Looks like they’re about to push this through and because the globalist elite megacorp news is ignoring it, people have no idea (because they want you to sign up with the website to view the article, I’ll post the full article below). This is unhinged for any American to negotiate or even think about signing, but this is the will of the globalist elites in compromising national sovereignty and setting up a one world government, bypassing our constitution and rule of law. Uniparty politics aside, this is treasonous for our president to sign, and clearly a way to bring in digital ID, vaccine passports, central bank digital currencies, increased mass surveillance, and all they’ll have to do is release the next virus they’ve genetically edited in the lab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nWritten under the banner of \u201cthe world together equitably,\u201d the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/biden-admin-negotiates-deal-to-give-who-authority-over-us-pandemic-policies_5066631.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nBy Kevin Stocklin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
February 18, 2023 Updated: February 20, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n
News Analysis<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a \u201clegally binding\u201d accord with the World Health Organization (WHO<\/a>) that would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate America\u2019s policies during a pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite widespread criticism of the WHO\u2019s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce<\/a> \u201cthe U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.\u201d Together, they developed a \u201cplatform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These discussions and others spawned the \u201czero draft\u201d (pdf<\/a>) of a pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO\u2019s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Written under the banner of \u201cthe world together equitably,\u201d the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Centralized Pandemic Response<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,\u201d David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy, told The Epoch Times. \u201cThey 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track effort, coinciding with an initiative by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to create new global pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member states. The WHA is the rule-making body of the WHO, comprised of representatives from the member states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBoth [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,\u201d Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. \u201cEither one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Physician Meryl Nass told The Epoch Times: \u201cIf 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\u2019re getting remdesivir, but you can\u2019t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they\u2019re 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\u2019re already immune.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding medical treatments, the accord would require member nations to \u201cmonitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products.\u201d Based on previous WHO and Biden administration policy, this would likely include forcing populations to take newly-developed vaccines while preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine treatments or medicines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Circumventing America\u2019s Constitution<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a \u201cprovisional\u201d basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhoever 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,\u201d Boyle said. In addition, \u201cthe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration in this. They include State of Missouri v. Holland<\/a>, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws. Other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont<\/a>, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are parallels between the WHO pandemic accord and a recent OECD global tax agreement, which the Biden administration signed on to but which Republicans say has \u201cno path forward<\/a>\u201d to legislative approval. In the OECD agreement, there are punitive terms built in that allow foreign countries to punish American companies if the deal is not ratified by the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As with the OECD tax agreement, administration officials are attempting to appeal to international organizations to impose policies that have been rejected by America\u2019s voters. Under the U.S. Constitution, health care does not fall under the authority of the federal government; it is the domain of the states. The Biden administration found this to be an unwelcome impediment to its attempts to impose vaccine and mask mandates on Americans, when courts ruled that federal agencies did not have the authority to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo circumvent that, they went to the WHO, for either the regulations or the treaty, to get around domestic opposition,\u201d Boyle said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to \u201cstrengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.\u201d They will also implement a \u201cwhole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level\u201d that will include national governments, local governments, and private companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The zero draft stated that this new accord is necessary because of \u201cthe catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A report from the WHO\u2019s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (pdf<\/a>) characterized the WHO\u2019s performance as a \u201ctoxic cocktail\u201d of bad decisions. Co-chair Ellen Johnson Sirleaf told the BBC<\/a> it was due to \u201ca myriad of failures, gaps and delays.\u201d The solutions proposed by that report, however, did not suggest more local autonomy or diversified decision-making, but rather greater centralization, more power, and more money for the WHO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018One Health Surveillance\u2019 and Misinformation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The WHO pandemic agreement calls for member states to implement \u201cOne Health surveillance.\u201d One Health is a concept that has been embraced by the UN, the CDC, the World Bank, and other global organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe term originally meant a way of seeing human and animal health as linked\u2014they sometimes are\u2014so that you could improve human health by acting more broadly,\u201d Bell said. \u201cIt 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\u2019s remit. So public health can be deemed to include climate, or racism, or fisheries management, and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon emissions is a health issue and therefore a health \u2018emergency.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The WHO zero draft states that \u201c\u2018One Health surveillance\u2019 means \u2026,\u201d leaving the definition to be worked out in future drafts. Whatever One Health surveillance ultimately entails, however, the signatories must invest in it, implement it, and \u201cstrengthen\u201d it. In September 2022, the World Bank approved a Financial Intermediary Fund<\/a> (FIF) to finance, among other things, One Health surveillance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Signatories also agree to support the official narrative when it comes to information about a pandemic. Specifically, they will \u201cconduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation\u201d and \u201cdesign communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This aligns with efforts by the Biden administration to, as former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki put it<\/a>, \u201cmake sure social media companies are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health \u2026 and engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.\u201d Or as UN Undersecretary-General Melissa Fleming stated<\/a> at a 2022 World Economic Forum panel on \u201cTackling Disinformation\u201d in Davos, \u201cWe own the science and we think that the world should know it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The official narrative during the COVID pandemic included support for lockdowns, school closures, and masking\u2014all of which have since proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus and damaging to public health. A group of more than 900,000 doctors, epidemiologists, and public health scientists jointly signed the Great Barrington Declaration<\/a> in 2020, expressing \u201cgrave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.\u201d This declaration was widely derided as dangerous misinformation and was censored on social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe views that they crushed were orthodox public health,\u201d Bell said. Up until 2019, public health guidelines \u201cspecifically said that things like prolonged border closures, closing stores, etc. were harmful, particularly for low-income people, and shouldn\u2019t be done beyond a few weeks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those who pushed for lockdowns \u201cwere very clear that what they were recommending for COVID was going to be extremely harmful, and that the harm would outweigh the benefit,\u201d Bell said. \u201cThey were clear because they wrote that down before, and there\u2019s nothing new in the idea that impoverishing people reduces life expectancy. Something dramatically changed their minds, and that something wasn\u2019t evidence, so we can only assume that it was pressure from vested interests.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n