Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over U.S. Pandemic Policies

Conservative News DailyFebruary 19, 2023

News Analysis

Biden’s administration is set to sign up the United States for a “legally binding” In agreement with the World Health OrganizationWHO) that would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.

Despite widespread criticisms about the WHO’s response in the COVID pandemic crisis, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra joined Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (WHO Director-General) in September 2022. Announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” They created a gemeinsames. “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”

These conversations, and others, led to the “zero draft” (PDFThe pandemic treaty was published on February 1. It now needs to be ratified by all 194 WHO member countries. To finalize the terms of the treaty, the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is meeting on February 27. All members will then have to sign it.

This article was written under the banner “the world together equitably,” The WHO has the power to declare and manage an international pandemic. All signatories, which includes the United States, will be subject to the WHO’s authority regarding treatment, government regulations, such as vaccine mandates and lockdowns, global supply chains and monitoring and supervision of populations.

Pandemic Response Center

“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell is a former WHO staffer and public health physician who has specialized in epidemic policies. He spoke to The Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”

The WHO pandemic agreement is part of a dual-track effort that coincides with an initiative of the World Health Assembly (WHA), to create new global regulations for pandemics. This would also replace the laws of member countries. The WHO’s rule-making authority, the WHA, is composed of representatives of member states.

“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” The Epoch Times spoke with Francis Boyle from Illinois University as a professor of international legal. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”

The Epoch Times was informed by Meryl Nass, a physician. “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”

Concerning medical treatments, the agreement would require members to “monitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products.” This would, based on past WHO and Biden administration policies, likely mean that people will be forced to use new vaccines and doctors won’t be able to prescribe non-vaccine treatment or medicine.

America’s Constitution being circumvented

One key question regarding the accord is whether or not the Biden administration can legally bind America under treaties and agreements, as required by the Constitution. The zero draft acknowledges that treaties between countries must first be ratified and ratified by their national legislatures. This is consistent with international law. The draft contains a clause stating that the accord will be in effect on a “provisional” Basis, once it is signed by the WHO delegates, it will be legally binding for all members, without needing to be ratified or ratified by legislative bodies.

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. Also, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”

The Biden administration may be supported by several U.S. Supreme Court cases. These include State of Missouri v. HollandIn this case, the Supreme Court ruled treaties should supersede state law. Others include United States v. Belmont, ruled executive agreements that are not subject to the consent of the Senate can be legally binding and have the force of treaties.

Parallels exist between the WHO pandemic agreement and a recent OECD international tax agreement. Republicans claim that this agreement has been “effectively terminated.”no path forward” to legislative approval. The OECD agreement contains punitive terms that allow foreign countries the ability to penalize American companies if it is not ratified.

Administration officials want to appeal to international organizations, as with the OECD Tax Agreement. They are trying to impose policies which have been rejected and rescinded by American voters. The U.S. Constitution states that health care is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It belongs to the states. This was a problem for the Biden administration, which tried to impose mandates on Americans to use vaccines and masks. However, courts ruled that federal agencies were not authorized to do so.

“To circumvent that, they went to the WHO, for either the regulations or the treaty, to get around domestic opposition,” Boyle said.

According to the zero draft, signatories would consent to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level” These include local governments and private companies.

According to the zero draft, this new agreement was necessary due to “the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.”

Report from the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response (PDF) characterized the WHO’s performance as a “toxic cocktail” of poor decisions. Co-chair Ellen Johnson Sirleaf told BBC It was because “a myriad of failures, gaps and delays.” However, those solutions did not advocate more autonomy in local decision-making or diversified decision-making. They suggested greater centralization and more power for the WHO.

‘One Health Surveillance’ and Misinformation

Member states are required to implement the WHO pandemic agreement “One Health surveillance.” One Health has been embraced worldwide by the UN and the CDC as well as the World Bank and other global organizations.

“The term originally meant a way of seeing human and animal health as linked—they sometimes are—so that you could improve human health by acting more broadly,” Bell said. “It has become hijacked and now is used to claim that all human activities, and all issues within the biosphere, affect health, and are therefore within Public Health’s remit. So public health can be deemed to include climate, or racism, or fisheries management, and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon emissions is a health issue and therefore a health ‘emergency.'”

