Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would constrain the controversial World Health Organization (WHO) “Pandemic Treaty” as an international treaty, resulting in it requiring a Senate supermajority to approve American participation.
The announcement was made on March 7 by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) who introduced the bill titled No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act to the now Republican-controlled House.
“This legislation would require any convention or agreement resulting from the work of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) intergovernmental negotiating body to be deemed a treaty, requiring the advice and consent of a supermajority of the Senate,” Tiffany’s announcement stated.
Rep. Tiffany noted that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) introduced an identical bill to the U.S. Senate in February.
Legislators are taking aim at an initiative launched by the WHO, who convened a Special Session of the World Health Assembly for only the second time in history in November of 2021 as global Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions and mandates, such as vaccine passports, lockdowns, mask edicts, including information warfare and censorship had reached their peak.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
The WHO’s website for the Special Session stated the purpose was to consider just one “single substantive agenda item,” which was the “benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.”
Documents for the Session released publicly by the WHO stated the idea was to create a “New Instrument” focusing “on pandemic preparedness and response,” which called for “structural solutions to promote a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
The “New Instrument” was also said to be “legally binding on States Parties that opt to ratify it.” The WHO promoted the characteristic as a win because “legally binding status offers the potential for greater sustained attention, both political and normative, to the critical issue of a pandemic preparedness and response, than a non-binding act.”
This verbiage was alarming to many netizens and various levels of society concerned about the growing encroachment on Democratic society’s normal freedoms and way of life through pandemic measures.
When the Special Session concluded, the WHO announced the initiative would be called The World Together and would be spearheaded by an “Intergovernmental Negotiating Body” (INB).
The INB has ceaselessly pushed forward since, with the most recent meeting running from Feb. 27 to March 3, which was part 1 of a roundtable on a “Zero Draft” of the actual treaty, which has been renamed to the “WHO CA+.”
The INB will convene again on March 14 and 15.
Official support for the ‘Pandemic Accord’
The INB is a project officially supported by the Joe Biden administration.
In October of 2022, the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva released a joint statement penned by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra declaring Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto as the U.S. Negotiator for the Pandemic Accord.
“Among its many impacts, the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced a crucial truth about threats to global health – they require rapid, effective, and sustained international cooperation,” the statement read.
It added, “This announcement reflects the commitment by the United States to take a whole-of-government approach to the negotiating process by putting into place a strong team, led by the Departments of State and Health and Human Services, with active engagement across U.S. departments and agencies responsible for development, security, economic, and other issues.”
But the HHS disputed the notion that the WHO’s pandemic accord would be “legally binding” in comments to Associated Press on Feb. 23, “The WHO has no such enforcement mechanisms, and its non-binding recommendations to member states are just that: non-binding. Any associated actions at the national level will remain reserved to sovereign states, including the United States.”
While the Zero Draft reduced its usage of the phrase “legally binding,” it does contain provisions that require signatories to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.”
In a Feb. 27 statement on the eve of the most recent meeting of the INB, Hamamoto reiterated that “The United States is committed to the Pandemic Accord,” stating its goal was to “form a major component of the global health architecture for generations to come.”
Although Hamamoto said the U.S. has “concerns about some of the language in the draft,” the specifics cited were limited to “allocations of domestic budgets or GDP” for funding economically challenged signatories.
Conflicts of interest
Rep. Tiffany was hawkish in comments to rightist messaging outlet Breitbart in an exclusive interview, stating, “The United States should be in charge of our own pandemic policy; we should never outsource that power to an international bureaucracy that behaves like a puppet of Communist China.”
The gentleman from Wisconsin does have a point. In March of 2020, the Government of Taiwan was ignored by the WHO when it attempted to inform the organization that there was evidence of an outbreak of a severe and dangerous disease in Wuhan.
“Taiwan is excluded from the WHO because China, which claims it as part of its territory, demands that third countries and international bodies do not treat it in any way that resembles how independent states are treated,” stated Financial Times on March 19, 2020.
At-the-time Taiwanese Vice President Chen Chien-jen told FT that “none of the information shared by our country’s [Centers for Disease Control] is being put up” on the WHO’s International Health Regulations website, described as a “framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31.”
Chen added, “The WHO could not obtain first-hand information to study and judge whether there was human-to-human transmission of Covid-19. This led it to announce human-to-human transmission with a delay, and an opportunity to raise the alert level both in China and the wider world was lost.”
In Q2 2021, the WHO sent a delegation to Wuhan to inspect the CCP’s Biosecurity Level 4 lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a hotbed of gain-of-function research conducted with heavy funding provided by the U.S. government.
But the delegation had significant conflicts of interest, composed of scientists who had been promoted by the WIV and being praised by the regime’s state media outlets during visits to the Institute dating as far back as 2015.
But most notable was the presence of EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, arguably the most prolific organization and individual for U.S.-funded gain of function research at the WIV inquiry.
The WHO was notable for having covered tracks for the Communist Party when it told the world on Twitter in mid January of 2020 that, “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
Yet the emergence of a serious pathogen in Wuhan has been long since known to date back to at least Q3 2019.
One of the more notable pieces of evidence was a whistleblower from the Canadian Armed Forces who told independent media outlet Rebel News that troops became peculiarly— and extremely—sick when returning home from the World Military Games—which was hosted in Wuhan City in October of 2019.
The claims were compounded by a May of 2022 article published by New York Post that stated athletes from the French Military suffered a very similar illness when returning from the Games.
