Posted by Sam Fenny - Memes and headline comments by David Icke Posted on 22 February 2024

If You Think Parliament Will Get Any Opportunity to Scrutinise the WHO Pandemic Treaty, Think Again

Earlier this year the Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus complained that the WHO pandemic agreement negotiations risked falling apart due to “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories”.

This news was likely well received by the thousands of U.K. citizens that have successfully petitioned Parliament, triggering two debates thus far, regarding the treaty and the proposed IHR amendments. As stated by MP Danny Kruger at the most recent of these debates, “this is a fringe issue in Parliament, as demonstrated by the empty benches, but significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic.”

Although poorly attended, the debates did allow concerns to be formalised and placed on record, concerns which Dr. Ghebreyesus appears to hold in contempt. One presumes that these issues are part of the “torrent” that Tedros is referring to. More recently at the World Governments Summit Tedros added:

Countries set themselves a deadline to complete the agreement in time for adoption at the World Health Assembly in May of this year. That’s now just 15 weeks away. However, there are currently two major obstacles to meeting that deadline.

The first is a group of issues on which countries have not yet reached consensus. They’re making progress, but there are still areas of difference that need further negotiation between countries.

None of them are insurmountable. If countries listen to each other’s concerns, I am confident they can find common ground and a common approach.

The second major barrier is the litany of lies and conspiracy theories about the agreement:

That it’s a power grab by the World Health Organisation;
That it will cede sovereignty to WHO;
That it will give WHO power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries;
That it’s an ‘attack on freedom’;
That WHO will not allow people to travel;
And that WHO wants to control people’s lives.
These are some of the lies that are being spread.

If they weren’t so dangerous, these lies would be funny. But they put the health of the world’s people at risk. And that is no laughing matter.

These claims are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.

But can we take Tedros’s comments at face value?

What exactly are the countries at loggerheads about? We can imagine Tedros being happy to give the impression that perhaps countries are struggling to safeguard the democratic rights of their respective populations. Or that they are grappling with the dilemma that in pursuance of promoting the integrity of their health policies, they plan to work in cahoots with media platforms to censor the speech of the entire globe – a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

But in fact it is nothing of the sort, of course. The only meaningful evidence we have points to pecuniary interests being at the heart of the delay, namely “intellectual property rights, sharing information around pathogens and technology transfer”, with the U.S., EU, U.K., Canada, Switzerland and United Arab Emirates all indicating that they aren’t happy with the entire article on the access and benefit mechanism. (This mechanism monetarily rewards lower income countries for sharing pathogen samples and genetic sequence data, allowing them to offset the cost of purchasing pharmaceuticals, for example.)

Perhaps it serves the interests of the WHO to let people assume the negotiation delay is evidence that public concerns are being addressed, with Tedros seeking to placate opposition.

However, his second claim that the negotiating parties have somehow succumbed to conspiracy theories is rather odd and most unlikely.

Tedros may claim that the treaty is not a “power grab” by the WHO, but what is certain is it that this treaty will facilitate a sizable shift in power to the corporate entities (stakeholders) that the WHO brings to the pandemic preparedness table. Historically the WHO’s alliance with the pharmaceutical industry has resulted in a huge waste of public money, as experts with financial ties to companies profiting from WHO policies were considered authoritative. There is nothing in the latest version of the proposal that prevents this conflict of interest from re-emerging. With the legally binding agreement stipulating that member states are to allocate 5% of their health budgets to pandemic preparedness, along with an as yet undetermined percentage of their GDP, the size of the pandemic preparedness industry will become staggeringly large. Five percent of U.K. NHS spending amounts to over £9 billion pounds. There are 193 other members states of the WHO. Feel free to do the maths.

The U.K. Government has also reassured us that the treaty will not act to cede sovereignty to the WHO, but this reassurance is not corroborated in detail. What cannot be denied is that the treaty creates a new policymaking centre that is distinct from Westminster and can influence Parliament. One would expect an advanced democracy such as the U.K. would be well placed to safeguard Parliament’s role from the impact of any such agreement, but this is not the case. Indeed, it may be surprising to most that current U.K. legislation provides no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of an international treaty or agreement.

Read More: If You Think Parliament Will Get Any Opportunity to Scrutinise the WHO Pandemic Treaty, Think Again

The Dream

From our advertisers