The WHO's pandemic treaty has been rejected by the countries! At least for the time being, because they were unable to reach a final agreement on a corresponding text, so democracy has won, at least for the time being. But what does the pandemic treaty have in common with a health dictatorship?
While the WHO has undoubtedly done good work in recent decades and has been able to help people, especially in developing countries, to reduce mortality by providing important vaccinations, this pandemic treaty is not necessarily all good.
What is the pandemic treaty about?
Basically, the pandemic treaty is about being able to react more quickly in the event of a pandemic and being able to stop the spread more quickly. So far, so good. But you have to look at the picture from further away.
The dangers of the pandemic treaty
The dangers posed by this global pandemic treaty for all countries belonging to the WHO are perhaps not very logical or seem unrealistic at first glance, but I would like to remind you of the Covid pandemic, where everyone undoubtedly had to suffer in some way, either through social isolation, rationing of food (pasta and toilet paper in Germany), the loss of a close family member or relative, in my case it was an aunt from the Czech Republic. 2 years where people went through that, where you only knew about it in sci-fi literature and movies.
Curfews, Patrolling drones in China (WebArchive), or where Doors barricaded were. No one could have imagined that people would have to register with an app in public when they go to a pub or an event, and yet quite a few people took part.
The danger is not that the WHO can declare another pandemic with the pandemic treaty, the difference is that with the pandemic treaty, the WHO can declare a lockdown, order curfews and digital surveillance of potentially infected people.
Can you tell the difference?
The measures we experienced during the Covid pandemic were decisions and recommendations for action by the respective government, each country has implemented measures to a greater or lesser extent and experts from two camps have always tried to interpret the figures differently from the other side over the last few years.
However, if the WHO declares a pandemic and the pandemic treaty has been adopted by the countries belonging to the WHO, the countries and their governments relinquish the mandate for their democratic or political legitimacy and hand it over to the WHO.
This means that there will be no elections, no demonstrations, there is even a paragraph in the pandemic treaty which states the Includes the prevention of misinformation.
Through Elon Musk's Twitter purchase, the Twitter files published (WebArchive), where high-ranking academics with the respective medical specialties were demonstrably censored by Twitter (see The Twitter Blacklisting of Jay Bhattacharya - WSJ).
So who decides that a pandemic is declared and dozens of countries have to give up their political freedom? What is misinformation? Who defines information as misinformation? And who decides on censorship in social networks?
In the case of Twitter, it can be seen that users with a medical background were censored because their statements did not match those of the CDC; according to official documents, the censorship was based on government requests, but not on expertise. And so the WHO could initiate global censorship of information that the WHO considers to be incorrect.
One should not have the perspective that we are talking about a conspiracy here, after the years of the pandemic, more and more facts are revealed that turn out to be true, including that the German RKI Files (WebArchive) are blacked out and only parts of it became accessible by suing for the information in court. This sentence from the document deserves special attention:
"The risk assessment will be published as soon as (person's name redacted) gives a signal for it."
- Corona protocol of the RKI of March 16, 2020
As of May 2024, it is still not known who this person is who gave the signal for the risk assessment and corresponding lockdowns.
The RKI was also aware that the lockdowns themselves cause more harm to people than Covid:
"Lockdowns sometimes have more serious consequences than Covid itself."
- Corona protocol of the RKI from December 16, 2020
And also the topic of vaccinations, that Health Minister Karl Lauterbach said that there were hardly any side effects or only minimal ones.There are quite a few people who have allegedly died as a result of the vaccinations and the after-effects ("sudden and unexpected heart failure"). It should also not be forgotten that at least German politicians have not been involved in the Corona vaccination obligation have completely changed direction within weeks.
Only recently it became known that AstraZeneca had admitted after 1 year that their Covid vaccine can lead to death in rare cases.
Corona vaccine - AstraZeneca admits to serious side effects (BILD DE)
I have already written in an earlier post about why a Digital vaccination card dangerous even if it is practical.
Concluding thoughts
The topic of Covid, the pandemic and democracy will continue to haunt us for a while, like a shadow from the recent past, while some want to forget this time on the one hand, others want to see this time reappraised in order to understand how it could happen and so that something like this doesn't happen again. I myself simply hope that democracy will prevail, that the countries will not agree to a pandemic treaty, because even without one, we have now learned how to react better to pandemics in the future.
Congresswoman Nancy Mace addresses Twitter censorship and COVID-19
Sources and further information:
English 
German 
French 
Czech