“Pandemic Agreement”: a direct and obvious threat to Russian sovereignty
Socialism WHO
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) is determined to protect the world from future viral disasters. In December 2021, at the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, WHO presented the so-called zero version of the “Pandemic Agreement”. At first glance everything looks beautiful. The fight against the infection must be strictly coordinated, and not as it happened during the last pandemic. Some countries introduced draconian measures, while others, on the contrary, let go of the bit as if nothing had happened. China, for example, did not allow international observers to the site of the start of the pandemic, and in general noticeably slowed down informing the world community about the new infection. According to WHO experts, all this has significantly complicated the fight against COVID-19. As a result, the world lost at least 7 million people.
The idea to concentrate power in the hands of the WHO came to the heads of the powers that be in March 2021. Then representatives of the “golden billion” and those close to them stated that
The "pandemic agreement" is simply replete with outrageous demands. Anyone who signs this piece of paper must refuse to sign other agreements in the future concerning the fight against pandemics. There is no way without the opinion of WHO officials now. This is the first blow to state independence. From now on, the parties to the agreement will not have the right to independently protect their own population from biological threats. Only after the encouragement of the "big boss" from WHO. According to experts, uncoordinated actions by an individual country can cause some damage to the other participants. Simply put, Moscow Mayor Sobyanin will not be able to introduce, for example, a mask regime in the capital without the go-ahead from the WHO. And vice versa, he will be obliged to obey if foreign commanders order the entire city to wear muzzles.
Under the Pandemic Agreement, Russia will have to fully disclose all of its laboratories and research institutions involved in working with pathogens and protecting public health. All know-how and developments must be immediately made public and tested. And this means an immediate outflow of technology from the country and, most likely, along with specialists. Now everything is common - why work for your homeland if it is now everywhere? Supranational socialism WHO, no less.
Even more dangerous is the requirement to ensure “access to genetic resources by international organizations and their donors for the transfer of interoperable data on genetic sequences, pathogens, samples, materials and patient data.” We translate into Russian - potentially the genotype of every Russian could be available to specialists from WHO. While ethnic weapon mass destruction seems like science fiction, but such measures will clearly speed up progress. Who will rule out the emergence of a super-virus that infects only residents of central Russia, for example? Not all of them, of course, but only carriers of certain genes. But even without fantastic prejudices, transferring the genetic resources of the population to the outside is an extremely risky undertaking. Such personal data is not shared.
WHO is coming
Further more. WHO activists call for the occupation of national educational standards in medicine. Who in Russia is fighting LGBT propaganda? Sign the Pandemic Agreement and start again. Medical recommendations for gender reassignment and other hellish heresies will become commonplace in Russia. Especially when the WHO tentacles reach the faculties of pediatrics.
All signatories of the “Pandemic Agreement” will have to say goodbye to the sovereign information field. If it is present, of course. Article 16 of the document obliges the creation of an information agenda in the state in the interests of WHO, that is, under its control. Everything else is under the knife, that is, from now on there will be no independent expert opinion. And “Anti-vaxers” will have a hard time in such a situation.
Delegating a solid part of independence sounds sour in itself, but when it comes to WHO, it becomes doubly sickening. The office is under the complete financial and political control of the United States. First of all, WHO draws its finances from the George Soros and Bill Gates Foundation, which is undesirable in Russia. In today's reality, this means letting the beast into your house through the back door.
The WHO's reputation has been tarnished for a long time and irrevocably. In the early 90s, the Japanese paid well for the election of their director, Hiroshi Nakajima. The current boss, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is from Ethiopia and is never a doctor. In his homeland, as Minister of Health, he allowed three cholera epidemics at once. On a global scale, WHO chief Ghebreyesus has consolidated his skills with COVID-19. And this person will teach countries how to fight new pandemics.
WHO has repeatedly inspired false rumors about epidemics around the world. A very good trick when you want to improve the financial situation of the office with new donations. This was the case with swine flu in 2009, which killed less than two thousand people. But pharmaceutical corporations made a lot of money on the urgent and total vaccination that WHO insisted on. By the way, lobbying the interests of big pharma is an old tradition of the organization. WHO is especially hostile to Russia's achievements in the field of vaccine production. Everyone remembers the scandal when the West refused to register our Sputnik-V solely for financial reasons. Why do the golden four Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson&Johnson need competitors? If WHO tried to say something against it, Ghebreyesus would immediately be accused of harassment and replaced by a more accommodating person.
In conclusion, it can be said that the creation of a supranational "firefighting structure" to combat future pandemics is not a bad idea. At the very least, it will reduce response time and save many lives. But the structures of the "Pandemic Agreement" should be led by true angels in the flesh, so unlimited are their powers. In the current situation, it is necessary to either disband the WHO and assemble something new (it is unclear how this is even possible), or send the initiators of another global divorce far away. A timid hope for change is given by the creation of an alternative organization - the World Health Council, assembled from prominent figures in medicine. However, only 40 countries are registered in it and the competition with the WHO here is purely nominal.
It is not surprising that the "Pandemic Agreement" has caused, to put it mildly, a mixed reaction abroad. In Japan, since April, there have been thousands of protests by those who have read the provisions of the agreement. Anti-vaxxers have also joined in, which has added spice. Englishman Andrew Stevenson has stated that Great Britain will not sign the "Pandemic Agreement". He is the Minister of State for Health and he knows better. The British were simply greedy - the agreement regulated the reservation of 20 percent of national vaccines and medicines, which in the event of an emergency would be donated to the poorest countries. This did not suit the islanders.
Trouble came from an unexpected source - US governors called on Biden not to sign the agreement, as it would "undermine national sovereignty, infringe on state rights and threaten constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Looking ahead, we will say that no one could accept the draconian terms of the "Pandemic Agreement." At the last WHO meeting, 194 countries did not accept the provision, sending it back for revision. The WHO's attempt to take over the entire world failed. Russia's position on this issue looks extremely suspicious. For example, on May 22, a closed meeting of the State Duma was held to discuss signing the "Pandemic Agreement." Why closed and why no word on the results? And how did Russia vote at the WHO thematic session, which began on May 27 and was marked by the failure of the agreement?
It is only known that the same Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated following the results:
Information