White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci claimed Monday that he never recommended “locking anything down” when pressed about what he would do differently regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
“First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down,” Fauci replied during an interview published by The Hill’s “Rising” program on Monday, suggesting it had been a recommendation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“Go back and look at my statements,” he added, “that we need to do everything we can to keep the schools open and safe.”
In October 2020, Fauci had publicly recommended that Donald Trump “shut the whole country down,” although it’s not clear what he meant as presidents don’t have the authority to hand down sweeping lockdowns.
“When it became clear that we had community spread in the country … I recommended to the president that we shut the country down,” he said in an event with students at the College of the Holy Cross in October 2020.
If the United States didn’t “shut down completely the way China did,” then the spread of COVID-19 wouldn’t be stopped, Fauci continued to say at the time. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since early 2020 has pursued a “zero COVID” strategy that some analysts say is tantamount to economic suicide.
Closing Schools and Bars
In August 2020, Fauci said that public schools should remain closed across the country to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Fauci also publicly suggested multiple times in 2020 that bars and restaurants should remain closed, then arguing that there was a binary choice between opening schools or bars.
“You have a choice—either close the bars or close the schools. Because, if you have people congregating in bars, it’s likely you’re going to stay red,” the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said in November 2020.
Also during the interview with The Hill, Fauci said there should have been “much more stringent restrictions” imposed on asymptomatic people in 2020.
“We know now, two and a half years later, that anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of the transmission occur from someone without symptoms, either someone who never will get symptoms or someone who is in the pre-symptomatic stage,” he said.
It’s not clear how Fauci came to this conclusion about asymptomatic spread. Physician Aaron Kheriaty wrote for the Brownstone Institute that “no respiratory virus in history” has been known to spread asymptomatically.
“Had we known that then, the insidious nature of spread in the community would have been much more of an alarm and there would have been much, much more stringent restrictions in the sense of very, very heavy, encouraging people to wear masks, physical distancing or what have you,” added Fauci, who again called for mask-wearing in schools, workplaces, and “anything that brings people together in a closed environment” in some areas.
Quarantines, lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccines—these measures created fear and hardship without slowing or stopping the spread. There is no evidence that they prevented a single death. On the contrary, fear and panic are known to make all symptoms worse. Without all the draconian measures we would not be worse off than we are, and we wouldn’t have sacrificed our economy and ruined the lives of so many people.
The medical industry uses its veneer of technological advancement to rob you of your body’s ability to heal and then sells it back to you. At the best, vaccines stimulate your body’s innate, natural, immune response. That’s the most positive thing that can be said for them. For a healthy person, no such stimulation is needed. Love and social engagement is much more effective in building up the body’s immune system than any number of vaccines (and the mRNA jabs masquerading as vaccines). Stealing the possibility of social engagement from us created the real pandemic, and it was done consciously with malice aforethought. Plenty of simulations (e.g., “Event 201”) were run—by Johns Hopkins, the CDC, big pharma, and the Chinese—in the decade leading up to 2019 that show how the medical industry, big pharma, and the others colluded to reduce our lives, destroy our small businesses, and isolate us.
All of that is documented here. Use the search function at the upper right.
A New York Supreme Court judge this month quietly ruled that regulations mandating that people infected with or exposed to highly contagious communicable diseases be quarantined are a violation of state law, declaring them null and void.
The Isolation and Quarantine procedures, known as Rule 2.13, were enacted in February.
Under the rule, “whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, the State Commissioner of Health may issue and/or may direct the local health authority to issue isolation and/or quarantine orders, consistent with due process of law, to all such persons as the State Commissioner of Health shall determine appropriate.”
Isolations may include those at home, or in residential or temporary housing, subject to what the public health authority issuing the order determines is “appropriate.”
However, the rule notes that “where symptoms or conditions indicate that medical care in a general hospital is expected to be required, the isolation location shall be a general hospital.”
Three Republican state legislators, Sen. George Borrello, assemblyman Chris Tague, and assemblyman Michael Lawler, along with Uniting NYS, filed a lawsuit against Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul, Commissioner of Health Mary Bassett, the state’s health department, and the Public Health and Health Planning Council.
