It is my honor to welcome everyone to the first session of the world together, public hearing to inform the work of the WHO intergovernmental negotiation body ianb to draft and negotiate a WTO convention agreement, or other international instruments on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Welcome back. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to The Corbett Report. I'm your host, James Corbett of corbettreport.com coming to you as always from the sunny climes of western Japan, here on the 27th day of April 2022. And you're tuned in to Episode 417 Of The Corbett Report podcast, the global pandemic treaty, what you need to know. Now, as I'm sure everyone in the audience is already well aware, that was Dr. Joanne modular, the Assistant Director General for emergency preparedness and international health regulations of the World Health Organization, delivering an introductory statement for the public hearings regarding a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response that was convened earlier this month, under the auspices of the intergovernmental negotiating body that was empowered by the World Health Assembly in a instrument that they released in December, authorizing the drafting and negotiating of a wh o convention agreement or other international instruments on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. I mean, of course, we all knew that right? Well, maybe you didn't know that. But as I will argue today, it is very much to our detriment that we do not know the details of what is going on what is already happening with regards to the formation of a new global pandemic treaty that will be forwarded under the umbrella of the World Health Organization and is slotted to be at least on the table and proposed before the World Health Assembly by 2024. And as I say the public hearings have already commenced, you might have missed them, but they are available online. Specifically a live stream of the April 12 and 13th first round of public hearings regarding the draft negotiations for this pandemic treaty, were already broadcast and are available for viewing on the intergovernmental negotiating bodies website at INB dot W H O dot IMT link in the show notes along with everything else, of course. So I guess today they are monumental task is simply to understand what is happening so that we at least have a chance to derail this agenda before it turns into the hard wiring have a global biosecurity state like the one that I've been warning about through the last two years of the scam demic. And that is a tall order, because they do not make it easy to understand what is happening, how it is happening, what form it will take what the ramifications of what may or may not be going on may or may not be. It is very confusing. So today I'm going to lay it out as simply as possible. Here's what we know, here's what we don't know, here's what form this may or may not take here are the potential implications not only for you, and your health and your bodily autonomy, but for the health of the global public, generally, a pretty tall order. So let's get to work, roll up our sleeves and start weirdly enough at the start. Namely, at the beginning of that first day of livestream of the first round of public hearings on this draft negotiation that was held on April 12. Right after those opening, that opening statement by Dr. Mahjour. We were then introduced to the opening remarks for the entire process by none other than who Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Dear colleagues and friends, good morning. Good afternoon and good evening to all of you. And thank you for joining us today for this very important discussion. The COVID 19 pandemic is the most severe health crisis in a century, more than 6 million lives have been lost countless livelihoods destroyed. Health Systems disrupted already vulnerable people pushed into poverty and the global economy plunged into its deepest recession since the Second World War. And also we're now seeing a welcome decline in reported deaths the pandemic is still far from over. Transmission remains high. vaccine coverage remains too low In too many countries. And the relaxation of public health and social measures is creating the conditions for new variants to spread. Our focus must remain ending the pandemic In particular, by supporting all countries to vaccinate 70% of their population, with priority on the most at risk groups. But even as we work to end this pandemic, we owe it to those who have died, and those who have been affected to learn the painful lessons, that pandemic is teaching us and make the changes we must make to make sure the world is better prepared for the next pandemic. The fact is COVID-19 has exposed serious gaps in the global health security architecture. The inequities that we have faced in the past two years for therapeutics, diagnostics and vaccines have undermined our efforts to bring COVID-19 under control. For instance, even as some high income countries now rollout four doses of vaccine for their populations 1/3 of the world's population is yet to receive a single dose, including 83% of the population of Africa. My friends, share treads demand a shared response, or at the title of the World Health Assembly decision says a world together. And yet, the pandemic has been marked by a patchwork of different than sometimes contradictory responses causing confusion, division, inequity and stigmatization. underpinning this chaotic picture is a governance that's complex and fragmented. The international health regulations provide a vital legal framework for responding to the global spread of diseases. But the pandemic has exposed shortcomings in the application and implementation of the EHR that I believe are best addressed with a convention agreement or other international instrument. We have treaties and other international instruments against tobacco, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, climate change, and many other threats to our shared security, and well being. As you know, in December, the World Health Assembly made the historic decision to negotiate a who convention agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This agreement, I hope, will be a generational agreement. It could be a game changer. an intergovernmental negotiating body and high end B has now been established and has begun its work. Its outcome is to be submitted to the World Health Assembly in 2024. It includes countries from all regions and all income levels and is chaired by Dr. Precious muscle also of South Africa, and by Dr. Roland dress of the Netherlands, with vice chairs from Brazil, Egypt, Japan, and Thailand. under their leadership, the IMB is operating based on the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, efficiency, and consensus.
As part of it offered of the decision in December, the World Health Assembly asked me to hold public hearings to inform the IMS deliberations. Public Participation is crucial to that effort. Our constitution says informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people. We're very pleased to have a wide range of participants today from civil society, the private sector, independent experts as well as philanthropic, academic and international organizations. We're starting with the basics. Today's guiding question is as Dr. Mahathir said, what substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument? On pandemic preparedness and response? I repeat what substantive What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument? On pandemic preparedness and response? We look forward to hearing from you. The success of the future instrument depends on it. Ultimately, whatever instrument comes, this process will affect everyone. So it's vital that we get the widest possible range of inputs. Thank you all for your engagement at this historic moment. I hope, the legacy of this meeting of the negotiating process and the pandemic itself in a healthier, safer, fairer world for generations to come a world together. And thank you for joining the work on this generational agreement, which we believe I repeat, which we believe is a game changer. I thank you.
