GOP lawmakers raise concerns about WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, US involvement in agency

In calling for the U.S. to end its membership in and financing of the WHO, the Sovereignty Coalition has issued a Declaration of their concerns and a call for action.

Read story here

The World Health Organization, widely considered the most powerful health authority in the world, is pursuing a Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that critics say could make the organization even more powerful and jeopardize U.S. sovereignty.

The United Nations-affiliated WHO says the draft treaty – or “zero draft” – is designed to protect the world from future pandemics and last December announced that member states “agreed to develop the first draft of such as a legally binding agreement.”

However, the group says the agreement also “respects sovereignty.”

Among the critics’ concerns is the treaty, if agreed upon by member nations, would give the WHO more international influence, amid arguments the agency allowed China to conceal information about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, though the WHO, in turn, has accused China of withholding the information.

They also say a ratified treaty would give the WHO authority over pandemic-related vaccines, lockdowns, school closures and more and could lead the agency to pursue the full adaptation of a so-called Digital Health Certificates, which could put medical records for people around the world into a central database.

Such concerns took center stage last week in Washington.

Sixteen members of Congress including GOP Reps. Andy Biggs, of Arizona; Ralph Norman, of South Carolina; and Chip Roy, of Texas, joined with the Sovereignty Coalition on Capitol Hill to urge the U.S. to withdraw from the World Health Organization.

The non-partisan group’s top stated mission is to “ensure that the United States no longer underwrites, participates in or is subject to the World Health Organization” and to create an alternative group to better deal with another pandemic.

In September 2020, the Trump administration formally notified the United Nations the United States would withdraw from the WHO, arguing the agency failed to quickly alert the world when the virus emerged and that it helped China cover up the global threat the virus posed. 

President Joe Biden upon taking the White House rescinded that notification and announced plans to stay in the organization.

The Sovereignty Coalition includes 55 organizations including the Center for Security Policy, Liberty Counsel Action, Act for America, Eagle Forum, Global Covid Summit and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. 

The coalition also argues the WHO, now led by Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, is a “supranational agency that is effectively controlled by the Chinese Communist Party,” and that the United States must end its membership in the agency and cease funding it.

It also warns, in a declaration on the matter, the WHO ultimately plans to take “authority over every aspect of life, under the guise of a potential public health emergency.”

Member nations met again in February to further work on the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty draft, but no date has been set to vote on the matter.

Supporters of the plan say many of the assumptions are incorrect.

The Associated Press in a February 24 fact-check report states the treaty is voluntary and does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies.

The report, which cites multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, also states the treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response but that the 30-page document does not mention lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems.

“These claims are utterly false,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor and director of the university’s WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law who has also been involved in the treaty’s draft process.

“The United States retains sovereignty to set its own domestic public health policies,” he also said. 

Christine Anderson, MEP, of Germany

100% agree with her. God speed.

Dear Dr . Hoesung Lee,

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC has completed its sixth assessment cycle, comprising a total of seven reports. An international team of scientists from the 1,500-strong Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) has reviewed several claims from the Working Group 1 ( The Physical Science Basis ) and Working Group 2 ( Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability ) reports. The results are summarized in Clintel’s report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC . Clintel’s in-depth analysis reveals serious flaws in latest IPCC report.

As background, I would like to remind you of the InterAcademies Council (IAC) review of IPCC procedures in 2010, which was commissioned after catastrophic publicity about errors in previous IPCC reports and revelations about attempts by IPCC lead authors to suppress debate. The IAC concluded in part:

Since the IAC report was partly produced after the discovery of errors in the most recent assessment, the committee also examined the IPCC’s review process. It concluded that the process is thorough, but that stronger enforcement of existing IPCC assessment procedures could minimize errors. To this end, the IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors must also ensure that real controversies are reflected in the report and be sure that due consideration has been given to well-documented alternative viewpoints. Lead authors must explicitly document that the full range of considered scientific views has been considered. Seehere.

