech Where she was expecting something like 500 people and there were apparently something like 19,000 people showed up to protest.
So my sense is we are, our network is getting the information to people in spite of all of the obstacles that have been used to make sure that they don't hear about it until it's too late.
It is, and it's great to, you know, we both share a good friend, Neil Oliver.
You have Neil Oliver in the UK doing the same things that you're doing here in the United States.
You have people in Australia doing the same thing.
And seeing a country like Japan, who actually, essentially, if you really think about Japan, their citizens are really I'm trying to find a good word.
I don't want to say like calm, but they're very, you know, they believe their government, they don't necessarily question them as Americans do, right?
So to see Japan have such a large rally against WHO, and then see some great studies coming out of Japan on vaccine injury, it's really amazing.
It tells you that we all share the same foe.
And whoever that foe is, we know what they're trying to achieve, and that's to kind of Have us all under global governance because we all need to be told what to do in our lives and instead all we want is freedom for ourselves and for our children and for the future generations really.
I agree and it's a it's a real David and Goliath fight and I think everybody who understands what has been proposed will recognize the lateness of the hour and they will also recognize the moral clarity of which side is in the right.
We have to win this Not for ourselves, but for future generations.
These powers must not stand because they are fundamentally inconsistent with the sovereignty of nations and the sovereignty of people.
100%.
We need to celebrate this win so far, but like you said, keep the pressure going until this is over and done with and no one signs on this treaty or the amendments to international health regulation.
Fantastic.
So I would ask people to stay tuned.
Kat, you are easily findable on X?
I'm on Twitter, yes.
Yes, what's your handle?
K L Veritas.
V E R I T A S.
KL Veritas.
People should also follow Meryl Nass and David Bell.
For sure.
These are all excellent sources of information and inspiration, I would say.
They've both been very courageous in this fight, as have you.
Is there anything else you think people should know before we close this out?
No, I just want to emphasize that point, you know, celebrate this win.
We've done great work.
We're going to continue doing great work, but we need to keep the pressure on.
Yeah, let's win it.
Let us decisively kill this off.
We will know we have succeeded when the World Health Organization removes the proposal entirely.
Exactly.
All right.
Thanks so much, Kat.
I really appreciate the update and keep up the good fight.