Plaintiffs argued that the Isolation and Quarantine procedures were in violation of the New York State Constitution and a violation of the separation of powers.
“It’s unconstitutional in our eyes, and anything like that should go through the legislature,” Tague told local media. “It should have an opportunity to be debated. To be able to have facts brought forth by health professionals, and leaders within our communities before we just decide to put something into law.”
In a July 8 ruling, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of Cattaraugus County Ronald D. Ploetz sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the rule merely gives “lip service” to constitutional due process.
“Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask wearing at certain venues. Involuntary quarantine may have far-reaching consequences such as loss of income (or employment) and isolation from family,” Ploetz wrote.
The judge added that there was “no scientific data or expert testimony” to back up the rule.
“Respondents offered no scientific data or expert testimony why Rule 2.13 was a necessary response to combat COVID-19, but instead contend only that it would provide a quick and nimble approach to combating the pandemic,” wrote the judge. “Nevertheless, during oral argument of this matter, at a time when we hope that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, counsel for the Respondents were unable to cite any instance where the procedure set forth in Rule 2.13 was actually utilized.”
However, the judge noted in his ruling that the rule is null and void “until the New York State Legislation acts otherwise,” potentially paving the way for future appeals.
On Tuesday, Hochul told local media that she would be appealing the court’s decision, stating, “We feel very confident that if we appeal this, we will be successful.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office on Wednesday formally appealed the state Supreme Court ruling, according to local reports.
The Epoch Times has contacted James’s office for comment.
The ruling comes as Hochul’s office on Wednesday reported that the seven-day average of COVID-19 cases in New York has risen from 30.53 per 100,000 people to 35.28, while hospitalizations have increased in recent days to 2,397 patients.
However, 57.5 percent of those people who were hospitalized were admitted for reasons that did not include COVID-19.
Omicron is raging across the globe, and New York City is responding by directing residents and visitors to wear masks while indoors. Do these recommendations have any impact on stopping the spread of COVID, especially considering that many people choose to wear ineffective surgical masks rather than N95s? Jimmy and America’s comedian Kurt Metzger discuss the ongoing debate over masks, and whether Fauci was right when he was lying or when he wasn’t lying.
Using CDC data, no significant differences were found in COVID-19 case growth between states with or without mask mandates, during periods of low or high transmission
The widespread use of masks did not reduce COVID-19 transmission in Europe, and a moderate positive correlation was found between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe
An update to a CDC study on school mask mandates, using nearly six times more data, found no significant relationship between mask mandates in U.S. schools and COVID-19 case rates
In Kansas, counties with a mask mandate had significantly higher COVID-19 case fatality rates than counties without a mask mandate
One way masks cause harm may be the “Foegen effect” — the idea that deep re-inhalation of droplets and virions caught on facemasks might make COVID-19 infection more likely or more severe
During the COVID-19 pandemic, 80% of U.S. states mandated masks to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but accumulating research shows mask mandates and use do not lower the spread of the virus.1 While rules requiring masks did increase compliance, they didn’t translate to lower transmission growth rates, whether community spread of SARS-CoV-2 was low or high.
Even before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, mask mandates were put in place without ever properly evaluating efficacy, but that didn’t stop them from dividing communities and being used as a form of virtue signaling and a visible reminder of compliance with the “new normal.”
Now, with research showing not only that masks don’t protect you but may actually make you sick, the rationale behind their widespread mandated usage must be questioned.
Mask Mandates Didn’t Lower COVID-19 Cases
Using CDC data, researchers with the University of Louisville calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the U.S. No significant differences were found in case growth between mandate and non-mandate states during periods of low or high transmission.