We regret to conclude that the IPCC has not followed this advice and that the AR6 has the same shortcomings as before, namely a biased selection of evidence, a failure to reflect real controversies and a failure to adequately take into account well-documented alternative views.

For example, the IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalized disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human deaths from extreme weather have decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC authors made the opposite conclusions based on cherry-picked evidence, claiming that damage and death rates from anthropogenic climate change had increased, and the review process failed to correct this inaccuracy.

Clintel’s 180-page report, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC , is the first large-scale international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters, the Clintel report shows that the IPCC makes numerous serious scientific mistakes that generally reflect a bias towards ‘bad news’ versus ‘good news’.

This was the case throughout the report and especially in the preparation of the Executive Summary for Policymakers. For example, the good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths was omitted from the Executive Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, where the IPCC AR6 has taken into account evidence pointing to bleak, worst-case prospects, such as the recognition that the RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 emissions scenarios are low probability and that models systematically predict warming overestimates in the tropical troposphere, these findings are buried deep in the chapters and are not highlighted to the media or policy makers.

Even worse, despite the fact that the discussion of emission scenarios concludes that the extremes are unlikely, they nevertheless receive maximum attention in other parts of the report to project the climate effects.

Finally, we note that the IPCC has remained silent while the UN Secretary-General and other senior officials have repeatedly misrepresented the IPCC’s findings. For example, Secretary General Guterres said of the Working Group 1 report:

“Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are ringing and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are suffocating our planet and putting billions of people in immediate danger.” Source here .

The AR6 Working Group 1 report did not say these things, but the IPCC never corrected it, nor did it dispute the similarly inaccurate media coverage that distorts the content of your report.

With all due respect, dr. Lee, seriously misleading the world on such an important subject and on such a large scale is unacceptable for a UN organization that claims to be scientific. The errors and biases Clintel found in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the 2010 IAC Review, suggesting that the IPCC is still failing to deliver on its mission.

The Clintel network therefore requests the following:

• That the IPCC commission a team of representatives from Clintel and other independent individuals not involved in the IPCC leadership to assess whether the IPCC has fully implemented and followed the 2010 reforms recommended by the IAC Review, and whether there are more reforms are needed.

• That the IPCC review prominent statements by major world leaders and media outlets that paraphrase the contents of the AR6 and correct the report where those statements are misleading or inaccurate.

• That the IPCC meet with Clintel representatives to get input on the key deficiencies identified in our report that require formal correction.

Looking forward to your response,

Sincerely,
dr. AJ (Guus) Berkhout, chair of Clintel
Emeritus Professor of Geophysics
Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Gus Berkhout.

***

Gus Berkhout.

PS

The main objective of the Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) is to generate knowledge and insight into the causes and consequences of climate change, as well as into the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration , which has now been signed by more than 1,500 scientists and experts around the world, rivaling the IPCC Working Group’s author lists in scope and credentials. See here .

“We engineered SARS.” “A biological warfare enabling technology.” “Since 2005.”

Much more.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that a majority of Americans believe the media favors Democrats and is “truly the enemy of the people.” The survey was conducted May 16-18, 2023 from 1,002 U.S. likely voters.

The survey also reveals that 59% of American voters view the media as truly the enemy of the people.

Excellent. Well done. Professional. 1.5 hours. Free for now.

Be informed. This is important. More “vaccines” are coming.

Latest. The link to this documentary was removed or re-directed.

Sorry for the trouble.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

~ Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
in 1802 in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

This is about 2 hours.  It starts with about 20 minutes of related news.  If you want to skip that news, go to ~20 minutes and begin the interview with Sasha Latypova, a retired biopharm R&D executive.  This is excellent.

https://www.vacsafety.org/episode-76-whose-military-made-covid/     This site may require you to set up a sign in, but there is a no charge option.

I think this interview link on Rumble is the same as above, but I have not watched this one through to the end.

Michele Bachmann, J.D., LLM is a former member of the U.S. Congress. She is Dean of the Robertson School of Government and Professor at Regent University in Virginia. https://www.regent.edu/about-regent/faculty/

757.352.4302 contact me

Related posts on my blog: