David Bell's assessment of the WHO's adopted IHR amendments
Glad to post this while I work on a very detailed piece
David Bell, MD, PhD (actually his Australian MD degree has other letters but if I wrote them here most people would be confused) who worked at the WHO for 9 years and also for the Gates organization, which means he knows what he is talking about from the inside, has written a quite good piece about the amended International Health Regulations that were adopted Saturday night. However, his article is a bit confusing, because in the middle he discusses the amendments that were originally proposed, and it is easy to think he is talking about what got passed, when he is really speaking about what was left on the cutting floor.
I have excerpted the most important sections from his article, below.
Let me say again that given the situation that exists with international negotiations: bribes, threats, phones tapped in embassies etc., I think we wound up with the best deal that was possible. And the schism between the Biden administration and the Republican Senators, Governors and Attorneys-General throws a massive wrench into the works of the WHO, which David and some others may not fully grasp yet, it was so unexpected by them…. Whereas we at Door to Freedom developed the state-level strategy, and we and our affiliate organizations had been working hard on it, stirring up our grass roots, for a year. I also want to give credit to Joe Gebbia and State Shield for the important role they played in this almost miraculous achievement.
Finally, I’d like to repeat that imho the only really bad thing in the amendments was the tacit agreement to censor “misinformation” and “disinformation.” But this should not surprise us. Governments love this power, whether they are rich or poor, and no one is forcing them to do it. By embedding this in the IHR, they have made censorship a norm. Works for them. However, most constitutions include “free speech” and so censorship is unconstitutional. What we need to do is to challenge this at the level of our nation states, where the important censorship battles will be fought.
Now for David:
… The IHR amendments passed by the WHA appear mostly innocuous and have been widely reported as such. They add catch phrases like equity in a context of intent to push commodity-based responses and restrictions of freedom that clearly increase inequity, and emphasize the needs of low-income countries whilst commoditizing pandemic responses to the benefit of Western institutions. However, the important gain for WHO and its backers (almost 80% of WHO’s work is specified directly by its funders) is the wording that further strengthens surveillance (Annex 1) - the key element on which the rest of the business case around future pandemics hinges. This is adopted, and there is a willing workforce to make it happen.
Surveillance ─ identifying threats early and responding ─ seems an obvious thing to support. Doubtless most country delegations were supporting them on that basis. It is particularly aimed at detecting passage of potential pathogens from animals to humans, as in the current publicity around avian (bird) flu. This seeming obvious public good is why this whole agenda has got so far, and why it is so easy to sell to anyone who has not stopped to think.
… We have just taken a further step down the road to a world built on false claims and the rule of self-declared experts. This is not something that can be ‘won’ but an unending battle against human greed and self-interest that will always be with us. The hard part is to recognize the intent through the mix of fear (keep watching bird flu) and flowery verbiage. When those who advocate a change are the ones who stand to gain at others’ expense, and when they misrepresent the risks of failing to follow their lead, we should start to understand. Greed is not a new problem.
The recent months of negotiations have shown that many involved in the process are recognizing potential harms, and a few countries are raising reservations. However, self-interest, coercion and propaganda are a powerful combination. Those pushing medical fascism, and those enchanted by it, are very much in control. A further step down this fascist road is no victory. But if we keep exposing false narratives and refuse to comply with stupidity, there are signs that the worst of the current agenda may yet be derailed. Truth remains the chief enemy of all that is currently being forced on the world by a self-entitled few.
No comments:
Post a Comment