“Surges were equivocal,” they noted, concluding, “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.”2 While stating that their findings “do not support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use,” they did note that “masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic.”3
Similarly dismal results from mask mandates were demonstrated in Europe. A study published in Cureus analyzed data from 35 European countries, including morbidity, mortality and mask usage, over a six-month period. The researchers noted:4
“Mask mandates were implemented in almost all world countries and in most places where masks were not obligatory, their use in public spaces was recommended … These mandates and recommendations took place despite the fact that most randomized controlled trials carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that the role of masks in preventing respiratory viral transmission was small, null, or inconclusive.”
When the data were analyzed, the study also revealed that the widespread use of masks did not reduce COVID-19 transmission. Worse, a moderate positive correlation was found between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe, which “suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”5
Mask Mandates in Schools Didn’t Reduce COVID-19 Cases
As part of the government sponsored propaganda campaign, a widely cited CDC study, published in October 2021, reported that counties without school mask mandates had larger increases in COVID-19 case rates in children after the start of school compared with counties that had school mask mandates.6
The study was used to support school mask mandates, but a team of researchers revisited the research, incorporating a larger sample size and longer study period. The updated study,7 published in May 2022, used nearly six times more data compared to the original study and found no significant relationship between mask mandates in U.S. schools and COVID-19 case rates. According to the researchers:8
“We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”
On Twitter, surgeon and public policy researcher Dr. Marty Makary pointed out that the CDC’s original study appeared to include cherry-picked data and the agency refused to publish an update using the more extensive data:9
“This study demonstrates how the CDC was cherry-picking data to support their school mask dogma. The article states that CDC’s MMWR journal rejected publishing this re-analysis. Most likely because it exposed the CDCs salami-slicing of data & use of science as political propaganda.”
It should be noted that a previous CDC study found mask requirements for students had little effect on COVID-19 incidence in Georgia schools, while improved ventilation, such as opening a window, reduced cases more than mask mandates for staff and teachers.10
The Foegen Effect: Mask Mandates Increased COVID-19 Deaths
A profoundly important study was conducted by German physician Dr. Zacharias Fögen to find out whether mandatory mask use influenced the COVID-19 case fatality rate in Kansas from August 1, 2020, to October 15, 2020.11 He chose the state of Kansas because, while it issued a mask mandate, counties were allowed to either opt in or out of it.
His analysis revealed that counties with a mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without a mask mandate. “These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention,” he concluded.
That threat, he explained, may be something called the “Foegen effect” — the idea that deep re-inhalation of droplets and virions caught on facemasks might make COVID-19 infection more likely or more severe.
“The fundamentals of this effect are easily demonstrated when wearing a facemask and glasses at the same time by pulling the upper edge of the mask over the lower edge of the glasses. Droplets appear on the mask when breathing out and disappear when breathing in.”
“In the “Foegen effect,” the virions spread (because of their smaller size) deeper into the respiratory tract. They bypass the bronchi and are inhaled deep into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis, which would be typical of a virus infection.
Furthermore, these virions bypass the multilayer squamous epithelial wall that they cannot pass into in vitro and most likely cannot pass into in vivo. Therefore, the only probable way for the virions to enter the blood vessels is through the alveoli.”12
Wearing Masks Could Be Related to Long COVID
Fögen explained that wearing masks could end up increasing your overall viral load because, instead of exhaling virions from your respiratory tract and ridding your body of them, those virions are caught in the mask and returned. This might also have the effect of increasing the number of virions that pass through the mask, such that it becomes more than the number that would have been shed without a mask.
The fact that “hypercondensed droplets and pure virions in the mask might be blown outwards during expiration, resulting in aerosol transmission instead of droplet transmission” is another issue that could make transmission worse instead of better, and the use of “more protective” masks could also backfire, making COVID-19’s long-term effects worse. Fögen explained:13
“The use of “better” masks (e.g., FFP2, FFP3) with a higher droplet-filtering capacity probably should cause an even stronger “Foegen effect” because the number of virions that are potentially re-inhaled increases in the same way that outward shedding is reduced.
Another salient point is that COVID-19-related long-term effects and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children may all be a direct cause of the “Foegen effect.” Virus entry into the alveoli and blood without being restricted to the upper respiratory tract and bronchi and can cause damage by initiating an (auto) immune reaction in most organs.”
