POSOBIEC: The WHO’s ‘Pandemic Treaty’ is a threat to American values

"They're going to come in and tell you, not ask you but tell you when your pandemic starts. What does that mean?" Posobiec asks.

https://rumble.com/embed/v12oo0r/?pub=2n05b

"For countries that don't abide by obligations set out by the pandemic treaty, Dr. Tedros has suggested that the WHO may need the authority to direct other countries to sanction non-compliant countries that don't want to impose restrictions.

"They can dictate how our doctors can respond, what drugs can and can't be used, or which vaccines are approved. We end up with a one-sized-fits-all approach for the entire world in a pandemic... to a health crisis, does not work across a single country and certainly not across the entire globe." said Posobiec.

"This has been the issue of this thing. And, you can dig even deeper into it, but what it comes down to is lockdowns, border crossings, vaccine mandates, all of this could potentially be controlled under the international health regulations, under an international treaty. Not up to the country themselves."

Comedian and commentator Russell Brand’s impression of this situation is that the WHO failed to address the onset of the COVID pandemic when it first presented itself from late 2019 into early 2020.

May 19, 2022

It’s something that a panel convened by the World Health Organization agreed with. The headline of this group’s report called COVID the "21st century's Chernobyl moment,” given the haphazard approach of international response.

Lawrence Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute, downplayed fears from critics of the W.H.O. treaty. The theme of his argument is that the international community is attempting to arrange a set of “norms,” and that the likes of China would still probably ignore these measures anyway, and that “WHO has no authority to dictate US health policy whatsoever.”

May 19, 2022

A closer look of the amendments to International Health Regulations was published on Thursday by Brett MacDonald of Timcast.com.

Amendments to articles include an obligation by W.H.O. to provide support (when needed) to member states for monitoring infectious diseases, making it obligatory to assess “adverse public health” events within a 48-hour window of receiving “relevant information,” giving W.H.O. the authority to declare public health risks to the international community based on third-party reporting, with stipulations.

W.H.O. per Article 10, "are still obligated to consult with that nation, verify the public health risks, and fully inform the state about the allegations they seek to verify. The consultation and information sharing must occur within 24 hours of obtaining the report on the alleged health risks."

Many online arguments, MacDonald says, are surrounding Article 11’s amendments. He describes it by saying: “WHO is now obligated to issue an annual report on any instances of information sharing in which they have been involved. Critics have argued that paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article constitute a breach of state sovereignty — pointing out that WHO is no longer obligated to ‘consult’ with the state on; the intent to make information available to other parties’ but must merely ‘inform’ the state of their intent to do so."

MacDonald goes through the other articles beyond that. But, the debate over Article 11 exemplifies where the bigger picture of concerns of eroding control come from.