The WHO zero draft states “‘One Health surveillance’ means …,” This definition can be left to be developed in future drafts. However, One Health surveillance, whatever it may ultimately mean, requires that the signatories invest in it and implement it. “strengthen” it. The World Bank approved the adoption of a standardized approach to monetary policy in September 2022. Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF), to finance, among others, One Health surveillance.

When it comes to information regarding a pandemic, the signatories agree to support the official narrative. They will, in particular, “conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation” “design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.”

This aligns with previous White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki’s efforts to the Biden government. It is best to put it, “make sure social media companies are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health … and engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.” Or as UN Undersecretary-General Melissa Fleming A panel at the 2022 World Economic Forum “Tackling Disinformation” Davos “We own the science and we think that the world should know it.”

The official narrative during the COVID pandemic included support for lockdowns, school closures, and masking—all of which have since proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus and damaging to public health. This document was jointly signed by over 900,000 epidemiologists and public health experts. Great Barrington Declaration In 2020, expression “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.” This declaration was widely criticized as dangerous misinformation, and it was censored by social media.

“The views that they crushed were orthodox public health,” Bell said. Public health guidelines for 2019 “specifically said that things like prolonged border closures, closing stores, etc. were harmful, particularly for low-income people, and shouldn’t be done beyond a few weeks.”

Lockdowns were pushed by those who supported them “were very clear that what they were recommending for COVID was going to be extremely harmful, and that the harm would outweigh the benefit,” Bell said. “They were clear because they wrote that down before, and there’s nothing new in the idea that impoverishing people reduces life expectancy. Something dramatically changed their minds, and that something wasn’t evidence, so we can only assume that it was pressure from vested interests.”

The January issue of a Survey At the World Economic Forum, it was revealed that trust in government has dropped since the outbreak of the pandemic. But attendees weren’t able to identify the reasons. Instead, the panel discussion was titled “Disrupting Distrust,” We are focusing on fighting rogue news sources which challenge the central narrative.

America’s Membership to the WHO

Donald Trump, then-President, withdrew the United States’ membership from the WHO in July 2020. Trump claimed that US funding of around half a trillion dollars per annum would be withdrawn due to the WHO’s poor response to the COVID pandemic.

In response, then-presidential-candidate Joe Biden vowed: “On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage.” Biden kept his word and reached an even greater agreement by negotiating the pandemic treaty.

Today, GOP lawmakers want to revive the effort by the United States to be expelled from the WHO. The January 12th, 2012, House Republicans introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act,” It was sponsored 16 representatives.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-TexasThe bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), stated: “Funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to the corrupt World Health Organization that serves the Chinese Communist Party is a slap in the face to hardworking American families struggling under record high inflation, and to all those whose lives and livelihoods were ruined and destroyed by the COVID pandemic. The WHO … praised China for their ‘leadership’ at the beginning of COVID-19 and has done nothing to hold the CCP accountable for the spread of COVID-19.”

The pandemic agreement, Roy’s spokesperson told The Epoch Times. “is just another reason to defund the WHO.”

Redefining Sovereignty and Human Rights

The accord’s zero draft states that national sovereignty is a priority but with limits. “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to pubic health,” The draft declares “provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”

The agreement states that human right are equally important and requires that they be respected. “people living under any restrictions on the freedom of movement, such as quarantines and isolations, have sufficient access to medication, health services and other necessities and rights.” The agreement includes human rights. “health equity, through resolute action on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health.”

Austria and other countries have made refusing to take the COVID vaccination a criminal offense. New York City was one of the first cities in America to mandate vaccine passports for public access. It divided its residents into a privilegiated vaccinated group and a second-tier, unvaccinated group.

Others, however, see human rights as not pertaining to collective health but as individual rights. This includes personal sovereignty, the right to make their own decisions, the right to be heard in medical decisions that impact them, freedom of speech and movement, and the right to exercise one’s rights to assembly and free speech.

The Second World War and the state control ideologies of fascism (national socialism) and communism followed. “it was realized that there has to be a fundamental understanding that individuals are sovereign” Bell stated. Bell stated. “we are born with rights, we’re all equal, and those rights are inviolable. That is being very much watered down or wiped away in order to do this.”

“I think this issue is much, much broader; it’s what sort of society we want to live in. Do we believe in equality or do we believe in a feudal system where we have a few people at the top, controlling society, telling others what to do? That’s the direction we’re going in.”

The WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services Department and World Bank were both contacted regarding the article, but they didn’t respond.