The World Health Organization (WHO) Is About To Flex Its Muscles: Over The United States, Too

What is the World Health Organization, and what is it for, really? In one Children’s Health Defense (CHD) video, Dr. Meryl Nass interviews investigative journalist James Corbett of The Corbett Report about the weaponization of the WHO. Nass also published a Substack with additional background information for this episode.

Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:^3,4,5

Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms — The first principle in Article 3 of the original IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now, health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only. What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick, or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things. Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best” for the collective. Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed. Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of individual rights and freedoms.

Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO — The director-general will have the sole power to declare the beginning and end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures, and vaccine requirements), and the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what drugs are to be manufactured and used. These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws within member states, including the U.S. Constitution. The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as “legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.

Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all other laws and Constitutional rights.

Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data, “where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts.

Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words, censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what “truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must enforce compliance.

Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of “health certificates, “6 i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport, in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social credit score. In short, it will usher in a surveillance and forced compliance system. The G20 also recently declared that digital vaccine passports standardized by the WHO will be part of international pandemic prevention and response moving forward.

The Trail of Corruption

Ever since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been infiltrated by industry. From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, the industry has historically dictated the WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.⁷

In April 2020, then-President Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to the WHO,⁸ but then directed the U.S. funding for WHO to GAVI, which is a Gates-controlled charity that likely just sent the funds to WHO. President Joe Biden restored U.S. funding once he took office.⁹

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary International.

Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget¹⁰ — that Politico in 2017 wrote a highly-critical article¹¹ about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:

“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”¹² “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.

A ‘One-World’ Health Plan

In October 2022, the WHO announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which is made up of:

1. The WHO
2. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
3. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
4. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH)

Beyond the amendments to the IHR, this initiative will also expand the WHO’s powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a centralized global superpower.

Decentralized health care and pandemic planning make sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being implemented.

While the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments expand and centralize power over human health with the WHO, the One Health Joint Plan expands the WHO’s power to also address “critical health threats” to animals, plants, and the environment.

When you add that together with the planned elimination of human rights, you can see how the One Health Joint Plan can be used to enforce climate lockdowns, for example, or travel restrictions to protect wildlife or the environment. To learn more about this plan, see my previous article, “WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan.'”

Jeremy Farrar Selected To Be WHO’s Chief Scientist

December 13, 2022, the WHO announced that Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, has been chosen as its new chief scientist.¹³ The announcement came mere days after the publication of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s deposition transcript,¹⁴ which showed he and Farrar colluded to suppress discussion about SARS-CoV-2 origin.

In an op-ed for I News, columnist Ian Birrell warns that with Farrar as chief scientist for the WHO, our chances of ever getting to the truth about SARS-CoV-2’s origin becomes vanishingly small:¹⁵

“From the start, the world was failed by the World Health Organization. This UN body — run by a former minister in a repressive Ethiopian regime elected with Beijing’s help — praised China for ‘protecting the people of the world’ despite the dictatorship silencing whistleblowers, declining to share data and delaying to warn about human transmission …

It kowtowed to China with its ludicrous probe of the origins … Now the body has appointed Sir Jeremy Farrar … as next chief scientist. This is a scandalous decision given his central role in trying to seemingly stifle suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 … might not be a natural disease.

Science relies on openness. Yet the more that has emerged in emails, freedom of information requests, leaks and books exposing Farrar’s actions, the less confidence we can have in him holding a world-leading scientific role for all his undoubted expertise and political skills …

There are two issues in the origins debate … The first is the core question of the cause … The second issue smacks of something darker: a bid to cover up any possibility that controversial ‘gain of function’ research to boost infectivity — carried out in Wuhan, aided by Western funding — might lie behind the pandemic …

Gradually, drip by drip, it emerged that Farrar was helping lead a group of experts who colluded to crush suggestions the virus might be linked to research.

Less than a fortnight after China confirmed human transmission, the Wellcome chief hosted a teleconference at the behest of the American presidential adviser Anthony Fauci. It included … several participants who feared COVID might be tied to research.

Suddenly their views shifted from fearing the virus might be manufactured to dismissing such possibilities, despite lack of fresh data or firm evidence … [The] WHO is further undermining its credibility by handing such an influential post to a man embroiled in allegations of tarnishing the integrity of science on such an important quest.”

The Evil Genius of Pandemic Planning

At the same time the WHO is working on its power grab, Gates and other Great Reset allies are planning another pandemic to ensure that transition of power takes place. As you may recall, Event 201 was a pandemic tabletop exercise that “predicted” exactly what would happen during the real-world COVID pandemic that began three months later.

October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins, and the WHO cohosted yet another exercise, this one dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion, “^16,17 which involved a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25) that primarily kills children.

With that, we can already begin to predict what this next pandemic will revolve around. The COVID narrative was that we must obey irrational health rules so as not to kill grandma. The next round will likely involve getting children vaccinated with whatever new gene-based concoction they come up with.

Seeing how the COVID jab is now on the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule, we can also assume that the COVID jab will be increasingly pushed at the same time, in the name of “protecting our children.”

Of course, by the time the next pandemic is declared, the IHR will have been amended to eliminate human rights, freedoms and privacy from consideration, and the WHO Pandemic Treaty will have been signed, both of which grant the WHO absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide.

The WHO can then, through its pandemic powers, implement the next phases of The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution, which are rebranded terms for technocracy and the old “New World Order,” melded with the transhumanist (previously known as eugenicist) movement.

