Kennedy Will Halt The World Health Organization's Massive Power Grab

(from the Kennedy Beacon, a PAC supporting the presidential run of RFK, Jr.). Currently the WHO is 15% funded by member state dues, not 20%: http://open.who.int/2022-23/contributors/overview/vcs?name

Kennedy Will Halt The World Health Organization's Massive Power Grab

Along the campaign trail, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly pledged to halt and reverse the pharmaceutical industry’s regulatory capture of US government agencies. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO), a non-governmental organization originally established to advise and assist government health agencies, is seeking absolute regulatory power over the public health matters of all its 194 member countries (officially referred to in United Nations/ WHO parlance as “member states”).

Corrupt forces at the WHO are threatening to impose their agenda under the guise of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the newly drafted WHO Pandemic Agreement (WPA) (referred to, until October of this year, as the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, aka PPT). If adopted, the WPA will position the WHO as sole authority regarding anything related to these independent nations’ health and welfare. 

As Pienh Huang reported for NPR on April 28, 2020, “At a press conference on April 22, Michael Ryan, director of WHO’s Health Emergencies program, summed up the organization’s overarching mission: ‘The mandate we have [is] to establish global standards and to give strong advice to countries regarding rational public health measures.’” 

http://open.who.int/2022-23/contributors/overview/vcs?name=Bill%20%26%20Melinda%20Gates%20Foundatio

The COVID-19 crisis was a catalyst for the WHO to increase its influence in the sphere of global health and regulatory policy, and the WPA and IHR amendments seek to expand its influence even more by making further inroads toward controlling the health decisions of the world’s population. As former WHO medical officer and scientist Dr. David Bell writes in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,

The COVID-19 response … ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned.… Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management. The beneficiaries will be the corporations and investors whom the COVID-19 response served well.

See the following video summary, part 2 of a four-part series about the WHO Pandemic Agreement, by Livio Sanchez in collaboration with Global Health Project, an organization dedicated to exposing corruption, improving health outcomes for patients, and increasing accountability in public health and government:

In 2021, at the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, while every measure was being implemented by governments worldwide to ensure that an unproven medical technology, the basis of the mRNA vaccines, would be granted Emergency Use Authorization, the WHO began forging ahead quietly, some would say covertly, to draft and negotiate what would become the WPA, ostensibly to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Concurrently, a committee of member state representatives went to work to amend the 2005 IHR. 

If accepted as written by member states, the WPA would grant the WHO the power to declare a public health emergency based on human, animal, or environmental health concerns (Article 12 and Annex 2); require proof of vaccination against multiple illnesses (Article 18); and, most concerningly, require member states to both investigate and share pathogens with pandemic potential so that all member states have equal opportunity to investigate their usefulness in the development of “preventatives” – in other words, vaccine development. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to describe this as biological warfare. 

Under its previous designation as a “treaty,” the PPT would have required ratification by the US Senate. However, recategorizing it as an “agreement” means that the WPA can be passed by presidential decree. Although as an agreement it lacks legal and political teeth, if the IHR are amended as proposed, the WPA “recommendations” can be made legally-binding.

There are few aspects of life that are not covered in the new WPA, making it a nearly all-encompassing instrument of power that the WHO and those influencing its decisions could wield. There is no mechanism in the existing documents for member states to challenge the WHO’s determination of a public health emergency and the measures it deems necessary to implement. Under the terms of the WPA, the WHO reserves the right to determine what is considered factual and what is considered misinformation or disinformation, and to define all information related to public health. Together, the WPA and the IHR threaten to undermine the individual sovereignty of each of the 194 member states by giving the WHO unprecedented power.

According to the WHO, the WPA has undergone extensive internal and public consultation, with two public hearings held in April and September of 2022. However, to view the public hearing, an individual would have to know how to access the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) website and successfully navigate to the appropriate page at the correct date and time. Recently, corporate media has attempted to refute legitimate claims of covert activity in the WPA process. However, its refutation relies heavily on sources directly or closely connected to the WHO. In reality, the meetings were not announced to the public in any meaningful way or reported on by the media after the fact.

The WHO’s detractors say that it is, at its core, a corrupt organization. A 2010 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report on the H1N1 pandemic cited the WHO’s “lack of transparency” during the review process, as well as the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in their decision-making processes, as major issues affecting their management of the pandemic. Moreover, the Assembly expressed regret at “the highly defensive stance taken by the WHO, whether in terms of being unwilling to accept that a change in definition of a pandemic was made, or an unwillingness to revise its prognosis on the pandemic.”

