(LifeSiteNews) — With the power of some large scale bureaucracies arguably in retreat, a new concern emerges over a proposed global health surveillance state.
In an explosive post on Substack, independent researcher James Roguski details 100 reasons why we should halt the forthcoming transition of the World Health Organization (WHO) into an agency with the means to abolish freedom at every level.
Roguski’s main objections are to a WHO treaty which would undermine national sovereignty, removing personal freedom of choice and the right to privacy. The clock is ticking, as these measures are due to be ratified by the World Health Organization in May 2023. The shocking blueprint for a supra-governmental bureaucracy with the power to forcibly vaccinate and quarantine people sounds like a dystopian fantasy; it is one our leaders are keen to realize.
This agenda, which requires a simple majority of voting nations to pass, would grant the director general of the WHO an unprecedented range of powers. The current placeholder is Tedros Gebreyesus, an Ethiopian who has been described in his own country as a war criminal.
In a famous appeal, Nobel Prize nominee David Steinman accused the WHO leader of being guilty of crimes against humanity in his management of the Ethiopian security forces. This was one result of bestowing executive power on a health minister. The WHO proposes only to include input from “recognized stakeholders,” echoing a favored phrase of the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab.
READ: World Economic Forum insiders raise concerns about Klaus Schwab, say he’s ‘completely unaccountable’
Who would these stakeholders be? World leaders, naturally, but also organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Roguski argues. Plainly, those with such privileges would include people like Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, who personally helped to suppress the true origins of COVID-19. They would certainly include one Tony Blair, who called for a global digital vaccination database during an appearance at the 2023 World Economic Forum conference in Davos.
This is the World Health Organization which used its own platform to obfuscate the origins of COVID to benefit the Chinese Communist Party. The WHO dismissed and derided the notion that COVID had originated in a Chinese laboratory, a claim for which the evidence has always been compelling. Since the complete genomic sequencing of the coronavirus on January 29, 2020, at the Institut Pasteur in France, doubts have been raised as to whether certain sections of the virus could have occurred naturally. From medical journal The Lancet:
The presence of a furin cleavage motif at the SARS-CoV-2 S1–S2 interface is therefore highly unusual, leading to the smoking gun hypothesis of manipulation that has recently gained considerable attention as a possible origin of SARS-CoV-2.
It has now been conceded in another paper in The Lancet that this is in fact the most likely explanation for the sudden emergence of SARS-2-COVID. The Lancet, which as the world’s foremost medical journal can certainly count on its recognition as a WHO stakeholder, has its own shady form in shaping the narrative over COVID. Ian Birrell wrote:
Soon after the virus emerged, the journal published one of the most notorious scientific statements in recent history: a note by 27 experts attacking ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.’
This influential letter played a critical role in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that the pandemic might have begun with a lab incident.
The call to expand the power of global technocrats appears tone deaf to the damage done by the public health authorities and the scientific community in their dishonest manipulation of public behavior. Some of their decisions have ruined and even ended lives.
READ: Tony Blair tells WEF digital vaccine records are ‘important’ in preparing for the ‘next pandemic’
Their credibility of world leaders has suffered in their pursuit of lockdown policies toxic to mental and physical health, and which have wrecked our economies, to say nothing of the tyrannous attitudes surrounding information and freedom from unwanted medical treatments.
The proposed expansion of WHO powers will consign these unfortunate issues to the past, as individuals will have no say in whether they are vaccinated or not in future public health emergencies, just as nations will forfeit the right to direct their own responses to them.
Who will decide what constitutes an emergency, which will trigger the exercise of the new and unprecedented – i.e. borderless – powers of the WHO director? That will be for the director of the WHO to decide.
Roguski’s justifiably alarming piece identifies an attempt at gain-of-function in the operation of the WHO itself. Formerly an advisory body, it seeks billions more in funding to enforce its decisions, which in future will be legally binding. It wishes to shed its origins as a forum for cooperation over global health and, with the impetus of COVID, project itself into a future of near unlimited technocratic authority.
Every appeal to extend the shadow of state power over personal life is framed in the language of safety. Safetyism is a more dangerous and contagious disease than COVID, and it has already killed more people. It has infected the minds of those who continue to wear face masks everywhere, whether indoors or outdoors or alone in their cars. It is a worldview which seeks to make casualties of the rest of us.
This kind of will-to-power in large scale organizations cannot be entertained openly without the provocation in the public of a sense of emergency. Noises are made about future pandemics, but the real danger lies not with whichever disease next emerges from a laboratory which only “conspiracy theorists” can identify, but with an agency using fear as the springboard to establish a nightmarish abolition of privacy, bodily autonomy, and every basic human freedom.
The World Health Organization is seeking powers to silence anyone who questions its narrative in future. Its appalling track record in this regard is no impediment to its belief in its own mission to extinguish human rights for the greater good. It displays every vice of the large scale bureaucracy, accepting input only from its selected peers, and treating human scale interaction as some kind of attempted infection.
Our attempts to converse with this behemoth have been isolated and neutralized through public relations and information management. It is, like the World Economic Forum, a sinister organization with a smooth, expressionless public face.
In these technocratic dreams every human life is a data point to capture and to exploit. It is time to become a bug, and to refuse to be a feature, of their program.