Malcolm Roberts on WHO’s Power Grab, By Brian Simpson

Malcolm Roberts, who did great work in opposing the World Health organization pandemic treaty, has published his take on how the war was won, at least for a little while, because the evil empire will strike back, to use a Star Wars metaphor. It will all come back again in May 2025, so after a brief breather, it will be another turn to opposing this, and whatever the WHO now "recommends" when bird flu almost certainly becomes the next big thing. "The trick of bureaucracy is a war of attrition, to exhaust opponents with a repeated assault on rights until some weak and tired politician signs a document hoping to get rid of the aggravation – and in doing so, open the gates…

The WHO is in decline. Its power is weakened. Public opinion is against it. Now is the time for the nations of the world to tie it down in red tape, constrain its ambition, and permanently disable its dark fantasies of power beyond its health mandate. It is we, the free peoples of the world, who must be relentless.

We cannot and will not allow the WHO to create a health dictatorship."

Agreed; and if Donald Trump becomes, by some miracle, president again, dismantling WHO should be one of his agendas. Both Labor and Liberal in Australia are quite prepared to surrender to WHO; after all they have surrendered to communist China with the Asianisation mass immigration program, so communist China's agent, WHO, is not a big step.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/no-means-no-the-whos-power-grab-fails/

"It's official. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has no binding legal power over nations, despite its post-pandemic power grab.

There were two separate but equally concerning policy changes on the table: the Pandemic Treaty and proposed changes to the International Health Regulations (to shift compliance from voluntary to binding).

Both documents came brimming with hundreds of pages of bureaucratic confusion, vague rules, and promises to abscond with public money for wishy-washy 'health' purposes.

The demands enclosed were extensive, expensive, and extraordinary in that they were tipped to fundamentally change the relationship between government and health while laying the necessary framework for other encroachments on civil liberty.

Ultimately, the answer was 'no thanks…'

Governments failed to reach any kind of meaningful agreement on the meat of the document and it has been kicked down the road, re-scheduled for May 2025.

The UK's commentary, here from Andrew Stephenson, forms a great summary of why the WHO failed: 'Under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns, this would be unthinkable and has never been proposed. Protecting our sovereignty is a British red line.' Nor would the UK bow to plans to force 'rich' nations to give away a fifth of their vaccines or submit to any recommendations that were not part of the national interest.

Australia's Health Minister Mark Butler deserves and will receive no credit for the WHO's failed power grab, given he has been seal-clapping from the sidelines at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.

As Mr Butler said:

'Australia is invested in the future of WHO – to ensuring it is responsive and sustainably financed to fulfil its mandate. We are also fully committed to concluding the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Together we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, prepardness, and response.'

Yes, while other countries fought for months to have the word 'binding' removed, Mr Butler continues to embrace the chains, longing to have his office answer to directives from on high instead of accepting the risk of health decisions – a job for which his department is generously furnished with public money.

It is no coincidence that the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Kelly attended Senate Estimates this week with a World Economic Forum Sustainable Development Goals pin on display over his heart.

Labor and Liberal, in equal measure, have spent the post-Covid years more than happy to leave Australian health in the hands of the WHO. This is not a merit-based position, but rather a chronic allergy to leadership.

Refusing to admit defeat, Twitter is awash the WHO congratulating itself for a victory that exists solely within the fantasy of propaganda.

The hubris of the WHO Director-General's social media soiree is exposed in the detail. Contained within the draft document is this:

'Upon receiving information of an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern, WHO shall offer to collaborate with the State Party concerned in assessing the potential for international disease spread … when requested by the State Party, WHO shall provide information supporting such an offer … if the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration, and when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, WHO should share with other State Parties the information about the event.'

The document goes on in this manner, highlighting passive language such as 'offers' and 'if requested' rather than earlier versions which implied forced compliance.

I warn Australians now, do not get comfy.

The trick of bureaucracy is a war of attrition, to exhaust opponents with a repeated assault on rights until some weak and tired politician signs a document hoping to get rid of the aggravation – and in doing so, open the gates…

The WHO is in decline. Its power is weakened. Public opinion is against it. Now is the time for the nations of the world to tie it down in red tape, constrain its ambition, and permanently disable its dark fantasies of power beyond its health mandate. It is we, the free peoples of the world, who must be relentless.

We cannot and will not allow the WHO to create a health dictatorship.

At the very least, Australia must be offered a plebiscite before further decisions are made about the WHO. After all, was it not Labor who said Australians deserve a 'voice'? Allow us to have one.

Australian citizens have seen through the health fear-mongering and understand that the WHO's recent actions are about one thing – centralising power.

'One Health' is the WHO's chief policy and it means a single, dictatorial health framework from which you can never escape. Especially not once the digital barbed wire is erected around policies such as global Digital ID and global Health Passports. There comes a point where the democracy of a single nation cannot override the tyranny of a worldwide web of intrusive regulation.

As they say of all things communist, you can vote yourself into a dictatorship – but not out of it.

Not only are we at risk of falling under the shadow of a 'global health' bureaucracy, the United Nations is busy merging the ideological arms of its spheres of power together.

'Global health' has been repurposed as a marketing exercise by international bodies who sought control in exchange for alleviating 'public fear'. This approach matches the earlier unhinged mutterings of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres who said: 'Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning. The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.'

In a tone-deaf display of policy confusion, the WHO held a 'strategic roundtable on climate change and health' last week as if to prove 'conspiracy theorists' right about their concern that climate change 'health' lockdowns might be on the cards. Said Tedros, Director-General of the WHO:

'The Climate Crisis is a health crisis. And it's not a hypothetical crisis in the future. It's right here and now.'

The worrying declaration comes from his recent speech: Climate Change and Health: A Global Vision for Joint Action.

No room for misunderstanding there.

Give us your money, and we'll take care of your health.

Give us your money, and we'll change the climate.

Climate Change will be the next pandemic.

The world, and its people, have raised an eyebrow in suspicion and – from the sobriety of a post-Covid era – taken a more cautious approach which ultimately led to the rejection of pretty much everything demanded by the WHO.

Perhaps nations are tired of the WHO's antics, perhaps they feel their democratic power is being threatened, perhaps they are concerned about class action lawsuits that arose in part from WHO directives, or perhaps the WHO is polling badly and political leaders are worried they'll lose their seats.

All Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus, could do in response was wail at the void.

'I have lost my voice,' he begins.

'But it's a small price to pay. Because tonight we have all won and the world has won. And I offer you all my warmest congratulations.

'And my deepest gratitude.

'You have made history here today in approving a strong package of amendments to the International Health Regulations. You have strengthened the cornerstone of international health law. In doing so, you have made the world safer.

'The Pandemic Agreement is not done yet – but I have no doubt it will be.

'You have charted a clear path forward and you have demonstrated your clear commitment to finalising it. The success of the IHR working group should give the Intergovernmental Body confidence that you can get this done and you will.

'The timeframe that you set yourselves was extremely ambitious and rightly so. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is international law. So even if it takes another year to finalise the Pandemic Agreement – and I don't believe you will need that long – you will still have achieved a lot in a very short time.'

And what was agreed upon?

According to Tedros, the main points supported were:

Recognising climate change as an imminent threat to global health.

Supporting countries to restructure their economies to serve the health of the people and the planet.

Managing emergency preparedness for disasters resulting from natural hazards.

Yes, the climate change agenda has merged into 'planetary health' to bring it under the jurisdiction of WHO emergency orders.

I say again, we won last week – but we won a battle, not a war. We must be the piranhas of policy, nibbling away at the globalist agenda until there is nothing left to bury."