, pub-5167539840471953, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

The Global Pandemic Treaty: A Threat to National Sovereignty?

Explore the concerns raised by a WHO whistleblower regarding the global pandemic treaty and its potential impact on national sovereignty. Discover the proposed changes and their implications for global health initiatives and individual rights.

In recent news, a whistleblower from the World Health Organization (WHO) has sounded the alarm, claiming that the proposed global pandemic treaty is a deceptive strategy employed by globalists to eliminate national sovereignty and establish a One World Government. These claims have sparked significant concerns and debates among health experts, lawmakers, and the public. In this article, we delve into the details of the treaty, its potential consequences, and the need for cautious analysis.

WHO’s Push for Global Collaboration

The WHO has proposed a Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) with the aim of enhancing global collaboration in combating pandemics. These changes, however, have raised apprehensions about their potential impact on national sovereignty and the power dynamics between the WHO and its member nations.

Concerns over Authoritarian Control

Dr. David Bell, a former senior medical officer at the WHO, and Professor Garrett Wallace Brown from the University of Leeds, recently voiced concerns about the broad powers the treaty could grant to the WHO. They highlighted potential implications such as imposing hefty financial contributions, suppressing scientific discourse, and enforcing travel restrictions, lockdowns, and compulsory vaccinations at the WHO’s discretion.

The Evolution of the WHO:

The WHO, established in 1946 as an advisory organization, has undergone significant changes over the years. Driven by funding patterns, particularly from private donors, the WHO has become increasingly centralized, allowing external influences to shape its agenda. This transformation raises concerns about the proposed IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty.

Parliamentary Response to the Treaty

Members of the UK’s Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) have engaged in a groundbreaking discussion on the implications of the proposed treaty. APPG Co-Chair, Esther McVey, called for greater parliamentary scrutiny, expressing skepticism about granting substantial powers to an unelected and privately-funded supranational body like the WHO, which lacks apparent oversight.

Labour MP Graham Stringer, another APPG Co-Chair, expressed opposition to the WHO’s expanded powers. He voiced concerns about potential commercial interests within the WHO and questioned its decision-making process, citing the controversial stance on mask-wearing as an example. Stringer emphasized the need for rigorous debate and transparent review to protect public health, democracy, civil liberties, and individual rights.

Preserving Autonomy and Global Health Initiatives

Both experts and parliamentarians emphasized the necessity of cautious analysis and scrutiny of the WHO’s proposed changes. They called for countries to retain their autonomy in addressing public health challenges while safeguarding global health initiatives from undue influence. The urgent need for transparency, democratic decision-making, and protection of individual rights was underscored throughout the discussion.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real News Cast needs reader support to survive. 

Every dollar helps. Contributions help keep the site active and help support the author (and his medical bills)

Please Contribute via  GoGetFunding