As I say, that was who Director General Dr. Tedros, as he's often referred to giving the opening remarks at the public hearings for the new global pandemic treaty earlier this month. And as I say, the entire livestream is up on the i n b dot who dot i n t webpage, at least as I record this here in late April of 2022, I expect it will not be up there forever. So if you're truly keen on it, I would suggest now is the time to watch and or download these live streams for posterity. Although I can't, in all honesty, really hard to heartfully recommend that I suppose. As I say I never dissuade people from taking a look at things. I'd say there's not a lot of meat on the bones here with regards to actual information that I think is really inviting and important for people to see. Because it really does consist essentially not of the who actually engaging in any sort of talk about what this treaty will include or what have you. It really is a public hearing for various public comment, quote, unquote, on not the actual necessity for such a treaty, but what should to be included in this treaty, which they are working on. And you will note the framing of this as Dr. Tim ball made the point many, many years ago and I think it's an important one Commission's are always truly determined, and perhaps over determined by their their scope, and what they what it is they're supposed to be looking for. So if the IPCC is only interested in human causation of climate change, you better believe they're going to find and be in and talk about and only dwell on human causation of climate change. And then people will report Oh, my God, humans are causing climate change. And in this case, as well, if the who invites public comment on what should be included in our global treaty, which we will then enforce with an iron fist, what should we have in there, and then they listen politely, and then they go ahead and do whatever they were going to do in the first place. But perhaps that's just me being cynical. Anyway, of course, even even that is somewhat laughable, because of course, the public comment is only really open to people who are part of international or at least big scale NGOs of some sort that have a direct bearing and interest on the work of the who, etcetera, etcetera. So they already pre screen any sort of public comment that takes place. So I have not watched every second of every, every one of these four live streams that are up there that consists of several hours of material. At this point, I have flipped through quite a lot of it, though. And it consists of comment after comment after comment from various organizations talking about the need for inclusivity and fairness and equity. And please give us your life saving vaccines and that sort of thing. There were a couple of comments that were interesting, in that they actually were arguing for the right to be enshrined in whatever treaty is being worked on for people say to refuse medical treatment, or to at least decide what medical treatment they want to have. Or then there was a comment talking about the need for looking at other types of treatments other than simply vaccines and things along those lines. So there was some interesting comment, but again, take it for what it is, which is simply public comment on what the treaty should include, not the existence of the treaty. So as I say, I think Tedros is opening remarks are a good place to start our examination because they do give us an insight and a window onto what this treaty is about where it's coming from and broadly, what it's aiming at, but perhaps the first place to go, if we really want to get a handle on this is to the website of William Engdahl, William engdahl.com. Who had this post up at the very beginning of the scam demic 18th of February May 2020, about who is whose Tedros adhanom Going into the background of this character in case you don't know who Dr. Tedros is and where he emerged from, you can get some more information about about his role at the who and how he arrived there. And in somewhat controversial past, including ties, as you would expect, nothing, I think, particularly surprising here, but ties to the president Clinton and a close collaboration with the Clinton Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, and its Clinton HIV AIDS Initiative. And, of course, a close relationship with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who and he went on to chair the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was co founded by the Gates Foundation. And I think the implication is that Tedros is in the position he's in because he is so connected specifically to people like the Gates's, and is willing to listen to what his paymasters tell him to do, which is a point that I made in the who is Bill Gates documentary at that time. Citing the most recent donor reports, at that time, I believe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the second largest donor to the who beat only behind the United States. I believe that has changed in the most recent data that I've seen, although I couldn't refine that data in preparation for this episode. But I'm sure people can find it out there. I think they might have slipped down to third or fourth at this point, as China and others are upping their game in terms of trying to contribute more to have a bigger say at what's happening at the WHO as it increases in importance, precisely because of things like the global pandemic treaty. That being said, as just sort of general background, I will refer you to that. But let's get into the meat and potatoes, who director General's opening remarks at the public hearing, blah, blah, blah. Here's the transcript of what we just watched here on the WH o page. And I think it is important to note, of course, the way this entire treaty is being framed. First of all, first and foremost, that COVID-19 scam demic is the most severe health crisis in a century. Of course, that is the direct ostensible reason for this treaty. But I think there are other agendas, obviously at play here. It's just the excuse. For a pre planned agenda. Our focus must remain on ending the pandemic, in particular by supporting all countries to vaccinate 70% of their population with priority on the most at risk groups. Indeed, yes. So that, of course, is the overriding concern. And if we can't reach that number, then there's something wrong, not just with this particular response to this particular pandemic, no, no COVID-19 is exposed serious gaps in the global health, security architecture. Think about that. Think about actually the types of terms that are inserted into public discourse on the back of events like these and what it tells us about the longer term agenda because I venture to say that three years ago, a term like global health security architecture would have been outlandish, perhaps they were saying such things at the who, but that would not be front page headline material, would it? But in the age of biosecurity, you better believe the global health security architecture is something that's on the table and is a cause for concern about oh, there are gaps in the global health, Security, Architecture, whatever that means. We better plug those gaps with a new treaty question mark. You will also notice I think it's particularly important again, the the words and phrasing that is used tells a lot about what's going on here. For example, you will notice this bizarre formulation, convention agreement or other international instruments that he met and said in that exact way, that exact formulation twice in this speech, and then a number of times talking about the new international instrument on pandemic preparedness, a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response. We look forward to hearing from you the success of the future instrument depends on an instrument what on earth is he talking about is Dr. Tedros learning guitar? No, he is making a specific reference to what where this actually stems from which is a meeting of the World Health Assembly from December of 2021, which of course is part of the World Health Organization umbrella. And they issued this agenda item to back in December the world together, establishment of an inter governmental negotiating body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. So they give all of the legalese bureaucratic blah, blah, blah, section, blah, blah, blah, subsection, yada, yada, paragraph, whatever, whatever. And they go through the setting up of the
essentially the bureaucratic setup of where this the authority to convene such a negotiation comes from. And so they talk about acknowledging the need to address gaps in preventing preparing for and responding to health emergencies, and including in development and distribution of an unhindered timely and equitable access to medical countermeasures, such as, oh, I don't know vitamin C. II sunshine eating right non GMO foods. No, no, no, no Oh, sorry, no vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. Right? Okay, so mRNA injections and, and remdesivir and PCR tests, right? That's essentially what they're talking about, we need to wire that into the global health security architecture, which oh, by the way, exists is a thing, as the kids say. So of course, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and coherent approach to strengthen the global health architecture. So that's where that phrase comes from, and recognizing the commitment of member states to develop a new instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, blah, blah, blah. So they have decided to establish in accordance with the rule 41 data, rule 41 Oh, no, that's a different rule, and intergovernmental negotiating body open to all member states and associate members to draft a negotiated wh o convention agreement or other international instruments on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. So this is a very carefully formulated phrase with a certain legal meaning pendant, a convention agreement or other international instrument, and if that says to you that they are not pre determining what legal form this instrument will take, ding, ding, ding, you've got it, right, because it's not exactly certain at this point, or at least it hasn't been revealed to the public. It's not official, at any rate, exactly what this is going to be. I mean, treaty is just sort of the broad term for it. But specifically, what form will this legal instrument take, and that actually does make a difference, if it's an agreement, or if it's a convention, or some other type of international instrument, they have different legal ramifications and are forwarded in different ways, it may be the type of thing that each member state has to sign on to, it may be the type of thing that if you're a member to the who, you're going to have to do it, or you'll be kicked out of the WHO there are, again, there are different flavors to these different types of mechanisms, these instruments that can be wielded in different ways. And that will make a difference. And this is something that is important to keep in mind. Although this sounds like it's all sounds very official, and well, look, they've gotten to rule 41, and move their terms and clauses and blah, blah, blah, and all backing up all of this. But essentially, of course, this is all just bureaucratic legal mumbo jumbo, to say, hey, we have the right to call this thing and to suddenly decide the new shape of the global health security architecture. And they've done it before in other formulations like the International Health Regulations of 2005, which I have addressed before, I hope you're at least familiar with them by now, the very instrument that created the category of public health emergency of international concern the p h e IC, which was then declared for the 2009, swine flu non pandemic. And subsequently with Ebola, and Zika, and other such health emergencies. Before Of course, that trigger was pulled, most expected secularly in on January 30, of 2020, in the declaration of the public health emergency of international concern for the COVID 19 pandemic. So that is, that's one example of how the, the biosecurity infrastructure can be hardwired in in these global agreements which take place there, there was fanfare in the World Health Organization circles back in 2005. But no one outside of those circles really had any idea what was going on. And probably to this day still don't understand how important that was in setting up the infrastructure for what we've just seen play out over the past two years. That gives us some idea of a precedent for what is taking place right now, but not quite the right idea because as a subsequent speaker at that live stream, the principal legal officer for the World Health Organization, Steven Solomon, goes on to note, this particular inter governmental negotiation body is essentially without any or only has one precedent in all 75 years of operation of the World Health Organization, and on something of, well, tangential or perhaps not even relatable subject matter.
