The WHO’s Global Instrument: Why Americans Should Be Concerned
Updated
The central focus of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the past three years has been the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, along with Bill Gates, Jeremy Farrar, the WEF, and others, the specialized agency of the United Nations has been focused on increasing its global control over future pandemics for far longer. After all, as we’ve been repeatedly warned, more pandemics are coming. And while the WHO has yet to declare an end to its declaration that COVID-19 is an ongoing Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the agency heavily funded by hardworking American taxpayers is taking the opportunity to rapidly negotiate a new global agreement that has the potential to transform the WHO from being a strictly advisory organization into one with regulatory power to enact international public health policies.
Thankfully, as the nation sifts through the extensive and long-term damage realized by the tyrannical COVID restrictions executed by Joe Biden—but as if coming straight from Bill Gates—while under WHO guidelines, clearheaded American politicians are paying attention to the WHO’s global control strategy, which is primarily funded by the United States. Republican legislators in the U.S. Senate, led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), are taking action against the “zero draft” of the WHO’s proposed treaty, which was negotiated with the help of U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra. More on their efforts in a moment, but first, a quick look at the WHO’s plan and how we got here.
The WHO’s Mad Dash to Control Future Pandemics
With a goal of finalizing an international governing instrument by May 2024, WHO member nations are meeting for the fourth time next week, February 27 through March 3, in Geneva for what some call “once-in-a-lifetime” negotiations around the development of a global “pandemic treaty,” formally known as the “WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response,” or WHO CA+, for short.
To set the plan in motion, in December 2021, the World Health Assembly, the WHO’s highest governing body, urgently called for a more extensive future pandemic instrument. Fueled by the fear-mongering propaganda driving the COVID-19 pandemic, gender rights, and climate change, the accelerated pace of the negotiations was established with the Biden administration leading the push. Thus, with speed reminiscent of the current shift to electric vehicles (EVs) regardless of the economic cost, following procedural discussions, positioning, and conceptual texts, the zero draft opens the door to a serious multinational negotiation with much at stake for the United States and public health at large as delegates finalize the WHO’s power to prevent, be prepared for, and respond to any future pandemic.
Significantly, the breakneck speed behind crafting such a consequential agreement is unheard-of. Multilateral treaty negotiations typically take years to launch and even more to finalize. As noted by Sen. Johnson, the sheer failure of the WHO’s response to COVID-19, aided by U.S. federal agencies, is reason enough for Americans to demand the Biden administration reevaluate our nation’s relationship with the WHO instead of using taxpayer money to transform it into a global public health technocracy.
The Warm “Friendship” Circle Between Biden, Gates, and Tedros
Importantly, as the WHO—with its hands deep in Bill Gates’ pockets—seeks expanded pandemic control, it is essential to remember that, based on its bias in favor of communist China and its ineptness in handling the COVID-19 pandemic related to its largest country donor, the United States of America, President Trump froze funding and formally terminated the U.S. relationship with the WHO. On July 6, 2020, on behalf of the American people, Trump wrote to WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and explained, “I cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to continue to finance an organization that, in its present state, is so clearly not serving America’s interests.”
Unfortunately, Trump’s bold move on behalf of all Americans was short-lived. Just hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021, he immediately rejoined the WHO, announcing that “with Dr. Tony Fauci as Head of Delegation,” the United States “will participate in the WHO Executive Board meeting that is ongoing this week.” Tedros called the announcement “a good day for WHO and a good day for global health,” with the AP emphasizing the “warm relationship” between Tedros and Fauci, noting that Fauci called Tedros his “dear friend” and Tedros referred to Fauci as “my brother Tony.” While Tedros is undoubtedly an amiable guy, glancing back at his time as Ethiopia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, one might observe that his “friendships” with gigantic supporters like Bill Gates and donor nations alike benefited him significantly more than they did the poor and repressed people of Ethiopia.
Nevertheless, with Biden—a Bill Gates ally—back in partnership with the WHO, Fauci, and Tedros were surely glad to be reunited to supervise the COVID-19 pandemic. The duo previously collaborated less than two years before SARS-CoV-2 gripped the world to discuss such catastrophes. On April 20, 2018, the some call “well-groomed” Tedros visited Fauci and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins at the agency, where he and Fauci signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to “enhance future collaborations on research activities conducted in response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies.” According to the NIH Record, the MOU “includes the intent to establish an NIAID-WHO Collaborating Center for Emerging Infectious Disease Response Research and Preparedness.” While it’s unclear how this collaboration impacted COVID-19, looking strictly at the current pandemic debacle and its overriding theme of stripping away individual freedom and forcing untested and deadly medical procedures, the qualifications of the partnership are questionable.
Sen. Ron Johnson Introduces Bill to Protect American Sovereignty
Moving back to Sen. Johnson, who has tirelessly investigated the pandemic and the looming WHO global instrument, the idea of a WHO with more authority should terrify humanity. To stop the WHO from transforming into a global public health technocracy, on February 15, 2023, Johnson and sixteen other U.S. senators introduced legislation called the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act which states that the pandemic accord must be deemed a treaty, thus requiring the consent of a supermajority of the Senate, which is two-thirds or 67 senators. Noting the failed response and mismanagement by both Joe Biden and the WHO, the legislation would provide more transparency in WHO agreements and a constitutional check on the administration. Speaking of the motive behind the bill, which he previously introduced in May 2022, Johnson remarked:
“The WHO, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in their response to COVID-19. This failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase the WHO’s power at the expense of American sovereignty. I’m proud to reintroduce this legislation to hold the WHO accountable for their failures and increase transparency for the American people. The sovereignty of the United States is not negotiable.”
