In a few weeks, the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) will most likely be voting on a pair of documents that will give the unaccountable, unelected people who brought the world the disastrous covid pandemic response the green light to do the same thing again.
The proposed changes go ever further than that, creating binding rules that the 194 member countries must follow the WHO lead in a future pandemic. And the WHO gets to decide what constitutes a pandemic.
PolitiFact, however, screeched yesterday that no, it doesn’t at all impact national sovereignty and the process of the drafting of the changes has been completely transparent, and the the WHO is not evil and would have permission to impose pandemics at will and if you believe anything else you are wrong and stupid.
Specifically, PolitiFact (and FactCheck.org) said a Facebook video posted by the Population Research Institute (PolitiFact does mention the group, just that ”a woman” posted something on Facebook that is false and misleading and misinformation.
Not identifying the PRI and the fact that it has nearly a million Facebook followers is purposely done to diminish the stature of those making the claim.
FactCheck.org wrote the following:
“As we explained in 2022, the WHO has no authority to dictate U.S. health policy or to interfere in any nation’s sovereignty. Neither the accord nor amendments proposed to the legally binding agreement that defines countries rights and obligations during health emergencies, known as the International Health Regulations, would give the WHO control over how the U.S. governs domestic health policies.
Yet, once again, conservatives are falsely claiming the agreement will do exactly that, while also giving the wrong impression that it is about to be ratified.”
PolitiFact https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/10/facebook-posts/false-claim-resurfaces-about-who-pandemic-treaty-a/ said much the same thing in its “fact check:”
“Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, who helped draft the WHO accord, told PolitiFact in 2023 that the accord would not give the WHO any powers to dictate policy in the U.S., and that "this narrative is so far from the truth that it is dangerous and malicious."
We rate the claim that the WHO pandemic accord "would take away American sovereignty and give the WHO power to put in legally binding policies in America in the case of another pandemic" False.”
So for a fair and impartial opinion, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact turned to one of the people who wrote the new regulations. He says they’re fine so they are now shut up.
Both “fact checkers” say the new accords have been carefully considered for two years and that it is being driven solely by a need to be better prepared for a future pandemic.
Nope – not even close.
First, the accords do call on members to follow dictates set down by the WHO during a pandemic, even though exactly what a pandemic is is a bit nebulous.
From the Brownstone Institute https://brownstone.org/articles/exactly-what-are-who-member-states-voting-for/ article from the REPPARE (REevaluating the Pandemic Preparedness And REsponse agenda) involves a multidisciplinary team convened by the University of Leeds) organization:
An outbreak of common cold crossing borders fits many pandemic definitions, as does a repeat of the medieval Black Death. International agreements are normally formed around a definable problem, but the world is about to invest tens of billions without a solid basis to predict costs and benefits. In other words, there is no clear agreement on what the World Health Assembly is actually agreeing to.
The accords at issue are modifications to the WHO pandemic agreement and changes to the International Health Regulations agreement. The WHO has not been transparent, possibly not even acting legally, in the process – for example, from a separate Brownstone article: https://brownstone.org/articles/government-and-the-who-quietly-shake-hands/
“Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the process has not been lawfully adhered to. The WHO failed to publish the revised package of IHR amendments back in January 2024, as required under Article 55 of the IHR. This means that the WHO cannot now lawfully present the IHR for a vote within the timeframes required under international law. The May deadline for the vote must therefore be extended.”
As to national sovereignty, the heart of the fact checks, it will be compromised by the new regulations:
“If passed in May, the change would mean the WHO could enforce border closures, quarantine measures, and vaccine passports on all member countries, including the UK. It would do this in response to the threat of a pandemic, or the emergence of one, or some other public health crisis which the WHO would identify and define. Additionally, the draft of the treaty itself would commit member states to significant spending commitments for pandemic preparedness.”
So the WHO could control borders, order lockdowns and vaccine mandates, and control information - WHO is dedicated to fighting “misinformation” – you know, the information that turned out to be true during the pandemic response.
And none of that has anything to do with national sovereignty? Well, there could be a bright side if they take over the U.S.-Mexico border – couldn’t do any worse…
Sometime fact checks are merely exaggerated “third party validator” spin. In these case, they are straight up lies.
Do go to the Brownstone Institute site to read the background information – but don’t do it alone in a dark room.
It’s that scary.