Global Tyranny: The WHO “One Health” Directive that Supersedes the Laws of Democratically Elected Nation States. Letter to the US HHS Office of Global Affairs

My Written Comment Re: Stakeholder Listening Session for the 75th World Health Assembly

By Margaret Anna Alice
Global Research, May 21, 2022
Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass 13 May 2022
Region:
Theme:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Governments do like epidemics, just the same way as they like war, really. It’s a chance to impose their will on us and get us all scared so that we huddle together and do what we’re told.” —Dr. Damien Downing, President, British Society of Ecological Medicine

I represent the World Council for Health, and I am writing to voice my solemn concerns about the amendments to International Health Regulations (IHR) Articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, and 59 proposed by the US Department of Health & Human Services on January 18, 2022.

You have the unique opportunity to stop the greatest threat to national sovereignty in history by rejecting these amendments.

Conversely, advancing these amendments would constitute a shameful act tantamount to treason against the people of the world.

I implore you to choose courageous action over cowardly capitulation to globalist pressures.

If approved, the IHR amendments would grant the WHO director-general dictatorial power to declare a public health emergency—even if the member state objects.

That means an unelected bureaucrat would have the ability to impose a “One Health” directive that supersedes the laws of a democratically elected nation-state and the will of its citizens.

Empowering a single individual with such absolutist authority is egregious enough, but it represents an even deadlier danger when that person is a likely war criminal.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been credibly accused of “systemic genocidal violence and gross human rights violations” by the Amhara Professionals Union Research Department. Furthermore, Nobel Peace Prize nominee David Steinman has lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court against him for being “a crucial decision maker in relation to security service actions that included killing, arbitrarily detaining, and torturing Ethiopians.”

Catapulting an alleged war criminal to an omnipotent role would fulfill Joost Meerloo’s admonition in The Rape of the Mind at a global level:

“In a state where terror is used to keep the people in line, the administrative machine may become the exclusive property and tool of the dictator.”

Additionally, the proposed IHR amendments would equip WHO “regional directors” with the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

Meerloo warns about these petty bureaucratic tyrants as well—what Christopher Browning calls “desk murderers”:

“This creeping totalitarianism of the desk and file goes on nearly everywhere in the world. As soon as civil servants can no longer talk humanely and genially but write down everything in black and white and keep long minutes in overflowing files, the battle for administrative power has begun. Compulsive order, red tape, and regulation become more important than freedom and justice.…

“The burning psychological question is whether man will eventually master his institutions so that these will serve him and not rule him.”

The answer to that burning psychological question has been made resoundingly clear over the past two years of COVID tyranny, during which countries around the world seized exponentially multiplying authoritarian powers to institute a range of failed, hazardous, and even lethal guidelines in the name of a mild condition that even Bill Gates now admits had a “fairly low fatality rate” and is “a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu is.”

Taking this runaway absolutism to the international level would be equivalent to imposing a planetary dictatorship.

In 1976, Paddy Chayefsky prophesied the arrival of such a world in Network:

Should the proposed amendments pass, the director-general could unilaterally issue an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA)”—the equivalent of a deafening transnational air-raid siren that would send the world into a state of terrorizing fear and panic, which Meerloo says “can be used to deepen man’s sense of insecurity and further his passive surrender to the totalitarian environment.”

It is now evident that was squarely the intention of those orchestrating the fear-fueling propaganda campaign that has been waged against the public since early 2020, and formerly submissive people are waking up to that fact in indomitable numbers.

The amendments would usher in a universal health surveillance system capable of enslaving the citizens of the world, and you would make that possible if you greenlight them.

Don’t let their pretty words about protecting the public health fool you. As Thomas Paine cautions:

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.”

Article 5, for example, would involve the formulation of early warning criteria that would enable the WHO to deploy the same outrageously erroneous modeling used as an excuse to transform the world into an open-air prison.

One of the architects of those panic-mongering models, the notorious Neil Ferguson, expressed his amazement that they were able to “get away with” emulating the containment policy of a totalitarian government in a democratic nation:

“It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could …”

These despotic measures turned out to not only be ineffectual but also catastrophically destructive and fatal, causing infinitely more harm than the 98.8% survival rate diseasethey were purportedly introduced to curb.

Under the proposed amendments, Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13 would give a member state forty-eight hours to accept or reject on-site assistance following a WHO risk assessment. Nations that fail to comply could face penalties such as economic sanctions, loss of international aid, and multinational disdain, stoking potential conflicts and heightening the risk of starvation, rioting, violence, and wars.