Clear Risks of Prolonged Mask Use
Two expert reports spoke out against the use of masks for children in 2021. The first, a psychology report,14 stated that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.15 “The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report stated, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”16
The second report focused on health, safety and well-being,17 noting potential permanent physical damage to the lungs caused by fibrosis from inhalation of fibrous nanoparticles.
“There are real and significant dangers of respiratory infection, oral health deterioration and of lung injury, such as pneumothorax, owing to moisture buildup and also exposure to potentially harmful levels of an asphyxiant gas (carbon dioxide [CO2]) which can cause serious injury to health,” the authors explained.18
Normally, the CO2 then dissipates into the air around you before you take another breath. In the open air, carbon dioxide typically exists at about 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04% by volume.
The German Federal Environmental Office set a limit of CO2 for closed rooms of 2,000 ppm, or 0.2% by volume. If you’re wearing a facemask, the CO2 cannot escape as it usually does and instead becomes trapped in the mask. In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers analyzed the CO2 content of inhaled air among children wearing two types of masks, as well as wearing no mask.19
While no significant difference in CO2 was found between the two types of masks, there was a significant elevation when wearing masks compared to not wearing them. CO2 in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece masks came in between 13,120 ppm and 13,910 ppm, “which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6,” the researchers noted.20
Also important, this level was reached after only three minutes, while children wear masks at school for a mean of 270 minutes at a time. Even the child who had the lowest measured CO2 level had a measurement three-fold greater than the closed room CO2 limit of 0.2%. However, younger children appeared to have the highest CO2 values; a level of 25,000 ppm was measured from a 7-year-old wearing a facemask.21
Bacterial Infection Risk, Problems With Social Learning
The full consequences of prolonged mask use are only beginning to be understood. The University of Louisville researchers noted, however, that using a mask for more than four hours per day “promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk.”22 Other reported adverse effects include:23
Increase in headaches and sweating
Decreased cognitive precision
Association with medical errors
Interference with social learning in children
Obscured nonverbal communication
Distorted verbal speech
Removal of visual cues, which is detrimental to people with hearing loss
After a lawsuit was brought by Leslie Manookian’s Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle finally voided the CDC’s U.S. mask mandate on airplanes and public transit in April 2022.24 The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has appealed the court order,25however, making it clear that they don’t intend to give up on mask mandates without a fight. In response, HFDF issued the following statement:26
“DoJ’s statement [that it would appeal] is perplexing to say the least and sounds like it comes from health policy advocates not government lawyers. The ruling by the US District Court ruling is a matter of law, not CDC preference or an assessment of ‘current health conditions.’
If there is in fact a public health emergency with clear and irrefutable science supporting CDC’s mask mandate, does it not warrant urgent action? Why would DoJ and CDC not immediately appeal?
HFDF is left with no option but to conclude that the Mask Mandate is really a political matter and not at all about urgent public health issues or the demands of sound science. While DoJ and CDC play politics with Americans’ health and freedoms, HFDF trusts individual Americans to make their own health decisions.
HFDF is confident that Americans possess ample common sense and education to understand that there are real questions about mask efficacy and risk and that CDC’s policy reflects neither.”
You can support the Health Freedom Defense Fund and push back against the DoJ and CDC by taking to social media. Please follow and/or like the HFDF on the following platforms, share their content, and invite your followers to do the same:
Major European countries are now struggling to make allegedly temporary, emergency containment measures permanent features of society
Masks plainly don’t do anything and yet Germans will probably end up wearing them every winter for years because in this country we follow The Science, which is indistinguishable from indulging the hyperchondriac superstitious behaviours of elderly urbanites who watch too much state television.
Outdoor public events have been banned in an area of France as a record breaking heatwave sweeps across Europe.
In Gironde, officials said public events, including some of the official 18 June Resistance celebrations, will be prohibited from Friday at 14:00 “until the end of the heat wave”. Indoor events at venues without air-conditioning are also banned.
Private celebrations, such as weddings, will still be allowed.
“Everyone now faces a health risk”, local official Fabienne Buccio told France Bleu radio.