Attorney Aaron Siri Weighs in on WHO Instrument, Explains Reasons to be Concerned
While it’s unclear when the WHO will declare the next pandemic, given the ongoing threats, many bet it will happen sooner rather than later. With that in mind, especially after the draconian lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, and flat-out attempts at brainwashing, every freedom-loving American should carefully examine next week’s meeting between the WHO—labeled by some as a Communist China puppet—and its member nations. And with online talk of the WHO’s future instrument having ultimate power over the U.S. during a pandemic, many are already concerned, and rightly so.
Interestingly, earlier this week, when fact-checking a post on Instagram claiming “Biden admin negotiates deal to give WHO authority over U.S. pandemic policies,” Facebook-funded Politifact wasted no time ruling “WHO pandemic accord doesn’t replace U.S. sovereignty.” However, in today’s “cancel everyone telling the truth” politically motivated, profit-driven, and deep state-connected climate where the narrative has been written for us, when fact-checkers say something is false, sadly, it is quite often true.
With that in mind, to give Americans a better perspective on how the WHO accord might impact the country and their individual freedom, we spoke with Aaron Siri, Esq., Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP. As the lead attorney for ICAN, Mr. Siri has been instrumental in exposing the corruption behind much of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the incredible government and big pharma collusion surrounding the mRNA vaccines. We asked Mr. Siri four questions about the WHO instrument currently under negotiations. The questions, along with his answers, are below.
1) Is there any truth to the claim the U.S. is ‘surrendering its sovereignty’ by signing on to this accord?
Regardless of what it is called, because the “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” functions as a treaty among 194 member nations, it must follow constitutional requirements with a two-thirds approval by the Senate. Nevertheless, the document itself states that it “may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application.” Because it appears the current administration will consent to this, there is merit to the concerns about surrendering sovereignty given the document’s contents.
2) Can you speak to the concern that the U.S. is ‘relinquishing authority’ during a pandemic, to a global body, by agreeing to this accord?
The WHO document itself states that the instrument will be legally binding and, thus, there is a real danger that the U.S. will, at least to some degree, be beholden to the pandemic response that the WHO deems appropriate. There will be a “One Health” approach, creating a barrier for individual nations to reach their own conclusions about best steps. Not only may this tie the hands of the U.S. Government, but it will also impede each member state’s ability to respond to a pandemic as it sees fit.
3) What can Americans do legally to push back against any assertion under this accord or “treaty”?
Since this is a federal issue, Americans would need to contact their U.S. representatives, including in Congress, and voice their concerns about the WHO pandemic treaty and the grave implications for our country. Depending on the final draft adopted and the manner of its adoption, there is a potential for a legal challenge if the adoption does not comply with the requirements of U.S. law, including its Constitution.
4) Any other comment you’d like to make about the WHO Accord? Concerns?
One particularly concerning provision is in Paragraph 5 of Article 6, which specifically states it is “legally binding” and understood “to apply in all circumstances,” wherein the Parties commit to “facilitate the unimpeded access of humanitarian staff and cargo.” Theoretically, this means that neither borders nor sovereignty applies when it comes to WHO personnel or the “cargo” that they would like to introduce into your country.
Another particularly concerning provision in Paragraph 5 of Article 9, which establishes “a global compensation mechanism for injuries resulting from pandemic vaccines.” Given the fundamentally unjust nature of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program that our own elected politicians concocted, it is unlikely the vaccine injured will fare better under a system crafted by an organization funded in large part by an organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose singular focus is to “make this the decade of vaccines.”
Lastly, in Article 17, the Parties agree to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through the promotion of international cooperation,” specifically referencing “factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines, use of appropriate therapeutics and trust in science and government institutions.”
Screenshot / WHO Contributors / Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[/caption]
Using Pandemics as a Threat to Implement Tyranny
With Siri’s detailed and straightforward insight, Americans cannot sit idly by and watch the WHO’s incremental takeover of global health. We must consider the fact that those leading the pandemic policy are laser-focused on developing and delivering vaccines and medicines increasingly tied to technology rather than on building resilient health systems. Look around; a vaccine alone does not make someone healthy. Many brave medical experts rightly worry it is all too closely tied to big pharma, which shares its profits with those leading the policy.
Moreover, as highlighted by Wesley J. Smith, on April 15, 2020, in a lengthy publication in Cell, Fauci and NIAID partner David M. Morens published a call to grant the WHO the power to effectuate “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence,” including “from cities to homes to workplaces.” Titled “Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19,” Fauci and Morens explained what they—and others like them, including WHO’s new Chief Scientist, Dr. Jeremy Farrar—envision as the all-encompassing “necessary step[s] in controlling future devastating disease emergencies.” They wrote:
“In such a transformation, we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.
Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact.
As human societies grow in size and complexity, we create an endless variety of opportunities for genetically unstable infectious agents to emerge into the unfilled ecologic niches we continue to create. There is nothing new about this situation, except that we now live in a human-dominated world in which our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature.”
Examining the U.S. partnership with WHO under the Biden administration, which is committed to “strengthening health emergency preparedness and response,” the United States also pledged to strengthen accelerated progress towards ensuring the world reaches the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. There is little doubt that the WHO’s international governing instrument is the first necessary step in implementing those goals, also known as The Great Reset, now broadcast freely by the WHO, Bill Gates, the WEF, the UN, and countless other members of the global elite. As Smith aptly put it:
“I’m all for international cooperation. But the threat of pandemics is being used as a pretext to empower an international technocracy. Defenders of American national sovereignty should push back on this effort now while it is still gestating. WHO should never be granted other than advisory capacities.”
