Thread by @JoshWalkos

Mega Thread 🧵

While the culture war rages on, the very same people who fund it, foment it and exploit it are barreling towards an unprecedented power grab draped in the language we have grown weary of. You know the language, words like “inclusivity”, “diversity” and “equity” feature prominently the WHO’s documents.

These are political words that are crypto-fascist and in practice mean exactly the opposite of their professed meaning. So it is fitting that they are littered throughout the proposed Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.

#StopTheWHO

Since this unfolding tyranny is being pushed through by people that none of us voted for I thought it would be instructive to present some of the amendments proposed that if passed have far reaching implications, almost all of which are designed to wrestle away sovereignty of both our nations and our physical bodies.

I’ll remind you before I begin that the WHO receives 85% of its funding from Private donors. Keep that at the forefront of your mind while reading these proposals, knowing that context brings clarity to the agenda at play here.

Article 59 Amendment:

The WHO wants to speed up the amendment process, cutting down rejection and enactment times. Why the rush? It's as if they're trying to steamroll over national deliberation processes.

This could lead to ill-considered decisions, ignoring crucial country-specific concerns. It's not just about being quick; it's about being right.

Article 62 Amendment: Clarifying reservation details sounds like a neat trick to box countries into a corner. It's as if the WHO is trying to tighten its grip, limiting how states interact with international regulations. This could erode national sovereignty, turning recommendations into impositions.

Technical Amendments to Articles 55, 61, and 63:

They label these as 'technical amendments,' but the devil is in the details. These changes could subtly shift interpretations and implementations, potentially creating loopholes or unforeseen consequences. A sly snake move to alter international health regulations under the guise of mere 'technicalities'?

The proposed amendment to Article 1 would remove "non-binding" from the definitions of "standing recommendation" and "temporary recommendation"​. The WHO's attempt to remove 'non-binding' from their recommendations reeks of a power grab. It's like they're trying to morph from a guiding force into an authoritarian ruler. This would trample over national sovereignty, turning recommendations into orders.

Expanded Scope of IHR: Proposed by India, this would expand the IHR's scope to include any 'potential' public health threat is worryingly vague. It's a slippery slope today it's a health crisis, tomorrow it could be anything vaguely health-related.

Gun violence or better yet “ climate change”’could be declared a potential “public health threat” requiring “behavior modification”. Why would this be on the table if they didn’t intend on expanding the scope?

Giving the WHO the sole right to declare a public health emergency is WORLD GOVERNMENT by another name.

Human Rights Considerations: Another proposal by India, this amendment would remove the phrase regarding "full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons" from the IHR

The proposed removal of human rights language is alarming. It's as if the WHO is not so subtly hinting that individual rights might take a backseat during health crises, something we have seen they have no qualms about. Likewise governments have shown zero respect for human rights so this is a match made in hell.

Genetic Material Sharing: Proposed by the United States, this amendment would require states to share microbial and genetic material related to notified events​. Obligating states to share genetic materials?

That sounds suspiciously like the USA would like to grant WHO and overreaching into national sovereignty yet again, sensing a theme here? It's a treasure trove for exploitation and raises serious concerns about who benefits from this genetic goldmine.

I’m taking a wild guess here but it’s probably those private donors who contribute 85% of their budget.

Information Control by WHO: Proposed by the United States, this amendment would allow WHO to decide when to make information received under Articles 6, 8, and 9 generally available to other States Parties. Giving WHO the authority to control information dissemination is like trusting a pharmaceutical company will prioritize public health over profit margins.

It's a power that practically begs to be abused. The “pandemic” showed that the WHO is willing to dispense with science in favor of political expediency. This would allow them to withhold crucial information and manipulate narratives in order to impose their will on the rest of us. A worldwide Ministry of Truth.

Sovereignty in Health Emergencies:

Yet another insane and traitorous proposal by the United States, this would remove the requirement for the Director-General to seek the agreement of a State Party when declaring a PHEIC. The WHO's potential to undermine national control in health emergencies is a direct assault on sovereignty.

It's like they're saying, 'Thanks, but we'll take it from here,' regardless of a country's own capabilities or decisions. It also sounds like a great way to pass liability to an amorphous private multinational organization that supersedes international law and will never be held accountable.

Mandatory Cooperation and Assistance: Proposed by African Nations, this amendment creates an obligation for States Parties to provide support to WHO-coordinated response activities.

Compelling nations to provide assistance feels like the WHO is forcing its will upon sovereign states. It's a slippery slope from cooperation to coercion, potentially souring international relations and fostering resentment, as if we need more of that.

Production and Distribution Control: Proposed by Bangladesh and African Nations, this amendment would ensure that manufacturers supply requested health products as directed by WHO​. The WHO dictating resource allocation is a troubling prospect.

It smacks of control over national resources, potentially sidelining a country's own needs in favor of WHO's directives which will undoubtedly be driven by the philanthro-capitalists who control it. Where does national priority stand in this scenario? I willing to bet far back in line.

Mandatory Nature of Recommendations:

Turning recommendations into binding orders? That's a huge leap in authority. It's as if the WHO is no longer content with advising but wants to command. This could lead to a pushback from states, who might see this as an unwarranted intrusion.

Overriding National Sovereignty:

The idea of the Emergency Committee overruling national decisions is absurd. It's a blatant disregard for national sovereignty, almost like a global health coup. Who gave them the right to override sovereign nations?

Financial and Technological Assistance:

Increased financial obligations for developed nations under the guise of assistance could strain international relations. It seems like a convenient way for the WHO to funnel resources from wealthier nations under a moral pretext.

You know what that means, more vaccines and less clean water and healthy food because that’s the WHO’s entire operating model in the “developing world”. This should be deeply concerning to the inhabitants of these nations because the WHO has been caught red handed trying to sterilize entire populations before with the help of their benefactor Bill Gates.

In 2013-2015, the WHO launched a vaccination campaign in Kenya, which was controversial due to allegations of using an anti-fertility vaccine disguised as a tetanus prophylactic. The Kenyan government and the WHO maintained the campaign was for tetanus prevention.

However multiple analyses of samples of WHO "tetanus" vaccines obtained from vials used in the campaign tested positive for βhCG. If you add this to the fact that the WHO has been funding research on “anti-fertility vaccines” for decades it paints a macabre picture.

Further reading on this here:

scirp.org/pdf/OALibJ_201…

Here is one of many studies that can be found in relation to this topic that has been driven by the WHO.

Full Study:
zero.sci-hub.se/5522/fbbbc5250…

Digital Health Passports:

Finally a plan for global tyranny under the guise of pandemic preparedness would not be compete with a proposed amendment for implementing digital health certificates. Championed by the member nations of the European Union “aims to streamline the process of health verification for travelers.

The notion that one's health status should be digitized, trackable, and potentially accessible across borders by an unaccountable organization is a totalitarians wet dream.

We are talking about turnkey tyranny in the image of how the Chinese track their population like cattle. If all the previous measure they would like to implement didn’t sufficiently alarm you, this singular proposal should don’t trick.

Imagine having to travel to Europe to visit family and you have to prove you’ve taken all of the mandated vaccines via your digital health passport? Didn’t get the vaccine? Well I’m sorry but you have to if you’d like to see your family again. We would want you spreading your diseases in another country now would we?

Regardless if you’ve acquire natural immunity or exhibit no symptoms. Remember asymptomatic spread is now a thing, even though in the history of disease dissemination it never has been a thing. It’s science just shut the fuck up and roll up your sleeve slave.

Simply put, the WHO doesn’t deserve anyone’s trust, their history is littered with failures and corruption, casting a long shadow over its current ambitions. Recall the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, where the WHO's alarmist stance and questionable decisions led to accusations of undue influence by pharmaceutical companies, sparking a global scandal? This incident, among others, exposed a concerning susceptibility to external influences and a propensity for calculated overreaction to line the pockets of the parasite class.

Moreover, the WHO's opaque decision-making processes and its constant departure from scientific consensus for political expediency further erodes confidence. The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic should have been the nail in the proverbial coffin for the WHO but instead it has done the exact opposite and it’s about to pull off a global power grab. This alone should tell you the true intentions of these people throughout the entire ordeal.

How can such failure be rewarded? Well, in my opinion, to them, it wasn’t a failure at all. It all went perfectly according to plan.

We must oppose these amendments and start a conversation around completely withdrawing support and associations with this undemocratic, totalitarian organization that has been parading around as a public good, attempting to dictate what we do with our own bodies.

DO NOT COMPLY.

You can access the “Proposal for negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement” here:


And the Proposed Amendments Referenced Here:



By entering your zip code here you can find your Congress representative and email them your opposition to this nonsense. 👇🏻

This thread I made shows how the WHO is bought and paid for:

While you are here give me a follow so you won’t miss future threads like these:

The typos in this paragraph are killing me. Posting an entire thread at once is crapshoot.

@Trinityaudiobot