Article 9 would permit the reliance on secret sources to decree a public health emergency. Eliminating transparency and accountability guarantees corruption. Pharmaceutical corporations, world-bossing foundations, and other dubious entities that profit grotesquely both financially and hegemonically from such emergencies could provide fabricated evidence.

Does “yellow cake” ring any bells?

Via Article 12, the WHO director-general could declare a suspected Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) without even consulting the WHO Emergency Committee and member state(s), effectively overriding national sovereignty.

Article 59 gives member states six months to say no to the proposed IHR amendments after the World Health Assembly adopts them—in other words, starting in November 2022, nations could lose their sovereignty. Failure to reject the amendments constitutes de facto approval.

Søren Ventegodt considered the WHO such a menace that he titled his 2015 Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy article, “Why the Corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) Is the Biggest Threat to the World’s Public Health of Our Time.”

Below are a few salient excerpts from this article, whose criticisms of the Swine Flu fiasco map directly to the WHO’s disastrous handling of COVID:

  • “[I]t seems that the pharmaceutical industry has gained control over the WHO system, leading to an extreme bias towards the use of not only ineffective and unnecessary influenza vaccines and medicines, but also to the use of antipsychotics, antidepressant, antianxiety and other psychopharmacological drugs, cytotoxic anti-cancer chemotherapy, and a number of other drugs, which according to independent meta analyses and Cochrane reviews are found to be without significant beneficial effect—and often harmful.”
  • “Ten years ago WHO changed its financial policy and allowed private money into its system, instead of only funding from the member states. WHO has since been extremely successful in raising funds and is now receiving more than half of its yearly budget from private sources. Bill Gates has for example given more than one billion dollars to the WHO. The new system of private funding of WHO has brought WHO much closer to the pharmaceutical industry.”
  • “The Danish director of the Nordic Cochrane Center openly addressed what he called ‘the criminal practices of the pharmaceutical industry’ and documented in his book the problem that ‘Big Pharma’ already has taken patient’s lives and caused harm to patients from the use of poisonous, poorly documented, and ineffective medicine.”
  • “Recent scandals, like the Swine Flu scandal in 2009, has shown that WHO unfortunately has succumbed totally to the power of the pharmaceutical industry.”
  • “In an interview the Polish health minister revealed everything about the horrible industrial contracts, where the pharmaceutical companies—helped by WHO—sold vaccines that were not even properly tested! The minister pointed to the fact that the test groups were extraordinary [sic] small—so small that the adverse effects of the vaccines could not even be evaluated.”
  • “So the world learned that the pharmaceutical industry was running WHO! Wow. So the industry itself declared the pandemic that forced all European countries and many more to buy enormous amount of ineffective and dangerous medicines.”

Had Ventegodt’s recommendation of a “fundamental revision of the WHO-system” been heeded at the time, the millions of lives lost to and incalculable harm caused by the WHO’s abominable management of COVID—through lockdowns, through hospicide, through unsafe and ineffective injectable products, through the denial of early-treatment protocols, through the refusal to recognize natural immunity, through masking, through the losses of human rights, through poverty, through suicides, through deaths of despair—could have been prevented.

If we fail to act on that exhortation again, we will continue to repeat these annihilatory policies over and over and over again, only at significantly greater scales given the boundless tyrannical powers you are considering bestowing upon this malfeasant organization.

In keeping with the autocratic approach demonstrated throughout the proposal process, the public is being deprived of the opportunity to voice its concerns about the amendments, and stakeholder communities have been given a mere twenty-four hours to submit their comments.

Consequently, we must rely on you to decide in favor of the people and against an organization captured by the pharmaceutical industry and profiteering foundations.

By sanctioning these amendments, you would be building your own concentration camp—and if you think you will be exempt from this worldwide panopticon because you’re a leader, you’re as naïve as the menticided Good Germans begging for subjugation.

Soft totalitarianism can harden as quickly as molten steel into a bullet.

The only way to prevent future atrocities is to dismantle the mechanisms that facilitate them. Heroic trailblazers are already building a better way.

You have the historic privilege of being able to stop one-world tyranny.

Do you have the integrity, fortitude, and temerity to do so before it’s too late?

Reach into the deepest part of your being and discover your invincible summer:

“In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there’s something stronger—something better, pushing right back.” —Albert Camus

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is licensed under Public Domain
Articles by: Margaret Anna Alice

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]