Feb. 23, 2023 - Epoch Times
14:06
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Right now, as we're speaking, the Biden administration is in the process of finalizing a deal which would give the WHO, near total authority, to dictate America's policies during a pandemic. | |
| You heard that right. | |
| Once this legally binding deal goes into effect, the WHO, which is of course the World Health Organization, the United Nations Health Agency based out in Geneva, it will give them, near total authority, to control what our domestic policies are during a pandemic. | |
| And so, while up until now the WHO has been more of an advisory body somewhere over in Europe that U.S. officials and the CDC and the FDA can turn to for advice, they will instead become the ones to actually determine which policies we implement, like our vaccine policies, our lockdown policies, our school closure policies, the contact tracing of our citizens, and even the monitoring of our online speech, if that speech goes against the official narrative. | |
| However, in order to explain how we actually got to this point, I need to back up a few months and explain the history of this particular document. | |
| And I hope that if you appreciate content like this, you do take a quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons so this video can be shared out to ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Now, let's rewind the clock back about six months. | |
| Back in September of 2022, the Director of America's Health and Human Services Department, Mr. | |
| Javier Becerra, He issued a joint statement with the WHO announcing what they refer to as the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue. | |
| And in that particular statement, the goal of this strategic dialogue was stated to be, among other things, the following. | |
| To develop a platform to maximize the long-standing U.S.-WHO partnership and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people, as well as to develop a new pandemic instrument. | |
| Now again, that statement was put out back in September of 2022, September of last year. | |
| Then you fast forward to the present day, and on February 1st of 2023, well, those UN-US discussions spawned something called the Zero Draft of a Pandemic Treaty. | |
| You can see it up on your screen. | |
| This treaty would give massive amounts of power to the UN through the WHO. For instance, under a subsection called The World Together Equitably, this document would grant the WHO the power to both declare and then to manage a global pandemic emergency. | |
| Essentially, what this would look like in practice Is that once a health emergency is declared by the WHO, all of these signatories to this agreement, which would include the United States, would submit themselves to the authority of the WHO regarding things like the treatments, government regulations like lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the WHO would take control of global supply lines, and they would have the authority to monitor and surveil the populations in all the different countries. | |
| Basically, if you think back to the years of the pandemic, what was happening regionally in different countries and different states that enacted different vaccine mandates, different passport schemes, tracking software, and so on, that would all now be done globally, at the same time, and managed by just one global entity, the WHO. Just imagine the efficiency of it all. | |
| In terms of the drugs, well, this new agreement will require that all member nations to, quote, monitor and regulate against substandard and falsify pandemic-related products. | |
| And if we look back at history and look at some of the different policies that previously came out of the WHO and the Biden administration, this would very likely include forcing populations to take newly developed vaccines, while at the same time preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine treatments or medicines for whatever the new virus happens to be. | |
| And to get an idea of what this would look like in practice, one of our reporters here at the Epoch Times, he got a chance to speak with an American physician named Dr. | |
| Merrill Nass. | |
| Here's what she told us regarding what would happen if this goes into effect. | |
| If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency, so they can tell you you're getting remdesivir and you can't have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. | |
| What they're also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated whether or not you need it, whether or not you're already immune. | |
| Then our reporter also got a chance to speak with Dr. | |
| David Bell, who is a public health physician as well as a former WHO staff member specializing in epidemic policy, and here's what he told us regarding the zero-draft policy document. | |
| Quote, They want to see a centralized vaccine and medication-based response and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations. | |
| They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare. | |
| And indeed, just as he mentioned in regards to these surveillance mechanisms, this WHO pandemic agreement calls for the member states that sign on board to implement what they refer to as One Health Surveillance. | |
| And if you've never heard of it before, One Health is a concept that's been embraced by the United Nations, the CDC, the World Bank, among many other global organizations for a while now. | |
| Here's in fact how Dr. | |
| Bell describes it. | |
| Quote, It has become hijacked and now is used to claim that all human activities and all issues within the biosphere affect health and are therefore within public health's remit. | |
| So public health care can be deemed to include climate or racism or fisheries management and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon emissions as a health issue and therefore a health emergency. | |
| And the funny thing, if you can call it funny, Is that the reason that we needed to get a former WHO staff member to explain to us what One Health Surveillance actually means is that because within this document, they have a subsection which says this, quote, One Health Surveillance means dot dot dot, without any further explanation. | |
| I guess the definition will be worked out in the future. | |
| But the end result will likely be the same. | |
| No matter how the UN ultimately winds up defining One Health Surveillance, all of these signatories to this treaty, well, they will have to invest in it, they will have to implement it, and they will have to strengthen it. | |
| And the best part is that if they don't have the money to do so, that's not a problem, because the World Bank recently approved something called a financial intermediary fund in order to finance, among other things, One Health surveillance. | |
| Meaning that if you are a country that signs up to this pandemic response treaty, the WHO can declare a global health emergency pandemic, And although it's not clear what the surveillance will actually look like at this moment, there is another part of this particular draft document which gives a bit of a clue into what it might look like. | |
| That's because the nations that sign on board will have to monitor the online speech of their citizens in order to support whatever the official narrative is when it comes to the particular pandemic that's just been declared. | |
| Specifically, according to this document, the different countries will"...conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, and design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation, and false news, | |