The director general, the distinguished ianb, co chair, Matt and Matt Soto, who we've just heard from, and my colleague, Dr. majeure have already spoken eloquently about the value of these public hearings. I'd like to make just two points first, these public hearings draw their title the world together from the title of the decision of the World Health Assembly Resolution, which mandated them in the mandate for this public hearing. As co Chairman soso has just reminded us, all 194 member states who who stressed that this principle will have solidarity, the world together should guide efforts to develop the new pandemic instrument accordingly, who looks forward to contributions from all from all sectors public and private, from all interested institutions, NGOs, INGOs, universities and more. And from all those with an interest in our guiding question today. Second, let me offer a brief caveat and a kind request. This type of truly global public hearing is new, it doesn't happen often, not within the UN system. Not at who, in fact, in the 75 year history of who a hearing something like this has happened only once. That was 22 years ago, when who held its very first public hearing for the negotiations, which resulted in the only who convention to date, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. So while there's a 22 year old precedent for these public hearings, it's limited, and it's dated, there was no zoom, then there wasn't even Twitter, then. Twitter, in fact, was established in 2006, we've checked. So fast forward to today, April 1212 2022, we now have zoom. And we have global live web streaming. And we have online interpretation in six languages. And we the Secretariat have been working to put that together in a way that works, and also in a way that helps ensure a diversity of viewpoints of experience and of knowledge, as well as a balanced geographical representation, and gender balance. So here's the caveat. That's a lot of new and a lot of moving parts. So please bear with us during any hiccups. And most of all, please keep supporting the principle that, as the DG said, informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people. Thank you very much. And back to you, Doctor majeure.
Once again, that's Steven Solomon, of the WH O, and some of his introductory remarks to the recent public hearings on the treaty, reminding us that this is really only the second time in the entire history of the World Health Organization that a meeting of this sort has has taken place, it is a pretty interesting thing that is happening right now almost without precedent. Although there are some things that we can look to in the past that might give us a hint, a flavor of what may be contained in some sort of international instrument like this one, namely, back in 2005, as I have had caused dimension several times now, the World Health Organization passed a an amendment to the International Health Regulations, which is part of the core of what the who isn't, which all member states do sign up to abide by and those amendments in from 2005, which I will link up the actual document here that goes into some degree of detail about what was being changed and in what way but they created something called the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which it helps if you can spell correctly, which was a specific legal category
that they created in order to initiate certain things certain contracts and and, and procedures would be initiated on the declaration and it sounds like a very official thing. But in the end, it really comes down to the World Health Organization, General Director, general being a dictator is completely unelected position, just being able to come in and declare a P H, E IC, and for a number of things to take place on the back of that. And that's exactly what we saw just a few years after this momentous event in the swine flu, scam demic of 2009, which I covered many in much detail over the years. But you might want to, for example, go back to my report on the who appoints an h one and one cover up committee talking about the ties to vaccine manufacturers that the various advisors to the who had the people who are advising on the declaration of the p h e IC in 2009. Wouldn't you know they had ties to vaccine manufacturers which then reaped the rewards of that declaration to the tunes of the billions of dollars in contracts that were automatically kicked into place on the declaration for that complete non pandemic that took place. And all of the chicanery surrounding that the changing of the definition of pandemic that took place right before that pandemic was declared all of that I have gone through in a lot of detail over the years, perhaps the ones Stop Shop for that is questions for Corbett number 66. On what is the who what is the who, if you haven't seen that, I would suggest that's good background for what we're dealing with today. But that gives you a hint, a flavor a taste of what is possible when we start opening this can of worms of this intergovernmental negotiating body to come up with some sort of new instrument for a global pandemic treaty. So, I have been covering this in recent months as you may have seen, I hope you have. For example, I had this newsletter editorial out just a month or so ago, globalists released timeline for health tyranny, where I go through, for example, the European Council's handy dandy infographic timeline talking about the steps towards the implementation of a new treaty. So I wrote earlier this month the European Council released the document laying out the bureaucrats own timetable for the implementation of global health terreni entitled infographic towards an international treaty on pandemics. It cuts down on all those complicated linguistic thingies. What do you call them again? Words and reduces the complexities of a legally binding global pandemic treaty down to the lowest common denominator, the infographic Yes, so I link up the infographic and then go and part by part and explain translate from the global ease. But if you want the actual document itself, of course, I'll link it up. It is a fascinating study and in propaganda itself, and this comes again from the European Council, who back in March released this infographic towards an international treaty on pandemics, which is essentially partly pimping the global pandemic treaty itself, also partly going Hey, guys, the European Council is the main driver behind this, we're so important. So they make the case, for example, that it was Charles Michelle Lee, the European Council President, who really launched this initiative back at the Paris Peace Forum in November 2020. When he said, together with who Director General Dr. Tedros, we have proposed an international treaty on pandemics rooted in the WH o constitution, we need to create an environment where every scientist, health worker and government can band together for a common cause, working together to build new solutions to protect what is most precious our health and our lives. Indeed, yes, stirring words that will go down in the history textbooks as the most important words ever uttered by European Council President All right. Anyway, historic move. This is only the second time in who history that its governing body, the World Health Assembly met for a second time in the same year. And as I go on in my article to point out trivia, do you know what the other time that happened was? They don't actually even tell you here? They're just saying this is the second time. The first time was, yeah, you better believe it back in 2005 2006, when they ratified the international health regulation amendments, and they appointed the new director general of the who, at that time, Margaret Chan. So they had two special World Health Assembly meetings in that year as well. Interesting. Anyway, and then timeline. This is this is not much of a I don't understand this timeline. This isn't. This isn't helpful. This isn't even an infographic. It's just text that's arranged in a slightly different way. But anyway, from 29th of November 2021 to third of March 2022, when the Council of the European Union gives the green light to start the negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement on pandemics. What is the Council of the European Union? What is their actual role in this? That Were they the ones who gave the green light? Okay, now, guys, now the world can convene on this because the Council of the European Union has given the green light
it's just self evident nonsense anyway. What are the potential benefits of an international agreement on? Do you want to finish that sentence? Anyway? political engagement at leaders level and globally global inclusivity V via new legally blunt binding agreement, blah, blah, blah, feel good buzzword blather legally binding agreement is in bold. They're rooted in the WHO constitution, not that pesky constitution of your nation state government? No, no, the WH o constitution, which of course will override that in a legally binding agreement. And don't you forget it? Improved equity, yay, established principles, priorities and targets sharing of monitoring data, genetic data samples, technology and their associated benefits. Benefits for whom? For the technocrats? Yeah, you'd better believe it strengthened national, regional and global resilience. Who could be against that? I like resilience, and a One Health approach that connects the health of humans, animals and the planet. That's interesting. What One Health approach. What does that mean? It sounds like bureaucratic buzzword nonsense, but in fact, it actually has quite a pedigree. So I will throw in this from the tropical medical infectious disease journal, back and 2019 when they had the One Health approach, why is it so important? That is brought to you by an objective neutral source? John McKenzie of the medical center in Western Australia, Faculty of Health Sciences, Perth. Yeah. Oh, one health platform foundation.
So he's also a member of the One Health platform foundation telling you why the One Health approach is so important. Anyway, it goes through the history of this phrase and how it's used. But I think this, this infographic basically tells tells the story, the picture of what is being painted here, I think it's fascinating to look at the way these words come embedded with assumptions that themselves are part of a much broader agenda. And this one, like we could look at some of the terminology that became Okun on in the age of the war on terror and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and that concept of Homeland Security back in the War on Terror paradigm. Now we're in the biosecurity paradigm. So one health is going to be one of those buzzwords that mean a very specific thing, essentially trying to take as much of not just human activity and existence on the planet, but every living organisms health and existence on the planet and putting it under this rubric of health so that it can then become wedded into the health security architecture, which is now also being embedded in our lexicon Oh, health security, one health, one health security that must be presided over by an institution with teeth, The Who, but with some real things that's biosecurity. So of course, it starts off by saying, Well, you know, public health and well environmental chemistry has to be part of that, right and Veterinary Medicine, Human Medicine, molecular and microbiology, ecology, health economics, and then that breaks down and then we're talking about viral infections, of course, antimicrobial resistance, Parasite infections, things that we would commonly associate with health, per se, but then it gets into not only the bio threats, bio false flags anyone, but also surveillance vaccine and therapeutics, vector control, sanitation, human animal bond, environmental hazards, all of these things come under this big giant umbrella that's all going to be stewarded by this centralized, controlled bureaucratic globalist system that you have zero input into, which is going to take a greater and greater control of your life. That is the picture we need to see when they talk about one health and a planetary approach to making everybody better blah. It isn't just a buzzword, I wish it was just a buzzword, it actually implies an entire ideology, and essentially, the forwarding of the new Biosecurity paradigm. So keep that in mind when you see that buzzword. Anyway, what's next. So by the first of August 2022, the intergovernmental negotiating body will meet to discuss progress on a working draft for this international instruments. So they're hoping to have a draft by August 2022. By 2023, they will be reporting that the results of this draft to the World Health Assembly, and then may 2024, is when they have circled on their little globalist calendar, the proposed interim instrument will be presented for adoption at the 77th World Health Assembly. So that is the timeline as they're presenting it to us. And they go into some more about why an international treaty and you know, who would be involved, et cetera. So as I say, you can go back to my globalists release timeline for health tyranny, editorial for the more of the breakdown of that EU EU propaganda document, but let's move on to some indication. Okay, so what is this actually going to be about? And unfortunately, there is no answer to that provided yet because it's still up in the air. It could be anything, it could take any legal form. We don't know yet. We don't know what will be included in it. There's a lot of people that want a little different different things. That's the point of the public hearings. Tell us public, by which we mean NGOs and other approved organizations. What do you want in this treaty? And we'll listen carefully and then we'll release a draft that was probably drafted years ago anyway, a new pandemic treaty what the world health organization needs to do next from from from LSEL s e lse.ac.uk. What's LSE? And oh, the London School of Economics. Yeah, that should ring a few bells for people who are familiar with their history. But anyway, yes, the London School of Economics has put together this the wish list for a pandemic treaty as long as there are formidable obstacles to achieving it. Mike DeVos of the German Alliance on climate change and health. So keep in mind who is being brought into this discussion, climate change and health indeed, Claire Wynnum of London School of Economics and Mark Eccleston Turner of King's College London and Rebekah sang Sango measure Warren and Bianca deblurring have closed the German Alliance on climate change and health. Look at the challenges involved. So this is definitely coming from a certain perspective and they start to go through what you may be involved in this treaty, whatever form it takes. And they say they outright say the justification for a pandemic treaty is that whilst the technical expertise on how to govern an end, a pandemic exists, really, citation needed. But anyway, the political will to do so is missing. So this is this is the heart of it. This, of course, isn't about the actual science of public health. No, this is about the politics of public health and the setting up of the infrastructure for a global health security architecture. Don't forget that this has nothing to do with making people healthy. This has everything to do with strengthening globalist institutions. So they go on to say that a shared understanding of the problem that needs to be fixed is a lack of clarity and coherence on the specific problems the treaty aims to resolve risks are enduring and futile. The ihr the International Health Regulations that I was talking about before, failed to prevent COVID-19 becoming a global pandemic, somehow or other multiple contraventions included presumed limitations on sharing of information of infectious disease outbreaks framing the problem, it wasn't enough, there wasn't enough information sharing that. So what did I tell you? The implementation of travel and trade restrictions, despite the who not recommending them? The who didn't tell you to lock down and didn't tell you to do this. So you shouldn't have done it. And now that would have prevented the whole COVID-19 scam demic somehow, right, I don't know. And a failure to follow the other temporary recommendations issued by the WHO ihr Emergency Committee. Furthermore, ihr obligations are heavily tailored towards prevention and detection of pathogens and very limited on response stages to prevent transmission. So again, framing the problem. Yeah, they you know, they talk a lot. They talk a lot about prevention and the kind of groundwork but when it and when push comes to shove, and something's out there and look, our PCR tests are fine and sudden, guys, we don't have the teeth to go in and start boots on the ground telling countries what to do. So that's the framing of the problem. So gives you an idea of what they're working on the process for the treaty text and beyond. A draft text is expected for the first of August 2022. And interestingly enough, Nico cosi and bush of the bn are in an op ed published by the BMJ recommend involving the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization, an International Labor Organization for these negotiations. Why? Why What does this have to do with finance? Oh, so that the treaty is not seen as an instrument instrument pushed by high income countries. And the the, of course, who speaks for the poor, impoverished countries of the world, their debt lords, their debt slave holders, the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization? It's so It's so ridiculous, but I think they actually do believe their own propaganda at times. So here's a real important question. The instrument form, what form will this instrument take? The treaty is expected to be modeled as a framework convention, complemented by additional instruments, protocols, guidelines or standards for adoption by governance bodies created through the treaty for adoption by governance bodies created through the treaty. Interesting. Okay, first of all, how do they know this? What who is expecting this to be modeled as framework convention? I mean, I don't know what is the citation on that? I guess these people just know what the minds of these people it hasn't been stated somewhere where link it I don't know. But anyway, I guess it'll be a framework convention that will be supplemented by these protocols, guidelines standards. And that makes a difference because the initial convention will bring with it certain commitments which would then be required by everyone who is a signatory to that convention, but then would be subs would be added to by detailed commitments regarding operate operating operationalization operationalizing these commitments. While a framework convention may seem appealing from a get it done perspective, its inability to create a harmonious international legal regime could leave significant gaps by enabling states to select which protocols within the treaty they wish to be party to the approach risks, states ratifying different elements of the overall treaty package, leading to more fragmentation in global health governance. On the other hand, this may promote a broad consensus to overarching principles and norms, but with national differentiation regarding specific obligations. So here, it's just like, Can we get a 100% truly global system that is truly convened and run from World Health Organization headquarters, or will these pesky nation states retain some of their sovereignty over public health matters? Again, just what flavor and how much of globalism Do you want is essentially the limits of the debate here? The long list of thematic we Should so what did they actually want to include in this? Well, again, who is saying this? I mean, again, is there any official source for any of this? It's just what are people saying about what could be in this treaty. But it's the kind of stuff you might expect, anchoring the treaty in human rights and addressing the principles of the right to health equity, solidarity, transparency, trust and accountability. I like good things to sign me up for that. So again, it could be, again, just vague language that means anything you want it to be, but I find it interesting the principles of the right to health, not the principle of the right to access health services or the right to, to decide on health protocols or the right to do to contract with someone for your own health purposes or something like that. No, no, the right to health is an interesting formulation. Because of course, depending again, how you actually detail out that very vague statement, it could mean something along the lines of you have not just the right but the obligation to be healthy because you can affect other people's right to be healthy. If you're a spreader. If you're an asymptomatic spreader of the new cooties that we tell you exists because of our PCR test, then you are not then it is the right of other people to forcibly inject you with whatever concoction they say, will stop you or slightly slow down transmission of this new goodies or whatever the case may be. So there again, that's such a vague language that sounds great, unless you think about it for three seconds and realize just the level of tyranny that could be could be forwarded to foisted dump on upon the public on the back of that language. Again, using a One Health approach for pandemic prevention again, remember, think of that image of the umbrella and everything is now part of this biosecurity, global health security architecture that they're trying to bring into place. Strong health systems and information reporting mechanisms, including a better use of digital technology for data collection and sharing, which again, can have many different that can mean a lot of different things and a lot of different ways. But once we start thinking about digital data collection and sharing and how that works, well, that plays directly into the very next thing a reform of the WHO alarm mechanism, the pH EIC declaration process, and travel and travel restrictions. So now, if we combine the data collection and sharing with travel restrictions, and what's the nexus point of this, Oh, that's right, the global vaccine Passport System, which you know, is going to be the prize it, they're going to try for it, I don't know, who knows what form this will take and whether they'll achieve it. But you better believe that's going to be something that will be pushed at these negotiations, along with pathogen and genomic data sharing, which is important because of course, this represents the culmination of what you will recall I was talking about just at the end fake news awards to open up this year. Back in 2019, you will remember they had this little powwow between Fauci and Dr. Bright and other people talking about universal flu vaccine. And what they were specifically talking about was the ideal future of these new vaccine technologies that they're working on where eventually you'll just be able to take some sort of genetic code and fire it around the world, people will be able to program it into their mRNA platforms injected into people and better being better boom. Anything that you program, any protein that you want being created in the in the bodies of millions, billions of people can be wired flown around the world in the blink of an eye. This is the system they were lusting after. But you know, these new technologies will take at least a decade to even think about bringing to market and all of these trials and things, you know, unless there was some sort of emergency situation,
which also talks about the idea of the 100 day vaccine, which is somehow or other. Well, it didn't save properly in archive.is. So anyway, I will get you the proper link. But the Guardian was talking about the 100 day vaccine quest recently, and off Guardian brings the reality check to that 100 Day vaccines are not possible. Or let alone desirable. But at any rate, they do go through this talking about the 100 day vaccine idea, which is the 100 days mission. So when disease X, whatever that is pops up within 100 days they're going there's going to be of the pathogen being isolated there's going to be a vaccine available to stop the epidemic from spreading. So that's the mission. That's the idea. And what that really amounts to is they'll cook up something that can be detected and PCR tests. And then they'll have the the code that will be encoded into the mRNA that will then produce the proteins that they want to produce. Again, that is ultimately what this is about. And this is what they're talking about when they're really talking about pathogen genomic data sharing. Here's the genomic data. Here's the sequence that we have for this new, totally real thing, guys honest. And go start putting this into your mRNA platforms and then injecting this in people. Anyway, universal access to medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical treatment. Oh, sure. Yeah. Okay. Universal Access. Well, again, there are devils in those details, but it's more than universal access. How about compliance enforcement mandates, restrictions, you must have these vaccines, diagnostics, medical treatments, it mandated as standards of care that seems to be more of the operative part of this. investments in health systems strengthening and of course, increased financing ching ching for pandemic preparedness. Yes. stronger international health framework with a strengthened who at the center and increased global cooperate coordination. Do you want me to copy edit for you guys LLC, increased global coordination, one would presume they're trying to say they're reinforcing legal obligations and norms of global health security. Keep this in mind guys, this is a new formulation that you're going to be seeing a lot more about global health, security, and coordination of research and development. I think we know where that's going. But yes, on the inch on the issue of financing for pandemic preparedness catching getting financing for the treaty could come from the IMF Special Drawing Rights or from the World Bank in the form of loans, a new pooled insurance mechanism could be established to share the risks associated with infectious disease outbreaks, while simultaneously using these financing resources to encourage compliance with a pandemic treaty. And the new global health security financial intermediary fund FY F, they've already got the acronym for something that totally we're just coming up with this on the fly guys, the FY F pushed by the US could be housed at the World Bank. It couldn't be housed in Disney World, but not tax free anymore. The importance of sustainable financing would also entail an increase of compulsory and voluntary funding and increase of compulsory and voluntary funding of the who by member states, public health taxation and permanent endowments. This would allow for greater autonomy. autonomy for whom, oh, the unelected technocratic bureaucrats of the global governance class, right, their autonomy, they keep forgetting that's what we're supposed to be focusing on and support independent governance, independent governance of individuals now communities certainly not no regions, no nation states no no, of the globalist bureaucracy, independent governance of this globalist monstrosity that's being created by shielding the body from excessive political influence. These are the exact same people that would melt any platitudes about democracy, man, and you know, the Oh, that guy's a dictator, but we practice democracy and yeah, no, not that kind of democracy. You guys. No, no, you don't get to see in this excessive political influence is the phrase par excellence that describes the technocratic mindset. People have a little bit too much of a say in this system. We need we need something that's even less accountable to them. Anyway, they see it all in black and white open conspiracy. I keep going back to this, but it's so true. However, these discussions while crucial to the future success and the who during the health emergency are, drumroll please wait for it. Not part of the present treaty negotiation. So what was the point of this entire diversion with the FY F acronym that you came up with for this institution that doesn't exist? All this stuff, all of this rhetoric of No, anyway, that's totally not what we're talking about.
Interesting. But again, these are the things they're trying to insert into the public debate right now. So keep in mind, I mean, look at this stuff from a, from a propaganda perspective, it is implanting ideas in the global public lexicon surrounding the debate regarding this right now.
Interaction with the International Health Regulations and important point, they go on to make the point that some people want this to be some sort of reopening of the ihr and amendments to that or something, but then that opens up, if they start tinkering with that it really could mean the entire abrogation of that ihr everyone would have to resign on to it and some people might, might choose not to. So you don't want to lose what you already have. Right guys. That's kind of what they're saying here. Enhanced response will enhance compliance. Where are they? They talk about for this treaty to have teeth, which is what we want, right guys? The organization that governance, governance, it needs to have the power, either political or illegal. To enforce compliance Yeah, that's what we're all feeling deep in our heart man, I wished I believe Joe can enforce their will on the globe in its current form, but who does not possess such power? So world's tiniest violin playing sandstone song for you, in order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the UN level. Well, that doesn't seem to be taking place yet. But at any rate, some commentators, well at least they give you a link this time. So you can go check that out in foreign policy, mag rag, at your own leisure and or peril, but to move on with the treaty, who therefore needs to be empowered financially and politically, and then it talks about some next steps. All right. So this is a pretty thoroughgoing propaganda breakdown of what these guys are just coming up with off the top of their heads. Hey, guys, this could be this, maybe it isn't. So take it for what it's worth. But I think again, certain ideas are being implanted and implanted at a pretty high propaganda level, this is not propaganda that is meant for the average, you, presumably most of my audience, and probably not really their target audience for this type of propaganda. It's the type of people that that think in this space that work in this space that, that work with the London School of Economics and or in the global public health space, who are likely to have an actual stake in this treaty negotiation aren't probably more the target for this. But let's get a breakdown from a different perspective than let's go to the aforementioned off Guardian off hyphen guardian.org. Which I hope you know by now, they are one of the few outlets that I've seen in the independent media space that's been doing consistent coverage of this looming pandemic treaty and one of their most recent examples is an editorial by Kitt Knightley on pandemic treaty will hand the W H. O keys to global government, which makes a number of important points. The first is that the first public hearings on the provost pandemic treaty are closed with the next round due to start in mid June. And they don't we, off Guardian have been trying to keep this issue on our front page entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war, porn and propaganda. But what scant press coverage there is mostly across the metaphorical back pages of the internet. We'll be focused on making the treaty strong enough and ensuring national governments can be held accountable. An article in the UK telegraph from April 12 Headlines real risk a pandemic treaty could be too watered down to stop new outbreaks. It focuses on a report from the panel for a global public health convention GPhC in quotes, one of the report's authors named Barbara Stocking our biggest fear is it's too easy to think that accountability doesn't matter to have a treaty that does not have compliance in it. Well, frankly, then there's no point in having a treaty. Oh, good point, actually. Is that an option on the table? Oh, no, of course not. It's only what do you want in the treaty, not whether you want a treaty. The GPhC report goes on to say that the current international health regulations are too weak, and calls for the creation of a new independent international body to assess government preparedness, and publicly rebuke or praise countries depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements. And there's a lot of breakdown in here. But let's cut to an incredibly important part of this. I mean, there's many different important parts. But here's an important one. The people talking about this treaty also raised the question of countries being punished for non compliance. Remember what the EU was telling us about the this wonderful new treaty and how it's going to be legally binding and they have to put it legally binding agreement put in bold letters, so you don't miss that. Yeah, they want teeth, as they constantly say here so the treaty should possess an adaptable incentive regime, including sanctions, such as public recommends economic sanctions or denial of benefits, and to translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English. If you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you don't report disease outbreaks or don't follow the WH O 's directions, you will lose out on international aid and faced trade embargoes and sanctions. In combination these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks, far from preventing future pandemics, they would actively encourage them more, more to the point future scam dynamics. So he goes on to to talk about some of the ways that people have already been punished for not going along with the COVID scam to African countries, Burundi and Tanzania had presidents who banded the WHO from their borders and refused to go along with the pandemic narratives. Both presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new presidents who instantly reversed their predecessors COVID policies and he goes on to document that and give links so that you can read more about that in case you don't know about those examples, but In the interest of trying to get as much information on this as possible, I recently had the chance to talk to Kit Knightly of off dash guardian.org, about this coming pandemic treaty. And I did ask him specifically about this idea of carrots and sticks and incentives and sanctions and legal ramifications to give teeth to the mechanism of this potential pandemic treaty.
Well, as you say, we've already seen what happens to countries that didn't play along with COVID. I mean, we had Tanzania, John McAfee and Tanzania. He's the guy that famously sent goat and Motorola samples to be tested for COVID COVID. And they all came back positive. He suddenly died of a heart attack, and was replaced by a president who decided that Rudy was totally wrong about COVID We're gonna take it very seriously. And as a result, the IMF gave them $600 million to tackle panda the pandemic, which previously had barely touched Tanzania, but suddenly was very big issue. And President Pierre Nkurunziza, which I cannot pronounce properly, of Burundi, basically the same exact thing happened. Southern half tech, very sad, and his successor changed his COVID ideas. And Belarus didn't quite take in Belarus, there was an attempted coup in Belarus in I think it was the summer of 2020. Or it might have been October, I don't remember. And Haiti, president of Haiti was shot. He had made some comments about COVID. I mean, do we can see already there's a pattern of presidents who dedicated seriously finding their position to be quite unstable. Essentially, what's getting the IMF and the World Bank involved in the pandemic treaty would do is take this process and legitimize it, we'll be able to say to countries that aren't taking pandemic players pandemic preparedness seriously love Well, the IMF is gonna have to review your international loans. And if their economy suffers, people, industry, people will take care of the present themselves. If you create sanction a country as they trust you all over the world, you know, we've seen an adverse weather series before now you sanction a country, or you create political instability that removes the person you want removed without you having to directly do it. That's what a pandemic future could do. If it does involve the IMF and the World Bank, which it looks like it would. I mean, they're very keen on that, or the the papers coming out saying, we need to get non state actors involved, like the IMF and the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, and so on. I mean, you mentioned the stick. And that's the step. But I would say more concerning would be the carrot and which is they also talked about the IMF and World Bank making available financial resources for tackling pandemics early. Which would be basically incentivizing governments to report possible pandemics before they even exist in order to get their hands on an awful lot of money from the IMF. Presidents obviously would do that all over the world easily. And so you'll get the situation where pandemics reported that don't exist or threats recorded, that might be pandemics that are not really important if you're taking seriously that they've been bribed to take them seriously. And then you combine that with the other clause, which was mentioned by a woman called Helen Clark, who's for President in New Zealand and head of the International Panel on pandemic preparedness, who said that it was important to strengthen our multilateral institutions, by handing the World Health Organization, the power to declare a pandemic on the precautionary principle, which is basically allowing the WHO to declare a pandemic when the pandemic doesn't exist, they just think that it might one day. So you've got a situation sort of sort of a double sided attack that whereby you will incentivize countries reporting things that might be pandemics, and then give the WHO power to declare a pandemic based on nothing but that suspicion. It's very neatly done, if it does work out that way.
Once again, that is kit nightly of off dash guardian.org link in the show notes, of course, but also you can access them via their telegram link. I'm not on telegram myself and don't use it, but I understand that they are promoting that at the moment as an alternative to some of the more heavily censored social media platforms. So that link to will be included in the show notes for this episode at corbettreport.com/global Treaty. But I would suggest it's probably worth your time to finish reading that article, which again will be linked up on the pandemic treaty will hand the WHO keys to global government, where Kitt finishes by noting that we already know the other key points likely to be included in the pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports Absolutely. And poor funding into big farmers pockets to produce vaccines ever faster and with even less safety testing, safe and effective. But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the Director General of The Who, or whatever new, independent body they may decide to create, to punish, rebuke, or reward national governments, a pandemic treaty that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or expert who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion, and on completely subjective criteria. This is the very definition of technocratic globalism. Indeed, exactly right. So let's call a spade a spade. This is technocratic globalism at work. And this is absolutely in lockstep with that biosecurity agenda that I've been ringing the alarm about for years now. But I think there is something there's something else to note about this entire process that we haven't noted yet. And that comes in a related article that off Guardian had up just a couple of weeks ago, they had on April 12 2022. They posted you have just 24, four hours left to have your say, on the who is pandemic treaty, where they note that, in fact they are or were taking public comment on their website on the public deliberations, the hearings regarding the treaty. The proposed treaty is now in the public consultation phase and as such the who are accepting written responses via their website, on the question, what substantive elements do you think should be included the data, you'll note the question treats the eventual existence of the legislation as an a priori assumption. The question is what should be included in the treaty? Not should the treaty exist at all. That said, you could still request the inclusion of guarantees on state and individual sovereignty, respect for human rights, legal liability for government officials, and or pharmaceutical companies, and all other things governmental bodies have completely ignored for the last few years. And at the time that this was posted, it noted that you had about 24 hours left to actually get your comments and switching over to that page at IMDb dot who dot iantd slash home slash written bash submissions, public hearings regarding a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response written component where they note that written contributions to the first round of public hearings are welcome from all interested parties, including the general public and all interested stakeholders. Where have I heard that phrase being bandied about lately? Written contributions to the first round of public hearings should respond to the guiding question, which is, what substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument? On pandemic preparedness and response? Which, as off guardian, rightly notes, kind of bakes the answer into the cake, doesn't it? Well, there you go. You can't decide if you want a new legally binding international globalist technocratic instrument to guide cement into place global health security architecture? No, no. What what do you want to include it in that honest, we're listening?
