Behold, a Trojan Horse

How the Pandemic Treaty Could Usher in a New Global Authority

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

The World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly will convene from May 21st through the 30th in the globalist Mecca of Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the proposed “pandemic treaty” as well as amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

Countless analysts have cautioned that the ratification of either, let alone both, would devastate or even completely strip away sovereignty from nation-states and place public health decision-making power in the hands of the WHO and its director-general.

Unsurprisingly, you have the Biden administration recently affirming its commitment to finalizing the treaty, and naturally, The Associated Press (AP) reported the treaty would “not threaten national sovereignty”, which is a huge red flag.

Despite the propagandists at AP’s attempts to shield their narrative, some experts warn the public should be more concerned about the proposed IHR amendments —which seem likely to be adopted— as they would give the WHO unprecedented power over national governments and override national sovereignty.

According to author and researcher James Roguski, these two proposals would morph the WHO from an advisory organization to a defacto world government whose edicts would become legally binding.

They also would greatly expand the scope and reach of the IHR, institute a system of global health certificates and “passports” and allow the WHO to mandate medical examinations, quarantine, and treatment.

Roguski said the proposed documents would give the WHO power over the means of production during a declared pandemic, call for the development of IHR infrastructure at “points of entry” (such as national borders), redirect billions of dollars to the “Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex” and remove mention of “respect for dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of people.”

In my films Global Coup D’etat vol 1 and 2, I lay the framework for how this global “pandemic response industrial complex” was molded and shaped over the last couple of decades to facilitate many agendas I won’t get into here, but most importantly, it creates one pathway to the fourth industrial revolution, or what Klaus Swab calls “ze Great Reset”.

I’ll elaborate.

It was a physician named Jonathan Latham who first introduced the phrase “Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex” during a lecture in January of 2021 on the various COVID-19 origin theories. He used the phrase to describe the academic, military, and commercial complexes that are driving the pandemic agenda and obscuring all facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus.

Just like the military-industrial complex, the pandemic virus industrial complex is a set of interlocking corporations and other institutions that feed off of and support each other in a self-reinforcing way.

That includes creating the very problem they are tasked with solving.

Back in 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, stated:

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Daszak has publicly boasted about manipulating a killer SARS-like virus in Wuhan [Clip start at 0:40] and has claimed to have been working with the US Central Intelligence Agency.

Interesting that the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR never once mention how there seem to be individuals who are very interested in creating bioweapons in US-funded labs across the world, and that maybe we should crack down on that rather than prepare for this purported inevitability. It’s almost as if these bioweapons are being intentionally manipulated and released for a variety of purposes, chief among them being the creation of a demand in the public for an over-arching institution above the governments of the world.

It sounds wild, but in so much drab, disarming language, that is EXACTLY what the Pandemic Treaty and IHR aim to do.

---

---

Need further proof?

Marion Koopmans, a Dutch virologist with the World Health Organization, has been a thorn in the side of WHO Director Tedros Ghebreyesus, one of the primary players in this “global health” system. Koopmans has accused the WHO of undermining her research into the origins of COVID. Most importantly, Koopmans claimed that the WHO has been planning on ten years of infectious diseases and that 2020 was only year one. 

[Rumble Clip]

Just recently, Anthony Fauci said that there would absolutely be another outbreak and that it could happen as soon as “next year”. His statement certainly lines up with what we just learned from Koopmans, and maybe another scare is just what the undiscerning public needs to embrace all the things that the globalists in Switzerland desperately want to push through, namely an entity above the US Government that force America to play ball.

Now, a huge problem is that aside from the AP assuring us that the treaty would “not threaten national sovereignty”, we are largely in the dark— partly because of the secrecy surrounding negotiations and partly because of the complex combination of domestic and international law that would have to come into play in order to strip U.S. sovereignty.

I may just be a paranoid citizen journalist who moonlights as a dangerous extremist, but I am not alone in my concerns.

“If these amendments and if this pandemic treaty are passed, then that would basically be the end of our national sovereignty,”

The above quote comes from lawyer Reggie Littlejohn, co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, agreed. He described the WHO’s proposed instruments as “an attempt to take over the United States of America by using the WHO as a front for that purpose.”

“This is being backed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bill Gates, the Chinese communist dictatorship, Big Pharma and the biowarfare industry,” Boyle said.

What could possibly go wrong?

Boyle, who has studied treaties going back to the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, said the pandemic treaty “will automatically come into effect immediately upon its signature,” adding that he knows of no such treaty in existence today that does this.

“You will have a medical global police state issuing orders all the way down here in the United States … contravening state local health authorities, your governor, your local attorney general, your local surgeon general, and contravening all your democratically elected officials to accomplish this.”

The IHR amendments, which haven’t received as much attention as the Treaty, but could prove just as dangerous, if not more so, would essentially give totalitarian dictatorial powers to Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus [WHO director-general.] Ghebreyesus would be empowered to “independently declare emergencies, and would grant the WHO “control over certain country resources.” Remember, this is the same man who undermined the investigation of Marion Koopmans at the outset of COVID-19. Seems like he might have had ulterior motives.

According to Reclaim the Net, the WHO, through the proposed IHR amendments, is “pushing to greatly expand its surveillance powers,” including requiring states to build “collaborative surveillance networks.”

“The unelected health agency also wants increased influence over the targeting of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’” via the proposed amendments.

According to the Brownstone Institute, the proposed amendments would “expand the definitions of pandemics [and] health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm” and would change the recommendations of the IHR for states “from ‘non-binding’ to mandatory.”

A total of 307 IHR amendments have been proposed thus far. On his blog, Roguski compiled a list of the top 10 reasons to oppose the amendments. These include:

• Changing the WHO “from an advisory organization … to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally binding.” (Articles 1 and 42)

• Removing language preserving “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)

• Giving the WHO “authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and treatment.” (Article 18)

• Instituting “a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format.” (multiple articles and annexes)

• Empowering the WHO’s Emergency Committee “to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures.” (Article 43)

Do yourselves a favor folks, and get familiar with the treaty and these amendments, it is something that we should not be sleeping on.

ADDENDUM

Additionally, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought that an international treaty required a super-majority vote by the U.S. Senate to be ratified. Further, and to quote from SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 354 U.S. 1 Reid v. Covert:

‘This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.’

In other words, should there be a conflict between an international treaty and the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution supersedes any ratified treaty.

SOURCES:

• https://www.activistpost.com/2023/05/is-who-a-front-organization-for-the-takeover-of-u-s-government.html

• https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-international-health-regulations/

• https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/fauci-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-there-will-absolutely-be-an-outbreak-of-another-pandemic-it-may-be-next-year/

• https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/update-biden-regime-confirms-commitment-to-legally-binding-agreement-which-will-surrender-u-s-pandemic-authority-to-chinese-backed-world-health-organization-for-generations-to-come/

• https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/end-of-american-sovereignty-biden-regime-negotiates-legally-binding-deal-to-give-chinese-backed-world-health-organization-full-authority-over-us-pandemic-policies-no-senate-approval-needed/

• https://nltimes.nl/2021/11/12/top-dutch-virologist-accuses-leader-undermining-covid-origins-research

• https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/993/text

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at Underground Newswire.