| thereby strengthening public trust." Now, if you think that it's a problem to have a supra-governmental organization dictate what the official narrative is, and then subsequently police the speech of citizens across the entire world, if you think that's a problem, well, then that's probably just because you are a plebe who needs to get reeducated, because you probably just don't fully understand that the UN actually owns the science. | |
| Here's, in fact, the UN Undersecretary General saying as much during last year's World Economic Forum. | |
| Well, if you Google climate change... | |
| You will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. | |
| We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled climate change, we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. | |
| So we're becoming much more proactive. | |
| You know, we own the science and we think that the world, you know, should know it. | |
| And the platforms themselves also do. | |
| Alright, I want to pause here for a super quick moment and introduce the sponsor of today's episode. | |
| The one, the only, America's favorite preparedness company. | |
| I'm of course talking about my Patriot Supply. | |
| Now listen, if you've been watching my program for any length of time, then you know what's happening in this country right now. | |
| Do not wait until there's a Chinese spy balloon or Chinese space lasers raining down on your house. | |
| Or wait until there's a train derailment in your county, which poisons the water and the local farmland. | |
| Today, head on over to mypatriotsupply.com and stock up on their three-month emergency food kit. | |
| And when you do, they have a special offer to our viewers, to the viewers of Facts Matter, wherein you will also get $200 worth of survival gear as a free bonus. | |
| This is the exact gear that you're going to need when the grid goes down and you and your family have to fend for yourselves. | |
| If you want to see the exact list of the gear that you'll get, just head on over to MyPatriotSupply.com. | |
| And the best part is that these $200 survival gear bonus gifts come with each three-month emergency food kit that you buy, meaning that you and your entire family can be prepared for whatever comes next. | |
| But like all good things in life, this will not last forever. | |
| So head on over to MyPatriotSupply.com and claim yours today. | |
| And again, I would recommend you do it today because then you can check it off your list and you can sleep with peace of mind knowing that in case of the worst case scenario, you and your family will be ready. | |
| Again, that's MyPatriotSupply.com. | |
| and then let's head on back to the studio. - And so in practical terms, if this treaty is indeed signed by the US and then goes into effect, what will happen is that the WHO will no longer be some entity over in Europe that the American officials at the CDC and FDA can look to for guidance and ideas. | |
| And now let's head on back to the studio. | |
| But instead, the WHO will be making concrete decisions and implementing concrete policies, strategies, and surveillance programs right here in the good old US of A. | |
| In fact, during the next pandemic, instead of having Dr. | |
| Fauci or Dr. | |
| Rochelle Walensky decide whether we can open our schools, our businesses, or have to wear masks, instead, it'll be Dr. | |
| Tedros from the WHO making all those decisions. | |
| Very cool. | |
| Now, in terms of the next steps for this particular treaty, the UN is seeking to have the thing ratified by all 194 member states of the WHO. And there is a meeting scheduled for February 27th, which is next Sunday, wherein the WHO's intergovernmental negotiating body will get together in order to work out the final terms of this document that the members will then ultimately sign. | |
| But here's the big question that you're probably asking yourself as you're watching this episode. | |
| Can the Biden administration actually bind the US into this type of an agreement without consent from the US Senate? | |
| Because according to the US Constitution, these agreements must get approval from the Senate. | |
| And there's almost no way that 60% of the current senators who are in office would go for such a thing. | |
| Well, what's interesting is that within the text of this zero draft, the UN actually does concede, as per international law, that treaties between countries must be ratified by the national legislatures in order to respect the rights of the citizens to give their consent. | |
| After making that concession, the draft then goes on to include a very interesting clause, saying that this accord will go into effect on a provisional basis as soon as it's signed by the delegates. | |
| Meaning that according to this text, as soon as it's signed, this document will be legally binding to all the members of the WHO without first being ratified by their respective legislatures. | |
| And so, basically, it recognizes the rights of people to give their consent through their elected representatives, but then it turns around and allows for this treaty to be forced upon them anyway. | |
| That's very cool indeed. | |
| In fact, according to Professor Francis Boyle, who teaches international law over at the University of Illinois, he says that the way that this document is written and framed is very clever. | |
| Here's what he told us here at the Epoch Times. | |
| Quote,"...whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature." In addition, | |
| the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals, and health officials. | |
| And so that is the legal justification that the Biden administration will be using. | |
| Meaning that once this treaty gets signed, and if the WHO indeed declares a pandemic, what will very likely happen is that the question of whether the WHO has this authority over the U.S. will be thrown up to the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| And while you might assume that, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court would find this type of thing unconstitutional, well, that might not be the case. | |
| Evidence by previous cases, such as Missouri v. | |
| Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws, as well as United States v. | |
| Belmont, in which the Supreme Court ruled that executive agreements without consent of the Senate can be legally binding with the force of treaties. | |
| And so, we'll just have to wait and see how this WHO agreement actually plays itself out, with, again, the next meeting in this process taking place on Sunday, February 27th. | |
| If you'd like to go deeper into this story, I'll throw all the links of my research down into the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And actually, I'd love to know your thoughts about this topic. | |
| Because this treaty, the one that we discussed, is only the latest battle in a much larger war, playing itself out across the entire world right now, between those advocating for nationalism versus those advocating for globalism. | |
| And one of the main manifestations of this tug-of-war is the question of where to put decision-making power. | |
| Because, for instance, if you are a country in Western Europe and you belong to the European Union, Well then, already, many of your internal domestic policies are decided not inside of your own borders, but rather, they're decided by bureaucrats over in Brussels. | |
| And so, what do you think? | |
| Should the U.S. also go in this general direction and allow intergovernmental or supergovernmental agencies to make our domestic policy decisions? | |
| Or, do you think that those decisions should always be left up to the individual nations, or even to the individual states and individual communities? | |
| Leave your thoughts in the comments. | |
| I'd love to read them, and I'll be reading them later this week. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection