TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In May 2024, 194 WHO member states will vote on international agreements for pandemic prevention behind closed doors. These agreements give the WHO leadership in health matters related to pandemics, but the process is not widely reported or discussed in the media, parliaments, universities, or society.

WHO did not impose lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their role is to provide guidance and support to governments. The pandemic agreement was created by countries for countries, affirming national sovereignty and responsibility. WHO is not a party to the agreement, which focuses on countries working together to prevent pandemics.

The speaker expresses concern about two legal instruments that will impact society by limiting our rights, self-determination, and democratic participation. These instruments, related to pandemic prevention and response, grant the World Health Organization (WHO) absolute leadership and authority in all health matters. The speaker urges everyone to carefully read the draft amendments of the international health regulations, particularly Article 13a and Article 42, which grant the WHO significant self-authorization power. They also highlight the vague concept of "health" in Article 12, which establishes conditions for public health emergencies of international concern.

The WHO is developing a pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations that will remove human rights protections and enforce surveillance and censorship. The goal is to develop vaccines in 100 days. The amendments would bind states to enforceable edicts, provide a liability shield, remove intellectual property rights, move supplies between countries, and enforce digital passports. The WHO director general can declare a pandemic with no standards, and countries must obey. The WHO will dictate which drugs can be used. One Health is a concept to enable the WHO to take over jurisdiction, suggesting humans are no longer of greater value than animals.

There is no way for people or member states to question the WHO's assessments, whether it's about public health emergencies, measures, or experimental vaccination regimes. Member states and citizens have no power to challenge these decisions.

The WHO is set to have a final vote on two international agreements involving pandemic prevention and preparedness. This process is conducted privately and is not widely reported or discussed in the media, national parliaments, universities, or society. The WHO asserts its unquestionable leadership in all health matters through these legal instruments.

The speaker discusses the power of the World Health Organization (WHO) during a public health emergency or pandemic. They mention that the WHO can declare recommendations and impose various restrictions, such as lockdowns and surveillance. They also highlight the potential requirement for proof of vaccination. The speaker emphasizes that the WHO will have control over health-related information, including the right to censor and interfere in social communication. These provisions are present in the International Health Regulations and the proposed pandemic treaty. The summary concludes by mentioning the importance of discussing these matters.

The ongoing negotiations on the pandemic accord and amendments to international health regulations provide a unique opportunity for us to learn from the COVID-19 response. It is crucial that we seize this generational opportunity and make necessary changes to protect future generations. These processes are negotiated by member states and will be implemented in accordance with their own national laws, ensuring each country's sovereignty over domestic health policies. Claims that the accord or amended regulations will give WHO power to override domestic decisions are false. It is important for journalists to follow the facts and dispel myths to support the commitment of all 194 WHO member states towards their populations.

The WHO states it did not impose lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting it lacks such power and does not seek it. The WHO says its role is to support governments with evidence-based guidance, advice, and supplies to help them protect their people.

The Indonesian health minister mentioned international health regulation amendments. The European Union aims to lead negotiations for a new legally binding international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Member states like Bangladesh want to remove the word "non-binding" from WHO recommendations, making them binding. Malaysia proposes that recommendations under Article 15 and 16 must be initiated and completed promptly by all state parties. India seeks to remove the words regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms from Article 3. These countries independently propose similar ideas, raising suspicions.

WHO cannot order lockdowns or mask mandates, countries decide based on their own assessment. Negotiating countries added a statement saying WHO and the director general will not have this power, ensuring sovereignty is not affected. This agreement clarifies the truth.

This work is challenging due to the abundance of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories surrounding the pandemic agreement and IHR. Some claim that the agreement will give WHO the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries, but these claims are false. The agreement, written by us, will not cede sovereignty to WHO. We need your support to counter these lies and assure your citizens that the agreement safeguards national sovereignty while enhancing global health security. It is negotiated and implemented by countries in accordance with their own laws.

The WHO states it did not impose lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, clarifying it lacks such power and does not seek it. The WHO asserts its role is to support governments with evidence-based guidance, advice, and supplies to help them protect their people.

In May 2024, 194 member states of the WHO will vote on international agreements regarding pandemic prevention. The process is secretive and not publicly discussed. The WHO seeks absolute leadership in health matters related to pandemics.

The WHO was selected to execute a "soft coup bloodlessly" through amendments that change international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty (aka pandemic accord/instrument). The new version removes language from the current health regulations that ensures implementation respects dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. The IHRs are changing from recommendations to binding enforcements, requiring countries to create enforcement mechanisms. This includes enforced surveillance of people and microorganisms, enforced censorship, a single narrative, and harmonization of vaccine and drug regulation. Liability for these products will allegedly be eliminated. These documents come into force when the WHO director general declares a public health emergency of international concern, or even a risk of one, and his powers can continue after the emergency is contained.

WHO did not impose lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates during the pandemic. Our role is to provide guidance and support to governments. The pandemic agreement is written by countries for countries, affirming national sovereignty and responsibility. WHO is not a party to the agreement, only governments are. The agreement emphasizes working together to keep each other safe from pandemics.

The speakers discuss the achievements of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the past two years. They mention that the WHO is passing amendments to international health regulations, which member countries must actively opt out of to avoid accepting them. They express concern about the power given to the WHO's director general during a pandemic, as they can decide what actions to take. The speakers also mention that the definition of a pandemic has been changed, potentially leading to a situation where even a small number of cases in different countries could be classified as a pandemic. This would allow the WHO to seize governing powers of member states.

WHO did not impose lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates during COVID-19. Their role is to provide guidance and support to governments, not to make decisions for them. The pandemic agreement is written by countries for countries, affirming national sovereignty and responsibility. WHO is not a party to the agreement; only governments are. The agreement emphasizes countries working together to keep each other safe from pandemics. Translation: WHO no impuso bloqueos, mandatos de mascarillas o vacunas durante COVID-19. Su papel es brindar orientación y apoyo a los gobiernos, no tomar decisiones por ellos. El acuerdo pandémico es redactado por países para países, afirmando la soberanía y responsabilidad nacional. WHO no es parte del acuerdo; solo los gobiernos lo son. El acuerdo enfatiza que los países trabajen juntos para mantenerse seguros de las pandemias.

The speaker emphasizes the need for a pandemic treaty to handle future pandemics effectively. They mention the importance of actions like restricting individual liberties, sharing information and resources, and providing funding for pandemic control efforts. However, they acknowledge that the means to carry out these actions are currently lacking. Despite the challenges, progress is being made, and member states' commitment to the International Health Regulations (IHR) is inspiring. The speaker mentions that the Final Package of Proposed Amendments for the World Health Organization (WHO) will be submitted to the director general in January 2024 for consideration by the World Health Assembly.

The WHO international treaty being discussed at the UN allows for the suspension of civil liberties and rights in the event of a public health emergency, with no evidence required. Member states can be penalized for noncompliance, and the WHO has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. This treaty, similar to past events like the anthrax scare and COVID, raises concerns about the potential abuse of power and loss of individual freedoms.

WHO did not impose any measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine mandates. The organization lacks the authority to enforce such actions and does not seek that power. Its role is to provide governments with evidence-based guidance, advice, and necessary supplies to help protect their populations.

The WHO will have a final vote on two international legal instruments. These instruments give the WHO complete authority over health matters, specifically in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The vote will involve 94 member states, but these instruments have not been widely discussed in newspapers, national parliaments, universities, or society.

This morning, the United Nations approved a political declaration on pandemic prevention. In May 2024, the WHO will have a final vote on international agreements behind closed doors. The WHO seeks absolute leadership in health matters related to pandemics.

The speaker criticizes the World Health Organization (WHO) for its lack of accountability and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. They argue that proposed regulations would give the WHO more power, including the ability to make binding recommendations and enforce financial contributions from countries for pandemic response. The regulations could also require the sharing of intellectual property, mandate vaccine production and international sharing, and override national safety approval processes. Another speaker highlights the agility of the UK's response to COVID-19 after leaving the European Union and suggests it as a model for the future. The speaker warns that the WHO's powers could include ordering border closures, travel restrictions, contact tracing, forced quarantining, medical examinations, proof of vaccination, and forced medication, even in potential emergencies.

I expressed skepticism towards the World Health Organization's ability to handle a global pandemic due to past errors and conflicts of interest. While we can assist other countries, we must not give up our sovereignty or agree to a lockdown charter. In emergencies, governments may feel pressured to make harmful decisions. Therefore, I believe that no pandemic treaty is preferable to a flawed one.