Some Good News on the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty, By James Reed

Natural News.com reports that under world-wide criticism, the World Health Organization has watered down its pandemic treaty. The main point is that Article 13A.1 which would have required nations to follow directives of the WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority for international public health, has been removed. That was one of the main criticisms of the pandemic treaty, that it undermined national health sovereignty. However, not discussed by the extract below, is the remaining issue that has been noted here:

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-who-pandemic-treaty-fails-again

that there is a debt relief clause in Article 20: "The Parties commit to working together to…promote, within relevant bilateral, regional and/or multilateral mechanisms, innovative financing measures, including but not limited to debt relief…for affected countries whose debt payment might affect expenditures on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and in the case of pandemics, take measures for debt relief, including the suspension of debt servicing and debt cancellation."

There will be special treatment for China, which the UN considers a developing country, despite having the second largest economy in the world. This continues the special relationship which the World Health Organization developed with communist China since the Covid plandemic and is more than enough reason for Western nations to pull out of the UN.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-04-23-who-backs-off-pandemic-treaty-addresses-tyranny.html

"Some good things happened this past week concerning the World Health Organization's (WHO) Pandemic Treaty.

In response to widespread public outcry, the WHO substantially revised its proposed International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments, dialing the tyranny back a notch.

According to the group Us for Them UK (@UsforThemUK on X), the changes represent a serious victory "for national democracy, free speech and human rights."

Almost all of the substantive concerns presented to the WHO Working Group for the IHR amendments have been trimmed back, one of the biggest changes being that the WHO's recommendations will be non-binding.

"Article 13A.1 which would have required Member States to follow directives of the WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority for international public health has been dropped entirely," Us for Them UK tweeted.

Another change is the erasure of a proposal that would have struck from the amendments wording that recognizes the "dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms" of human beings.

"This proposal marked a particularly low water-mark, and should never have been suggested," Us for Them UK says.

If you are concerned about the WHO suddenly attaining dictatorial powers at the mere "potential" of a public health emergency, worry not: the WHO will only be able to gain total control if it can demonstrate "that coordinated international action is necessary."

WHO won't be your daddy; corrupt Congress will

As for the controlled flow of information by the government, a process more commonly known as censorship, the WHO will have no jurisdiction over this, either.

What happened during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "pandemic" in terms of how the WHO applies its IHRs will also remain the same rather than be expanded to also include "all risks with a potential to impact public health."

Of great remaining concern, however, is the explicit recognition in the revised IHR amendments that Member States – in our case, the United States – will be the ones responsible for implementing whatever WHO recommends, as they so choose.

What this means, of course, is that the always smart and never corrupted U.S. Congress, meaning the … multinational corporations that control them, will have the full and unfettered privilege of deciding how We the People get treated during the next public health "crisis."

Other provisions that were "diluted," according to Us for Them UK include details about the surveillance mechanisms that would have allowed the WHO to mandate the finding of thousands of potentially new so-called pandemic "signals," as well as provisions that would have pushed the adoption of digital health passports.

Keep in mind that the entire published document as it currently exists from the WHO remains an interim draft, so it could be modified further. The IHR Working Group will pore over it and make final negotiations as to how it will appear in its final form.

"We won't be safe until the WHO are disbanded, though," commented someone on X (@Free_ByTheSea).

"It is not acceptable that our nation is influenced by an unelected group who conceived the original amendments. Nor is it reasonable that members of our government tried to persuade us they were nothing to worry about. We shouldn't have to defend ourselves from groups like this. The WHO needs to go."

Another responded that while these latest developments might seem like a win for medical freedom, we must still be vigilant because the WHO is untrustworthy.

"WHO has shown itself to be an abusive partner to free nations," this person added. "The solution to a relationship with an abusive partner is to LEAVE. Leave the WHO."