The WHO Is Tasked With Ushering in The Great Reset

As explained in “What You Need to Know About ‘The Great Reset,'” technocracy is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around technology — in particular, artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, and Big Data collection — and the digitization of industry and government.

This in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for democratically elected leadership. While the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, they speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with nature and saving the planet (i.e., the Green agenda and Agenda 2030).

In “We Will Be Sacrificed for Global Standardization of Systems,” I review the self-proclaimed “ruling elite’s” plan to control everything on earth, from land, water, and minerals to plants, animals, food, energy, information, and humans. This plan is known as the Agenda for the 21st Century, or simply Agenda 21.

This roadmap for global totalitarianism was agreed to by 179 nations, including the U.S., at the 1992 Sustainable Development conference, and we’ve seen various facets of this agenda being implemented throughout the last three years, under the cover of biosecurity and the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against the rights of the community.” Community, however, in the mind of the globalists, is made up of NGOs, corporations, and government, which are to dictate what happens around the world. The people are not really part of the equation.

So, the communitarianist philosophy of Agenda 21 and the IHR amendment that removes human rights and freedoms come together like two pieces of a puzzle. The WHO’s biosecurity powers can then be used to pave the way for the more freedom-robbing aspects of Agenda 21.

Take Action to Protect Your Freedom

It’s imperative that we protect our human rights and individual freedoms, and in order to do that, we must educate our Congressional representatives so that they understand the ramifications of going along with the WHO. A template letter that you can use was recently published by the Solari Report,¹⁸ copied below for your convenience.

[NAME OF AUTHOR(S)]
[ADDRESS OF AUTHOR(S)]
[EMAIL ADDRESS OF AUTHOR(S)]
[TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHOR(S)]

[Date]

Re: Your position on proposed WHO International Health Regulations amendments, and WHO and government overreach and propaganda regarding COVID inoculations and forced mandates.

Dear Senator/Congressman/woman _____________:

I am/we are [a] registered voter[s] within your district with grave concerns about what [I/we] have read and heard about proposed World Health Organization (WHO) “International Health Regulations” amendments. These amendments would transfer control of the conduct of pandemics to the WHO. According to leaked information on current negotiations, the amendments would, among other things:

• Remove the word “non-binding,” thereby converting the regulations from recommendations to laws;
• Remove clearly defined and understood words like “fundamental freedoms of persons” and “dignity,” instead substituting woke terms like “equity,” “diversity,” and “exclusivity,” thereby usurping rights previously granted;
• Turn the WHO into a pandemic preparedness agency at the whopping cost of $60 billion (as compared with current cost of less than $4 billion); and
• Require member nations to institute disease surveillance activities.

These International Health Regulations amendments are tantamount to a treaty, which should require approval by Congress by a two-thirds vote. However, it appears that proponents may be characterizing them as mere amendments to current regulations (which would require only a majority vote of the World Health Assembly) in order to try to circumvent the Congressional treaty approval requirement.

Note that the U.S. never actually ratified the most recent International Health Regulations amendments in 2005. It should go without saying that international treaties and sovereign immunity powers (which the WHO has) should not be permitted to override the Constitution or the authority of our Congress.

Below is a link to a Daily Sceptic article presenting a letter written to the U.K. Parliament by six organizations concerned with the proposed WHO power grab. It summarizes major concerns about the treaty as follows:

• The overreach of WHO, a nongovernmental organization;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Loss of oversight;
• Censorship;
• Loss of nationhood;
• Side-stepping of the democratic process;
• The conflation of distinct global challenges.

[I/We] believe the International Health Regulations amendments advance the interests of a global elite in creating a technocracy — a virtual digital concentration camp — through national and international medical and other IDs, the “One Health” system, central bank digital currencies, and climate-change-related “sustainable development” and other mandates imposed by unelected technocrats.

The linked Daily Sceptic article is written in the context of the U.K. Parliament, but the threats to personal and national sovereignty in the U.S. are the same.

In a related development — “related” in the sense that it deals with government propaganda and censorship regarding the so-called COVID “pandemic” and efforts by CDC and WHO to present a false narrative to the American people regarding the safety and effectiveness of COVID and other proposed mRNA and other inoculations and to suppress the health dangers of the inoculations — The Epoch Times reveals (see link below) that the U.S. government used a secret Twitter portal to censor COVID-19 content that contradicted the government’s false narrative and engaged in similar censorship activities through Facebook, Google, and other social media platforms.

[I/We] urge you to take action to:

1. SCRUTINIZE WHO International Health Regulations amendment negotiations before it is too late and the proposals are “adopted” through unconstitutional means;
2. OPPOSE the proposed and any similar International Health Regulations amendments;
3. FORCE a Congressional vote on the proposed International Health Regulations amendments as a treaty; and
4. Consistent with revelations by Sen. Ron Johnson’s recent hearings on the subject of the so-called vaccines and injuries therefrom, REIGN IN the pharma-controlled FDA and CDC in their efforts to:

(a) force vaccines and other medical mandates on the American people,

(b) engage in propaganda that falsely portrays the mRNA and other inoculations as safe and effective,

(c) interfere with the doctor-patient relationship through nefarious schemes to silence and de-license doctors, pharmacists, and other health care providers who disagree with the false narrative and seek alternative, cheaper, and more effective treatments for Covid-19; and

(d) take further actions to shut down schools, businesses, and other activities of American life under the guise of fake, pre-planned, and engineered “pandemics” as a means of asserting government control and ushering in a Chinese-style social credit system.

Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters of great concern to what I/we believe is a vast majority of your constituents.

Very truly yours,

[Your signature]