Please further note that all submissions of written comments are subject to the terms of participation, huh, terms of participation, let's just go over there and see what they're talking about. So they they do talk about the public hearings, and oh, we're inviting public comment. So content of your participation in any participation in the public hearings, written, spoken or otherwise, your behavior and contributions must in all cases, one be relevant to the subject matter of the public hearings, to refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand, and three, be presented in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity or other inappropriate language. So keen observers might note that there's really only two stipulations there, because number one, and number two are really the same thing set in slightly different ways. But the long and short of this is the who gets to decide what the topic at hand is, and whether or not your comment addresses it. So they can just say irrelevant. And to well, you can't use any naughty words or say anything mean about us. Otherwise, we'll just plug our fingers in our ears anyway. And then, of course, full disclosure of all affiliations, you must declare the entity you represent and any other affiliations, engagement or roles relevant to the public hearings, or to who does my status as a human being count for any of that, I don't know, you understand that, who is not able to ensure that all interested parties will be able to participate in the public hearings, and we make no guarantee, blah, blah, blah. And then they talk about some of the qualifications for the spoken contributions, which were all NGOs, essentially. And the written component, as well as assigning them rights, do any media or anything that you submit as part of your content submission, and you're not going to use the who, blah, blah, blah. So, again, given the terms of participation, you must answer our question, otherwise, it's irrelevant. And our question is, what do you think we should include? Oh, thank you for asking my opinion. Let me tell you, anyway, that did exist there, at least for some time. There. And that window for that particular comment period has closed. But it was there. And in fact, there was an interesting hiccup that happened as a result of that, which was noted at the beginning of this pandemic treaty will hand who keys to global government article where they know that when we and others linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WH O 's website actually briefly click crashed, or they pretended it crashed. So people would stop sending them letters. So they actually got submissions, which is probably a bit surprising. They were probably expecting no one would even pick up on it. No, we asked for public participation, and no one showed up. Actually, so many people showed up that it crashed the site, or as they say, maybe they pretended to crash the site. At any rate, oh, sorry, we couldn't take any more submissions. It's gone, which I think speaks to at least part of the potential towards redirecting this from the self evident problem that is being formed here to the solution or solutions that offer themselves to us in regard to this, and has to do with public opinion. So in in that regard, I did ask Kitt Knightley about the public participation process that the who allowed as part of their public hearings into the global pandemic treaty. On that note, I noticed that the IMF are sorry, the who? What's the difference? I were kind enough to provide space on their on their site for people to leave their feedback. Can you tell us a little bit about that debacle?
Yeah, if they suck it away in the back pages as they do, but like for that, because it's the global pandemic treaty, obviously, they want everybody to get involved. And they put up a thing saying, please send us submissions for isn't it? But only sufficient earnings? So the question is that addressed the key question, which is, what should be included in the pandemic treaty? They didn't ask, Should we have a pandemic treaty? Obviously, we're going to, but you make a good point about the the public effort because as much as they play down, like how much that affected the COVID thing, I think, really, there was a mass awakening to what the pro COVID agenda was, even if they tried to make it make you feel like you're on a little island. But there was a lot of people around December 2021, who were becoming aware that COVID agenda that didn't make any sense. And I'm going to tie with the mask rules and the lockdown and everything. And that, I would say, without getting off topic, part of the reason that this is now happening behind the scenes, and what's happening on the front pages is the war in Ukraine. The original plan, I would say, would have been to do this on the front pages and have it be a celebrated thing. And people say, Oh, yes, this is great. This is a victory for multilateralism. And instead, they found that people don't like it. And so they're pushing it back, hoping to kind of slide it around, get it done. Well, people talking about Ukraine instead. And I think that does show that public opinion does matter. And public weariness is important. So as long as enough people are aware that the treaty could exist and what might be included in it. I think that will be a stumbling block to getting it passed. Certainly.
I tend to agree. But I also tend to think that the spaces that they allow for public participation, although we should be making use of them, certainly. But I don't think that will be the answer.
I don't think anything could come from that that was very much a token effort and wondering when it got the response it did their website crashed, possibly intentionally. I don't think that's any kind of avenue for real discussion. They'll just be filed away some spam folder somewhere probably never read again.
But you are correct. There is a place for public opinion in this to be manifested. And when it is not contained in the proper channels. And one of the things on the IMS web or sorry, I keep saying that the WHO website was only respectful, considerate non ad hominem language, please. Oh, yeah. Don't don't use any naughty words, when you talk to us. I wonder what they were expecting. But when you don't take that avenue, it might manifest as something like a freedom convoy in Canada or something along those lines. So I think there obviously we have seen the divergent ways in which public opinion can be manifested and the ways that that will be dealt with. And again, although the Canadian government obviously did act very tyrannically, I think they were seen to act very tyrannically. And many, many more people are now aware of the system that they are facing.
I would say that was a very well, I think they expected more support than they got for the way they treated those truckers. I think they expected to be cheered on for dealing with the trucker problem. And instead they to use an app for metaphor Have a mask actually slipped. And people saw exactly the kind of people that are really running things.
Once again, kit nightly of off dash guardian.org, reminding us of the extremely important point, that the reason we are propagandized so thoroughly, so consistently, and so earnestly, and so much time and energy and effort is spent trying to control what we think what we hear, the way that we act in the world is because the way that we think and act and interact with others is important. The illusion of public consent to processes like the formation of this global pandemic treaty is the linchpin of the system. These technocratic globalists are only able to operate because they have the veneer the illusion the simulacra of public consent. Well, we had a public comment period, and we didn't receive much of a response. So it, it follows that people are on board with what we are proposing. And unfortunately, 99 times out of 100, that is enough for most people to if they ever even encounter something like this to go, oh, well, I guess whenever there was some public comment, I didn't hear about it. I didn't care. So I guess most people don't. And that is exactly right. If we continue to let the establishment media set our agenda for what we will talk about now. Now everyone talk about the slap at the Oscars. Now, everyone talk about Elon Musk and Twitter. Now everyone talk about the latest distraction, but do not set your own agenda, do not share and spread information about these things that we're doing behind closed doors. No, no, no, no, no, you will only talk about what we want you to talk about. So I think a fundamental the baseline of any actual resistance to what is happening here is the accrual and the spreading of knowledge on these issues. We have to gather data and share that data widely with others. On that note, I invite implore anyone else out there with any sort of platform to please consider covering these topics. And you can or cannot mention my work and what I've talked about here today, I don't care. Please just talk about these topics. Similarly, hand if you found this podcast useful, please spread it to others, we need to raise awareness of these issues so that we can have an actual conversation about the concept of public health and who shouldn't be in control of the global health security architecture or let's breach the terms of participation that the who have laid out before us whether we need a global health security architecture at all. Whoa, can we imagine what what kind of chaos would reign in the world if we didn't have a global agency stewarding over the bodily autonomy of every individual will take that from you, citizen peon. Just go play with yourself, just just distract yourselves with some oh, here's some Musk Twitter news for you know, we will not allow that to happen. So please do spread awareness and information about this that is the baseline. And from there, we can start having the actual constructive conversation about what health should be and how it should be run under what system by what governing body or whether it can be through voluntary participation in community led networks. On that note, you can imagine there are some follow up additions of solutions watch towards ways that we can counter the proposed solution for pandemic preparedness that is being concocted in the bowels of the WHO there are many other people working on different ideas and different ways of envisioning health whatsoever and specific ideas about how to derail or stop this pent global pandemic treaty itself. So I will be talking about that in the coming weeks and months. Having said all of that, all of the links to everything I've discussed today, as usual, will be at corporate report.com/global Treaty. Please go there and make use of those resources. Please share them with others. On that note, that's going to do it for today. I am James Corbett of corbettreport.com thanking you for joining me and looking forward to talking to you again in the near future.
