SPECIAL ISSUE #64 ⛓
I WAS NOT BORN FREE TO BECOME A SLAVE OF THE WHO, THE WEF, AND THE SUPER RICH OF THIS WORLD WITH THEIR PERVERTED FANTASIES OF OMNIPOTENCE
I have written about the machinations of the WHO in my Special Issue #10 in April of last year. I believe we have gone from bad to worse.
The very fact that the German government parties highlighted the 75th anniversary (May 12th) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) in their motion for a resolution did not bode well for their willingness to seriously discuss the planned WHO pandemic treaty and the tightening of the International Health Regulations (IHR). Any expectation in this regard was - to say the least - underperformed.
Sadly the Still-Health Minister Karl Lauterbach now has a large majority of the parliament behind him if he pursues a transfer of competence to the WHO as far as possible. Neither in the motion for a resolution nor in the speeches of the "Coalition" and the opposition parties CDU/CSU was there any qualification of the unspoken guiding principle
"The more competences and assertiveness for the WHO, the better."
According to the results of the roll-call vote, 497 MPs supported this position, with 25 abstentions and 68 no votes, whereby the no votes came from the AfD, two independents and one from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. Otherwise, there were only yes votes from the very large coalition of the traffic light and the Union. Usually, you only see votes that are so suspiciously unanimous when it comes to increasing the parliamentary allowance.
The majority of the Left parliamentary group abstained, which one could find reasonable in a resolution that contains good and bad elements. But the objections raised by the Left representative, unfortunately, bordered on the ridiculous.
The deplorable fact that only the AfD opposed the WHO pandemic treaty and the IHR reform in its current form was used by the other parties to demagogically brush aside the counter-arguments and concerns of many people - such as the more than 360,000 who signed a critical open letter to Chancellor Scholz. They summarily discredited every criticism and painted their unrealistic dreams of prevented pandemics and of a WHO that would work in the future for the global population's well-being, undeterred by the interests of its donors, and therefore could not have enough power.
Tina Rudolph of the SPD started off with the cheeky claim that those who criticised intransparent negotiations and processes were just too lazy to look up everything that had been published on the internet. But when you research you quickly realise that there are almost no well-founded reports in the established media on the progress of the negotiations. There are essentially only a few alternative media outlets.
“Under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, the World Health Assembly may adopt regulations that are legally binding on states unless they reject them ("opt out"). Once the time limit set in the regulations for rejecting or registering a reservation has passed, the regulations in question are binding on all states that have not expressed objections. The main feature of the WHO regulations is that in their case the involvement of national legislators is not necessary. In addition, the regulations require a lower voting threshold than conventions."
In a nutshell: If the World Health Assembly adopts amendments to the IHR by a simple majority, they will become binding on all countries whose governments have not claimed an exemption for their own country within a time limit - which is to be shortened.
The argument about parliamentary involvement is not convincing, because it is perfectly acceptable to criticise when a parliament is prepared to permanently give up its own sovereignty and that of its own government. Especially if the parliament has previously had such an infantile debate about it as this one. It is then still an abandonment of sovereignty that has to be justified, not denied. I still call it high treason when elected politicians give up their sovereignty to an unelected privately funded institution such as the WHO.
Rudolph and the other speakers of the very large coalition had only a few vague slogans to offer as justification for the necessity of self-empowerment in favour of the WHO, which apparently cannot go far enough for them.
Now, according to parliamentary custom, it would actually have been the turn of an opposition party. But on behalf of the CDU/CSU, former Health Minister Hermann Gröhe only wanted to complain that they had not been informed earlier about the resolution, which they otherwise supported wholeheartedly.
Instead of arguing, Gröhe arrived after only a few sentences at "world conspiracy gobbledygook", with which he summarily dealt with all counter-arguments without further description.
The next speaker, Johannes Wagner from the Green Party, used "conspiracy myths" as a counter-argument, which he did not want to take seriously and refute. He quoted WHO chief Tedros, who declared that there was a pandemic of misinformation, an "infodemic", which was even harder to fight than the virus epidemic itself. It's bad enough that the man said such a thing, who, by the way, according to the reform proposals, should in future be able to declare global and regional health emergencies on his own personal authority.
If the quote had been self-critical and had referred to the many false statements made by the government and the WHO, such as that the vaccines protect almost 100% against infection and have no side effects, or that there will be no lockdowns and compulsory vaccination, it would have been laudable. But this way it breathes the anti-democratic spirit of a Ministry of Truth. Wagner uses the “infodemic label” to denigrate criticism of the surrender of national sovereignty to the WHO as a crazy conspiracy theory, although he and his fellow campaigners are in favour of precisely this surrender of competence.
Wagner then surprisingly also knows for sure that Sars-CoV2 jumped from an animal to humans, while the majority opinion of experts now seems to have arrived at the previously fought conspiracy theory that the virus originated in the laboratory.
Christina Baum of the AfD summed up the WHO's biggest problem. She called it a semi-private organisation because of its dependency on corporate donations and seats, which should not be given the right to decide on the declaration of pandemics and consequent large-scale vaccination programmes. "Because the vaccine manufacturers who fund the WHO would profit massively from such decisions."
Andrew Ullmann of the FDP, who followed, called this nonsense and recommended that the previous speaker switches on her brain. Here again, we should refer to the above definition of a demagogue, a person who uses deceptive arguments and insults those who present counter-arguments.
