Dear Sir Desmond,
We have corresponded regarding the proposed new WHO’s International Treaty. I raised concerns about losing our right to determine our future health policy and your response is below.
“The Government will not support any treaty which compromises the UK’s sovereignty. There is nothing in the proposed treaty that would impact our ability to take decisions about national lockdowns or associated measures at the national level. I and the Government would certainly not support one which gave the WHO powers to make such decisions, which are rightly the preserve of national governments. We must remain vigilant to ensure that any new treaty goes no further than proportionate and sensible measures.”
I took on face value your comment “There is nothing in the proposed treaty that would impact our ability to take decisions about national lockdowns or associated measures at the national level”.
However there has been widespread global concern about the WHO’s goal of Quote:
Seeking a [mandated] global accord to pandemics.
As a result I suspect the WHO have now embarked on a more covert approach to achieve their aims. They are [in tandem with the Treaty] also seeking agreement to: Amend International Health Regulations, which would supersede the current 2005 regulations..
As you are aware historically there has been many successful attempts to achieve unpopular polices/referenda etc., by revising their presentation, and avoiding exposure and promotion. In effect achieving ratification via the back door.
I would like to draw your attention to a few key concerns regarding the WHO’s proposed amendments. Their “Grab for Power” is imo “in plain sight”.
1. There are 54 amended elements presented in a manner that almost any layperson would find impenetrable. The sum total of these amendments results in creating one decision maker (WHO’s Director General), who can override any sovereign power who disagrees with their directive. Although there is recourse for sovereign states to appeal the WHO decision, but the WHO are the final arbitrators. (I can hardly believe I have just typed this last sentence.)
2. Whereby the 2005 regulations promote a partnership approach to health issues, the proposed amendments channel almost all important decisions to the desk of the Director General. A couple of examples will illustrate. Throughout the existing 2005 regulations “non -binding” wording has been deleted and “may” has been changed to “shall”, thereby enforcing the directive. Additional paras have also been added which, by and large, give the WHO the sole right to determine a state’s “Health Policy decisions”.
One may be reassured of the WHO’s motives if they had a track record of effective decision making, objectivity, independence and lack of vested interest partnerships. However the past three years of empiric evidence demonstrates the opposite. The unelected nature of the WHO should leave no one in any doubt about the danger of ceding such powers to an NGO who, as many authoritative figures argue, may have a hidden agenda. Would it be worth the risk one should ask oneself?
3. One could give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude a World Health Organisation is surely best placed to mandate international health regulations? This conclusion is challenged when one considers that within these amendments is a proposal to delete the focus on “Emergency Public Health” and replace it with “Any Risk” that could POTENTIALLY impact public health. This surely gives a free hand to an unelected body to interfere in any aspect of our lives, using the rationale that it MAY harm people.
4. Article 3 of the amendments, relating to the implementation of these regulations, used to refer to implementation taking due account of peoples’ dignity, human rights and freedoms. Not surprisingly all three have also been deleted. Begs the obvious question of: Why?
5. Let’s imagine these amendments are ratified and the WHO decided climate change had the potential to harm public health. Their mandated solution could be even worse lockdown tactics than 15 minute cities. We are back to being imprisoned.
(As an aside: The rationale for the above being that something as small as 0.04 parts per million in our atmosphere causes the world temperature to rise to a dangerous level for people, when in fact the inhabited earth has been much warmer and more people die of cold than heat. By the way if CO2 drops to below 0.02 ppm all vegetation dies and we along with it! But let’s not go down that rabbit hole!)
I urge you and your colleagues to recognise the Trojan Horse that is being contructed by unelected people who have one aim: CONTROL. Andrew Bridgen is not alone around the world. There are an increasing body of politicians in the US, Australia, EU and beyond that now share my views of the possible future of humanity. As well as countless professionals who sadly (but less so as the truth emerges) are still being censored.
Please for your children’s sake do your own due diligence and wholeheartedly join the fight for our freedoms before they are lost forever.
Regards,
Peter Williams