Rebutting bizarre assertions about the WHO's negotiations
Hope this does not bore you but it is important to clear things up
These grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted:
“… you should realize the following:
The WHO negotiations are NOT an attack on national sovereignty.
The WHO negotiations are NOT about mandates or lockdowns.
The WHO negotiations are NOT about attempting to seize control of the doctor-patient relationship.
The WHO negotiations are NOT a plot that has been planned and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party
The WHO negotiations will NOT be countered by standing up for states’ rights, or by state nullification.”
But they are simply wrong and there has been no correction or clarification.
The WHO Treaty claims it is not an attack on sovereignty, but what else can you call it when the WHO will get to declare emergencies and then dictate to 196 nations what they must do; how much they must spend; whether to use specific drugs or vaccines, etc? I dealt with this yesterday here.
Article 18 of the International Health Regulations gives the WHO, once the word “binding” that has been added in an amendment has been approved, the power to order and enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns.
The provisions in both the Treaty and Amendments dictate censorship of health “misinformation and disinformation” thus controlling what information your doctor can access. Article 43 paragraph 4 in the Amendments gives the WHO the right to order that certain drugs be withheld during a declared public health emergency. That seems like an uncountenanceable intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship to me.
I cannot comment on the role of the Chinese since I don’t know what it is
I just explained in the last post why standing up for the rights of states to regulate health is critically important, and pointed out that the executive branch lacks the authority to delegate any powers to the WHO over American citizens, in any event.
The issue of where power lies and who has the power to delegate it to the WHO is critically important for us all. This is the reason why the EU suddenly asserted that its competence in health is high and the WHO asserted that it had the authority to negotiate with the EU, despite the fact the EU is not a member of the WHO: it is an attempt to supercede individual European nations’ authority and negotiate a transfer of power from all 27 member nations to the WHO. Precisely what our federal government is doing.
This was a very important week, in which the legal issues came into sharp focus and we the people felt hopeful that we could evade the legal traps that have been set.
And that was when the “Red Herrings” post appeared on March 29, throwing large numbers of people into a tizzy of confusion. Was our movement getting too strong, and was long-established trust risked to finally try and derail us?
The March 7, 2024 and March 13, 2024 versions of the Treaty are the same repackaged tyranny that was found in the 6 earlier versions. Don’t get confused and don’t give up.
Meryl....You are so spot on. This person is starting to make me think he is working for the other side. Meryl I must also add that a new version of the Pandemic Agreement is dated March 13, 2024. I am sure there must be some changes or why else have a revised version. At this point most of what they change in the agreement seems to be minor but who knows. For your readers. Know the power the states and the people of the states truly have. Law schools no longer teach constitutional law and our public schools no longer teach the founding documents and what little they may teach is not the original intent of the documents. This should help clear up just one of the lies people have been told. https://tennesseeconservativenews.com/the-constitutionally-illiterate-and-the-supremacy-clause-of-the-us-constitution/
Meryl forgot to link to James Roguski's article that she references and I do not see the point of not mentioning him by name. Omitting his name and citation is not refraining from this being a personal attack. It is. Roguski is presented as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Red Herrings
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=746475&post_id=142790460&utm_campaign=1565735&isFreemail=true&r=wwyoh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
My first suggestion is that Meryl suck it up and telephone Roguski to see whether there has been some misunderstanding. He provided contact information. "If you are dedicated to exposing the TRUTH about the WHO negotiations and you are ready, willing and able to join me in this battle against the WHO, call me anytime at 310-619-3055."
I had phoned James early on when the WHO treaty/amendments first came up and he was endlessly patient in explaining the ins and outs of the issues--we talked a very long time until I became bored with the details and begged off telling him I would try to get him on Jimmy Dore, which I did without success. I did not detect a hint of insincerity or hype, but an endless patience for getting out the word that is contrary to my DNA, but is part of Meryl's. The malignant intent of both the amendments and the Treaty are so patent and palpable that any but the super-heroic are not going to read and re-read and read again each of the versions and revisions. The Augean Stables have been deliberately covered with shit to discourage such endeavors and only a very few heroes like Meryl can bear them. That said, before deciding that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing Meryl really should telephone James and attempt to thrash this out.
Let me be very frank about why this is a good idea, so we do not have a "split" as in 9/11 where we all agreed that the Towers & B7 were taken down by controlled demolition but it seemed--falsely--to be absolutely imperative to also determine whether a missile or a plane hit the Pentagon, when the first claim was easy to prove and the second almost impossible to prove satisfactorily either way. Unlike the Pentagon and 9/11, here it does matter whether Meryl or James is correct and that needs to be thrashed out.
I've enjoyed the advantage of a very very good brain--one that is now sadly decaying--and an extraordinary education and the leisure time to read and research widely on a variety of topics. I've noticed that almost every expert on every important topic gets one and often many others of them wrong, and often dead wrong, for entirely innocent reasons--ignorance rather than malice or political compromise. I'll use RFK, Jr. as an example because he is brilliant, politically gifted, hard working and energetic beyond belief, dedicated to a better America and seemingly profoundly motivated by moral concerns. That said, he was politically off target in briefly supporting reparations for blacks; he was dead wrong in characterizing Putin as "a thug and a gangster"; he is dead wrong about man-made carbon-generated global warming (see "Climate the Movie The Cold Truth" that Meryl recommended) something I've known for over a decade), and is on the side of the moral monsters in his support for Israel's genocidal "self-defense" against the supposedly inhuman terrorists of October 7. The global warming error is a deep but hard-core factual error about which Kennedy is perfectly sincere and about which he could be set straight if forced to listen to the right lectures by the right scientists, just as he was set straight about vaccine safety and efficacy in the wake of having the science dumped on his porch by a recalcitrant mother of a vaccine-injured child. Set aside for now reparations, Putin, and Israel.
Very few if any of us are going to read or re-read the latest WHO amendments and versions of the Treaty, but both James and Meryl have and they should talk directly. We don't need another repetition of a Malone-Breggin brouhaha where both are too angry and/or hurt and/or prideful to engage in the necessary private and then public discussion to get to the bottom of the disagreement and resolve it, but that is what needs to be done.