When they wrote the IHR amendments, crossing out human rights was no mistake. 'Cause they did it twice. The second time human rights were only to be ignored when NECESSARY.

Who are they trying to fool, or is it assumed we are too stupid to notice?

4 months until the pandemic treaty and IHR as amended will be adopted—or not—by the WHO members. We now have our full Door to Freedom team in place. We have our written materials, a website, videos, ppts, cartoons and clips. I will be interviewed by Russell Brand with Andrew Bridgen on Feb 8 after visits to the UK and Irish parliaments and then a trip to Oslo for more events this week.

Door to Freedom now has two full-time networkers-organizers to help us wake up the world. I will be doing lots of travelling and our team will be at CPAC in DC warning everyone who will listen about the WHO, from Feb 21-24. The International CRISIS (COVID) Summit #5 will extend Feb 23 through Feb 25 at the Gaylord Conference Center in DC, and Feb 26 at the Kennedy Room in the Senate, which can seat about 400.

If you are able, please help us out so we can keep paying our staff. There is a donation button on the DoorToFreedom.org website. Donations are tax deductible. Sign up for our free newsletters, which will be arriving regularly now. We are exploring which states are the most promising to reject the WHO’s sovereignty grab, then going all out with a ground game in those states.

It turns out the WHO has already been inserted in legislation in most states as an authority to be listened to.

If you have ideas or knowledge about governors, AGs or legislators who are promising, let me know at merylnass@gmail.com or on the website.

Here are some of the problems with the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.

You’d think the word advice meant a recommendation, but by removing the word “non-binding” the lawyers thought they had changed the entire document into one that “must be obeyed.”

In Article 2 the lawyers added livelihoods, equitable access to health products and human rights to traffic and trade, which it was okay to interfere with “when necessary.” Hello? When might it be necessary to interfere with human rights? Why? What standards are to be used? On those important questions the document is silent.

Then in Article 3 the lawyers simply crossed out human rights, dignity and fundamental freedom of persons—not just when it was absolutely necessary, but in general, presumably all the time.

It should be clear what we are dealing with here, gentle reader. A frontal assault on our liberties and way of life. Help us fight this if you can.