Federal government considers making masks compulsory in October
In preparing new infection control measures, the federal government is intensively discussing a general obligation to wear a mask beginning in October […] [P]art of the coalition government favours introducing a so-called “O-to-O” [“Oktober bis Ostern” – “October to Easter”] rule, which up to now has been known primarily to motorists, and which requires winter tyres on the roads between October and Easter. In future, a similar rule could apply to indoor mask mandates during this period.
In response to a question from WELT ON SUNDAY, the Chancellor’s Office said that such a rule was being considered among various possible regulations for upcoming amendments of the Infection Protection Act
A seasonal mask requirement would be an attempt to curb other respiratory infections besides Covid-19, supporters of the plan say.
The most destructive aspects of containment have been retired, but for what remains, they don’t even bother with Corona as an excuse anymore. All you need is a heat wave to ban mass gatherings in France now; public health officials just have to declare that “Everyone faces a health risk,” and that’s it, your right to assemble is voided. The lunatic German government, meanwhile, is feverishly trying to make masks a permanent feature of winter life, even if SARS-2 disappears tomorrow. Masks might “curb … respiratory infections,” and that’s all you need to mandate face coverings in a major central European country these days.
The depressing truth is that a lot of people – maybe twenty percent of all people – love these policies. We might’ve expected that of petty bureaucratic tyrants, but it’s increasingly clear that they’re joined by vast numbers of ordinary people.
I am so, so tired of masks, but more than that, I am sick to death of these unkillable zombie policies that we can apparently never get rid of, no matter how often or how thoroughly they’re discredited by common sense and empirical studies, no matter whether their original justification even applies anymore.
Despite a setback at the World Health Organization’s 75th annual meeting in Geneva in late May, the push to further empower the United Nations agency is moving ahead, remaining a major threat to U.S. national sovereignty and self-government, according to leading experts.
Following some minor changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR) approved at the recent WHO meeting, the U.N. health organization and its member governments are working on new, far-reaching amendments to the global rules. Those will be submitted in September.
At the same time, WHO leaders and member governments are also developing a new International Pandemic Treaty. The looming international agreement, which is still being drafted, is expected to hand vast new powers to the WHO if approved.
Both the amendments and the treaty being negotiated are aimed at empowering the WHO to fight global health crises such as pandemics, according to U.S. State Department and WHO officials.
However, American lawmakers at the state and federal levels are pushing back hard. Experts in international law and healthcare told The Epoch Times that the ultimate goal is to impose “medical tyranny” on humanity, not protect health.
“This is just another major totalitarian power grab by the CDC, the WHO, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the Biowarfare Industry, the People’s Republic of China, and others to impose their medical tyranny upon the human race,” said Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois.
Boyle, who wrote the 1989 legislation implementing the Biological Weapons Convention that was unanimously approved by Congress, said the WHO power grab needs to be opposed “at all costs,” urging U.S. lawmakers to get involved in stopping it now.
In an interview with The Epoch Times, Boyle did not hold back, calling the WHO a “criminal organization” that is “completely rotten, corrupt, and despicable.” He urged strongly against giving the WHO any more power or money.
“It is nothing more than a front organization for Pharma, the biowarfare industry, and Gates,” added Boyle, referring to billionaire co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates, saying it should be allowed to “rot on the vine” and then “twist slowly, slowly in the wind.”
The international law professor, who has worked on numerous high-profile cases, also argued that leading WHO officials should be considered for potential prosecution for crimes against humanity.
Among other concerns, Boyle pointed to the WHO’s sponsorship of the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology, which many suspect is the source of the outbreak of the global CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic, as well as the agency’s role in promoting COVID-19 vaccines, which he called “dangerous frankenshots.”
Boyle, who has been meeting with state prosecutors across America recommending indictments of key government officials, recently released the book “Resisting Medical Tyranny” making the legal case for prosecutions of senior U.S. officials behind what he called “criminal mandates.”