Forces behind the WHO

(Video courtesy of @GlobalHProject)

Most people are under the impression that the WHO is funded by its 194 member states. In reality, according to the WHO website, nearly 80% of the WHO’s funding comes from private or so-called “voluntary” donors. Collectively, the donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (both founded and heavily funded by the Gates Foundation) make Gates-funded organizations collectively the second largest donor to the WHO. Moreover, in a quid pro quo investment scheme that Gates calls “philanthrocapitalism,” Gates multiplies his fortune by investing in the pharmaceutical companies tasked with developing the vaccines that the WHO declares are necessary health solutions. According to Krista Larson of the Associated Press, the Gates Foundation has spent billions of dollars of its more than $70 billion endowment on vaccination development and immunization programs. 

As Kennedy noted, during the August 31 episode of his podcast, and as reported by Megan Trimble in US News & World Report, in January 2019, a full year before COVID hit America, the WHO – without scientific citation or any basis for such a declaration – announced that vaccine hesitancy was one of the 10 greatest global health threats.

Amended International Health Regulations Lend WPA Its Punch

This is where the 2005 IHR – which, as preexisting regulations, do not require ratification – come into play. While the WPA was being drafted, concurrently, a group of member state representatives were convened to amend the 2005 IHR so that the non-legally-binding WPA “recommendations” become legally-binding edicts that convey greater power to the WHO. Removal of the term “non-binding” in Article 1 of the amended IHR will accomplish this. Amendments to Clause 1 of Article 3 addressing the principles governing implementation of the Regulations have replaced “shall be with full respect to the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons” with “shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence, and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.”

This amended language reflects the WHO’s doctrine that redistribution of resources from one nation to another takes precedence over individual human rights and freedoms. Just these two amendments to the IHR convert it into a legally-binding instrument that grants the WHO the ability to impose draconian measures on member states that supercede individual member states’ human rights protections and mete out sanctions on those member states or individuals who refuse to comply, according to testimony to the EU Parliament by attorney Phillipp Kruse. 

Of serious and pressing concern is that the IHR are qualified as “health regulations,” according to WHO Constitution Article 21. This means that unless there is public rejection of the amended IHR, they will likely be adopted after the vote in May 2024; approval only requires a simple majority of the 194 member states. According to Dr. David Bell, writing for the Brownstone Institute, “Countries will then have 6 months in which to opt out, otherwise being considered to have accepted the amendments as existing signatories to the IHR. This opt-out period was reduced from 18 months by the WHA in 2022.”

What about the US Congress?

In December 2022, on President Biden’s watch, Congress passed legislation that committed the Department of Defense to operationally and financially supporting the WHO’s implementation of the WPA. And President Trump, though he withdrew $260 million in WHO funding (not “almost $500 million,” as he stated), also made a three-year pledge of $1.16 billion in taxpayers’ money to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (a “public-private global health partnership” whose stated “Market Shaping” strategy is to “to improve the health of markets for vaccines and other immunization products” [my emphasis]), a move that Derrick Broze described in The Last American Vagabond as a “vaccine bait and switch.” It supported Gates’s and the WHO’s shared mandate to develop vaccines and impose worldwide lockdowns and, as Broze concluded in the same article, allowed Gates “to take full control of WHO policy and continue to use US taxpayer dollars to fund vaccine projects, including a rushed vaccine for COVID-19.” 

When interviewed by Kennedy on his September 15 podcast, Dr. Meryl Nass stated that it is critical that Americans call and write to their congressional representatives and senators and insist they cosponsor H.R. 79 (the “WHO Withdrawal Act”) and also demand that the WPA be subject to ratification (S.4343) by the Senate.

The WPA and amended IHR are draconian instruments that undermine individual member states’ and their citizens’ autonomy. Together, they create a scenario wherein the WHO would be given the funding and authority to develop and mandate medical interventions worldwide and penalize those who are unwilling to comply. 

Similar to the regulatory capture of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the pharmaceutical industry, the influence of Gates on an organization with an international mandate like the WHO represents a tremendous conflict of interest. By proposing a new international agreement, the WHO and, by proxy, Gates are positioned to assume unprecedented authority over the governance of the sovereign nations the WHO was ostensibly created to empower and serve. This power grab by the WHO – in the guise of bettering public health – represents a serious threat to democracy and to the health and medical freedom of individuals of all WHO member states, including the US. 

Kennedy, by contrast, promotes a vision that will lead to a freer and healthier America, one in which the WHO, Gates, and the pharmaceutical industry are prevented from mandating pharmaceutical “solutions” that promote chronic diseases rather than alleviate them. He will instead support the growth and development of “low-cost alternative and holistic therapies that have been marginalized in the current pharma-dominated system.” Unlike other presidential candidates, Kennedy promises to shepherd America “from a sick care system to a wellness society.” As he said in his podcast with Dr. Nass, regarding the draconian overreach of the WPA and IHR, voting for him is a solution to this problem because he will “put this to bed overnight.”

Nancy Owens contributed research for this article.