WHO dependence is deliberate and it is most certainly not by chance that the WHO has become so dependent on dedicated grants.
The left-wing party only offered an unconvincing pseudo-opposition. Ates Gürpinar of the Left Party faction considered it a sensible argument against the criticism of the transfer of sovereignty to the WHO that otherwise Health Minister Karl Lauterbach would retain these powers. Otherwise, he could only think of the expression "conspiracy theory" for the arguments against the WHO reforms. His main argument against the motion for a resolution of the traffic light party was that the demand for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Conference, which had been inserted there, would have been better left out.
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that a second SPD speaker called all critics conspiracy theorists, something Tina Rudolph had failed to do before.
There were times when leftists still had problems with big corporations pushing their profit interests by giving money to public institutions. Back then, such criticism was not yet denigrated by them as a conspiracy theory.
The loss of sovereignty is a consensus for the parties that voted yes. The proponents of the traffic light resolution, as mentioned above, themselves refute their much-voiced denigration of the loss of sovereignty argument as conspiracy mumbo-jumbo by advocating precisely this surrender of sovereignty. A WHO review panel went even further, rejecting many of the proposed changes in the International Health Regulations because they would represent too great a loss of sovereignty for governments.
One can still like this loss of sovereignty. But to simultaneously call for it and dismiss warnings about it as mere conspiracy theories is scandalous.
I don’t want to end this letter without leaving you with what is really at stake.
In the following, which is a very subjective selection, a list of critical points among the reform proposals which, according to our representatives of the people, are not to be discussed by the very large coalition and certainly not to be criticised because that would be world conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.
As far as the WHO pandemic treaty is concerned, there has been a "conceptual zero draft" since the end of November 2022. The pharmaceutical companies themselves could hardly have formulated it better in their favour. It commits the signatory states to:
* Strengthening the central role of WHO as the lead and coordinating agency,
* Facilitating WHO's rapid access to outbreak areas, including through the deployment of expert teams to assess and support the response to emerging outbreaks.
* Enhancing capacity to build and maintain strategic stocks of pandemic response products,
* Providing stocks, raw materials and other necessary inputs for the sustainable production of pandemic products (especially active pharmaceutical ingredients), including stockpiling,
* Incentives (money) for pharmaceutical companies related to everything possible around the development, production, production capacity, distribution and stockpiling of their products,
* Cooperation with the private sector (pharmaceutical companies) and civil society (Gates Foundation) in all possible ways.
* Manage "infodemics" through appropriate channels, including social media, counter mis- and disinformation
More concrete and drastic would be the IHR reform according to the proposals submitted, especially by the USA. The IHR are binding. These reform proposals include:
* Deletion of the predicate non-binding in the WHO recommendations,
* Binding reviews of compliance with recommendations by the WHO Emergency Committee,
* Governments to ensure compliance with WHO recommendations by non-state actors,
* Scope of the IHR to be extended to "all risks that may have an impact on public health",
* commitment to respect for human dignity and freedom to be deleted,
* the possibility should be opened for health documents to contain information on laboratory tests, in general, not only during health emergencies,
* the WHO Secretary-General can declare regional or global health emergencies on his or her own authority and without the consent of affected governments,
* he can then make recommendations and is given leverage to enforce them,
* he is given leverage to send teams of experts to affected countries and enforce their recommendations.
The WHO review panel rejected the first six points, but not the last three.
In addition, there is a draft resolution proposed by the USA to be adopted at the upcoming World Health Assembly. It calls on all governments to use behavioural science to combat disinformation on health issues, i.e. to manipulate public opinion in the sense of the WHO Ministry of Truth.
Again: I WAS NOT BORN FREE TO BECOME A SLAVE OF THE WHO, THE WEF, AND THE SUPER RICH OF THIS WORLD WITH THEIR PERVERTED FANTASIES OF OMNIPOTENCE!
🎶My Song of the Day
Is a premiere in choosing a German song… I just like the lyrics a lot!
For more good music, go to this Spotify playlist where you can find all the songs from the Change & Evolve Letters!
📚My Poem of the Day
Is another by E.E. Cummings (1894–1962)
as freedom is a breakfastfood
as freedom is a breakfastfood or truth can live with right and wrong or molehills are from mountains made —long enough and just so long will being pay the rent of seem and genius please the talentgang and water most encourage flame as hatracks into peachtrees grow or hopes dance best on bald men’s hair and every finger is a toe and any courage is a fear —long enough and just so long will the impure think all things pure and hornets wail by children stung or as the seeing are the blind and robins never welcome spring nor flatfolk prove their world is round nor dingsters die at break of dong and common’s rare and millstones float —long enough and just so long tomorrow will not be too late worms are the words but joy’s the voice down shall go which and up come who breasts will be breasts thighs will be thighs deeds cannot dream what dreams can do —time is a tree(this life one leaf) but love is the sky and i am for you just so long and long enough
👀Impressions
It had to be something beautiful 🤩
For personal reasons, I will be concentrating a large part of my work and expertise on helping people that have become victims of narcissistic abuse and helping them find the road to healing. I would be happy to take the time for a speed coaching call that you can reserve right here, go to my website or simply hit reply and get in touch with me directly.
Share, leave a ❤️, leave a ✍🏼! Wishing you a wonderful day wherever you are.
Yours
Tanja 🤗