Now, Boyle is calling on U.S. senators to join forces against the WHO plan. To start with, he urged senators to create and circulate a letter saying they intend to reject any new WHO pandemic treaty that may come before them for ratification.
“Assuming you can get 34 senators to sign that Circular Letter, that would make the Pandemic Treaty Dead on Arrival here in the United States on its face alone,” Boyle said. “That then might kill off this WHO Pandemic Treaty in its infancy when next the [World Health Assembly] meets to consider it.”
The WHO Amendments
Without much media fanfare, WHO member states held the 75th World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva from May 22 through 27 to discuss major changes to the organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR).
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control describes the IHR as “legally binding.” The global health rules also played a major role in the coordinated worldwide response to the CCP virus pandemic.
The 13 amendments to the IHR were proposed in January by the Biden administration with the backing of almost 50 other governments.
Among other changes, the amendments would have further empowered the WHO and its director-general to declare international health emergencies, even without the approval of the targeted nation or government.
While ostensibly focused on health issues, governments around the world have increasingly argued that other issues, including climate change, gun violence, and racism, constitute public-health emergencies. Critics point out that this means almost anything could come under the purview of the WHO.
Lawmakers and activists across the country spent weeks sounding the alarm about the amendments before they were considered last month.
Critics referred to it as “dictatorial” and a “power grab” by the WHO and some of its leading members at the expense of the autonomy of nation-states.
Following public backlash, legal analysts and researchers following the developments said the latest bid to empower the WHO has been stopped—for now.
According to the U.S. State Department and the WHO, the main change made to the IHR at the summit was an amendment changing the length of time for future amendments to take effect from two years to one.
Also approved was the creation of a working group to help draft and consider more amendments.
“The United States supported these amendments and was pleased to see broad support for these procedural improvements at the WHA,” a spokesman for the U.S. State Department told The Epoch Times.
Senior U.S. officials and news reports in major media also gave the impression that this was a major step forward for the Biden administration’s agenda of even more aggressive changes.
For instance, Sheba Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, celebrated the changes as “a significant achievement.”
But independent investigative researcher James Roguski, a key figure behind the opposition to the WHO amendments, told The Epoch Times the Biden administration “got spanked” and was dealt a huge defeat.
“For the media to suggest that this is any kind of victory for Biden is ridiculous, it’s a lie,” he said, arguing that what happened was a victory for the sovereignty of nations and a blow to efforts to centralize more power at the WHO.
Roguski acknowledged that it was a “challenge” to find out what really happened. “That’s how they play this game,” he said.
He also argued that the threat is not gone.
“These people are incorrigible, they are relentless, they will never stop,” Roguski said, noting that the WHO was still pursuing amendments to the IHR to be considered going forward as well as the pandemic treaty being worked on this summer.
Both the WHO and the Biden administration also indicated that the effort to bring in reforms empowering the WHO was still moving forward.
“The United States will continue to discuss with other WHO member states proposed amendments designed to clarify early-warning triggers for international response to pandemic threats, promote rapid information sharing by countries and WHO, and improve WHO processes around determinations of public health emergencies,” the State Department spokesman said.
While the amendments did not get through this time, the communist Chinese regime did score some major victories. Among them: Beijing-backed WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was given another 5-year term at the helm, and Beijing secured a spot on the WHO’s Executive Board.
The International Pandemic Treaty
Even as governments work on new amendments to submit by September, they are also drafting a new International Pandemic Treaty that could be more significant still.
“This makes the amendments look like child’s play,” said Roguski, citing WHO language on “One Health, all of society approach.”
Boyle, the international law professor, said it seemed like the withdrawn IHR amendments might be simply rolled into the new pandemic treaty, as well as other policies aimed at making the WHO far more powerful.
In Congress, critics are also sounding the alarm about the treaty.
“The WHO’s radical ‘pandemic treaty’ is a dangerous globalist overreach,” said U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) while announcing a new bill to rein in the global agency. “The United States of America must never give more power to the WHO.”
“The WHO is a puppet for Xi Jinping, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and helped Beijing cover up the origins of COVID-19,” the senator continued, adding that public health policy for America should be decided by Americans rather than “globalist puppets working for Communist China.”
