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.

Hello, my name is Brenich Springer. I am a spokesperson for the AFD party in the German Bundestag. We just finished a special session on the Infection Protection Act. The process surrounding this law has been chaotic. Last week, there was a hearing that was scheduled so last-minute that the experts invited couldn't properly review the draft. Today, we were only given two minutes to speak, which is not enough time to address the issues with this law. It infringes on fundamental rights that need to be discussed and debated. To make matters worse, last-minute amendments were submitted, making it impossible for anyone to properly analyze them. This is an attack on parliamentary democracy, and we will fight against it. We will have a debate on Wednesday at noon, and I encourage everyone to join us in front of the Reichstag to show the coalition government that this is not how politics should be done in our country.

The speaker raises concerns about a new convention on pandemic prevention and preparedness that would give the World Health Organization (WHO) more power. They argue that this would require a significant financial commitment from the US without proportional voting power. The convention would also require the US to give 20% of vaccines and pandemic-related products to the WHO, transfer intellectual property rights, and give the WHO a leading role in fighting misinformation. The speaker criticizes the WHO for its failure to detect the COVID-19 pandemic and accuses the Biden administration of considering joining the convention without Senate approval. They call for the amendment to be submitted to the Senate for review.

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.

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 introduces the plan and documents for negotiation, which include a new pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations. They express concern over the World Health Organization's push to increase its powers and control over countries and individuals. The reform process began in 2021, with two separate legal instruments being prepared: a new treaty and amendments to existing regulations. These drafts will be negotiated and finalized, with member states voting on them in May 2024. The process is happening quickly and behind closed doors, without public reporting.

Speaker 0 argues against the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR), calling it "a legally binding treaty that would basically put the entire world or any country that signs onto it under the emergency preparations that we saw the WHO direct the really disastrous pandemic emergency response." The rhetoric suggests emergencies would be run "just disastrously as the WHO ran it" with "them calling the shots, not individual sovereignty of our nation and our states." The speaker says, "Kennedy just said, we're done. We're not signing on to this. US rejects amendments to WHO international health regulations. So we're out of there." They add that "just last week, Kennedy stepped away from GAVI. That's Bill and Melinda Gates funded vaccine repository." The message: the US is pulling out of a lot of things, including the WHO "as soon as president Trump took office," though the segment ends with "But I want."

The minister discussed ongoing negotiations on the World Health Organization pandemic agreement and international health regulations. He emphasized that the UK will only accept measures in its national interest and will not allow the WHO to mandate lockdowns. Concerns were raised about the WHO's proposed powers over member states, including surveillance, funding commitments, and compulsory vaccination. The government will not sign the current text and will involve Parliament in the ratification process if an agreement is reached.

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.

Hello, I'm Dr. Tess Lawrie. The World Health Organization's pandemic agreement is set to be finalized by November 11 and adopted in December. However, the WHO has failed its mission to ensure health for all, and its authority is questionable due to its COVID policies. Consider the WHO as a gang imposing rules on us, demanding compliance and silencing dissent. We have options: comply, plead for change, escape, or confront them. Negotiating with such entities is unlikely to succeed. It's time to inform the WHO that their agreements are irrelevant to us, the people. Thank you.

This week, the United Nations World Health Organization dropped proposed changes to their health regulations that would have made them mandatory for member states like Australia. These changes would have given the World Health Organization unprecedented power over issues such as proof of vaccination, quarantine procedures, and citizen travel. The proposal was heavily criticized and ultimately rejected. The idea of a global digital vaccine passport was also scrapped due to ethical and discriminatory concerns. The International Health Regulations Review Committee will now focus solely on actual public health emergencies rather than potential risks. This victory is seen as a win for Australian sovereignty and a rejection of unelected foreign bureaucrats.

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

The speaker discusses the new pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO). They express concern over the potential impact on countries' sovereignty and people's self-determination. The speaker highlights that these changes will affect everyone and reduce democratic participation. They mention the WHO's claim to absolute leadership in health measures and the power to impose restrictions, lockdowns, and experimental treatments. The speaker also emphasizes the WHO's control over information and the lack of mechanisms to challenge their assessments. They argue that without open debate and different opinions, there can be no science or democracy. The speaker calls for the negotiations to be stopped and urges citizens to pressure their political representatives.

The HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is addressing controversial WHO amendments to international health regulations (IHR) that establish a framework for managing global public health events. The US is rejecting these amendments due to concerns about national sovereignty, as the regulations could grant an unelected international organization power over health emergencies, potentially leading to lockdowns and travel restrictions. The agreement bypasses the US Senate and employs broad language, enabling the WHO to implement unified public messaging, raising fears of censorship. Provisions regarding health IDs, vaccine passports, and a centralized medical database could lead to global medical surveillance. The WHO's failures during COVID, including its handling of China's actions, further fuel concerns. Rejecting the amendments aims to strengthen national autonomy and prevent a technocratic control system that uses health risks to curtail freedoms. While the regulations may have been written with good intentions, they represent a step in the wrong direction. This rejection is not a rejection of international cooperation, but a commitment to protecting civil liberties, the Constitution, and American sovereignty.

The WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty gives the WHO excessive power, potentially undermining America's interests. We must prevent President Biden from signing it to protect our constitution and sovereignty. Research this issue and stand against international bureaucrats and their Davos allies. We, the people, still hold the power to resist.

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 speaker discusses amendments made to Article 59 of the International Health Regulations, which shorten the time frames for future amendments. They criticize the lack of debate and media coverage surrounding these amendments, calling it undemocratic and against sovereignty. The speaker also highlights the ignorance of politicians regarding global organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO). They explain that the amendments aim to centralize control over international health policy, potentially affecting sovereignty. Several countries, including Estonia, the Philippines, Slovakia, and New Zealand, have rejected these amendments, citing concerns about sovereignty and the WHO's authority. The speaker outlines specific dangerous provisions in the amendments, such as making recommendations binding, removing consultation requirements, expanding the scope of the IHR, and increasing funding for censorship and unspecified costs.

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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing criticism for seeking to extend its powers and control over countries and people's self-determination. The WHO's reform process, initiated after the COVID-19 crisis, aims to bring significant changes that will affect all 194 member states. They are proposing a pandemic treaty that would give them authority over health decisions and the power to impose restrictions, lockdowns, and experimental treatments. Critics argue that the WHO has failed in the past and should not be granted more power. The treaty is set to be voted on in May 2024, and citizens are urged to pressure their political representatives to oppose it.

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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing criticism over its proposed pandemic treaty, which would grant the organization significant power over health decisions and impose restrictions on countries. The treaty would cover areas such as vaccines, medical devices, and experimental treatments. Supporters argue that it is necessary to protect the global population, while opponents fear a loss of sovereignty and individual liberties. The WHO's authority would extend to declaring recommendations and imposing restrictions, including lockdowns and surveillance. The treaty is set to be voted on by the 194 member states of the WHO in May 2024. Critics urge citizens to contact their politicians to voice their concerns and potentially stop the treaty.

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.

The speaker expresses concern over the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed new pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations. They argue that these changes will diminish countries' sovereignty and individuals' rights, erode democratic participation, and grant the WHO excessive power. The speaker highlights the lack of transparency and public debate surrounding these negotiations. They emphasize that the WHO will have authority over health matters, including imposing restrictions, lockdowns, and experimental treatments. The speaker also criticizes the WHO's control over information and the absence of mechanisms to challenge their decisions. They conclude by urging citizens to pressure their political representatives to halt these negotiations.