Leading WHO figures have been open about their desire to further empower the U.N. agency using the proposed pandemic treaty.
“We need stronger systems and tools,” opined WHO Director-General Tedros, who has proposed everything from sanctions on nations that defy the WHO to tighter controls over “misinformation” online.
Earlier this year, outlining his plans to the WHO Executive Committee, Tedros said it was a priority to “urgently strengthen WHO as the leading and directing authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture.”
“We are one world, we have one health, we are one WHO,” he added.
Entrenching the sort of policy responses prescribed by the WHO during the recent COVID crisis is also on the agenda, according to leading figures involved in the process.
“On an ongoing basis, every country must utilize all the public health tools available to curb transmission,” said former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, co-chair of the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, in recent comments about what the new agreement should accomplish. “That’s masking, it’s social distancing, it’s testing and contact tracing, it’s isolation and quarantine, it’s the proven menu for endeavoring to stop transmission of a disease.”
Clark and the pandemic panel also recommended vast new powers and authorities for the WHO, in addition to greater financial and political independence for the organization. The panel even called for the WHO to begin setting “benchmark” standards for national healthcare systems.
Clark did not respond to requests for comment from The Epoch Times by press time.
The State Department did not respond to questions about whether it would seek to add the Biden administration’s amendment proposals into the upcoming treaty, but confirmed to The Epoch Times that it was engaged in the process.
European governments have been more open about their views. The Council of the European Union, representing the body’s 27 member states, declared that the objective was a stronger WHO to serve “as the coordinating authority on global health matters.”
Meanwhile, the WHO downplayed its own role in the process. “WHO’s Member States will ultimately determine the goal of such an instrument,” a spokesman for the global agency told The Epoch Times.
According to the WHO spokesman, the agreement is expected “to promote global collaboration to prevent, prepare for and respond to crises in the future, and prevent a repeat of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The spokesman also said that it was expected that the agreement would “strengthen healthcare, starting at the community level,” while calling on the international community to “work together” to mitigate the impact of another virus like SARS-CoV-2.
End Goal: Global Tyranny?
Lawmakers, legal experts, and leading medical professionals are sounding the alarm about what they see as the ultimate objective of the WHO’s efforts: centralized global control over humanity.
Dr. Peter McCullough, chief of the Division of Nutrition and Preventive Medicine, and author John Leake, co-authors of the new book “The Courage to Face COVID-19 Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” warned that there were shadowy forces at work behind the scenes.
“The World Health Organization is a key component of what we refer to in our new book as the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” they said in emailed comments to The Epoch Times. “Akin to the ‘military-industrial complex’ that President Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell Address, the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex (whose agenda is set by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum) aspires to establish global, centralized government by way of public health policy, especially in response to emerging infectious diseases—real, perceived, exaggerated, and fabricated.”
Numerous other experts, doctors, and attorneys who spoke with The Epoch Times for this story also said the WHO was seeking to infringe on the rights of people under the guise of keeping them safe and healthy.
Political resistance is growing rapidly in the United States, too.
At the state level, lawmakers nationwide are in discussions about how to block the WHO’s moves in their jurisdictions.
The Kansas Senate passed a resolution that “strongly disapproved” of the organization’s efforts, saying they were aimed at usurping national sovereignty and placing the Unites States under “the control of an unelected international organization that is wholly unaccountable to the people of this country.”
In Washington, lawmakers are working as well. Bills that would defund the WHO and even withdraw the United States from the UN are gaining sponsors amid a growing public outcry over the WHO’s plans. Numerous members of the House and Senate, including the Freedom Caucus, have urged the Biden administration to resume the U.S. withdrawal initiated by President Donald Trump.
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been publicly warning that the WHO is trying to create a “world government” with the power to impose mandates similar to those used during the COVID pandemic.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is meeting this week to work on the pandemic treaty as the WHO works to engage “all stakeholders,” a WHO spokesman told The Epoch Times.
The goal is to have a draft of the proposed treaty by August.