The Constitution's last stand?

What we have here is a situation of an organization, a non-governmental organization, really. It poses as if it has the authorization of the world government. And it executes treaties with other entities. But the World Health Organization. . .  has largely been captured by the CCP, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who has provided substantial funding. . . . in its current embodiment, it’s a deeply corrupted organization.

It went through a period a few years ago of a relative deficit of funding. And one of the consequences of that was that it had to restructure its activities. And I can tell you personally from my own experience, as well as from what I’ve learned from many others, the W.H.O. has decided on a business model in which it solicits donations from Pharma. And those donations can come in the form of direct capital or full-time employees that are subsidized by Pharma and placed in positions of influence and directorships. Et cetera. Within the World Health Organization. So, they’re relying on capital from the CCP, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and from Pharma to support their ongoing activities. . . . (Emphases added.)

Dr. Robert Malone in a webinar titled “WHO’S ON FIRST AT THE WHO. THE CCP RUNS IT – AND WE MUST LEAVE IT” by the Committee on the Present Danger: China

China, Gates, and Pharma run the WHO??

China supported both WHO Director-General Tedros Adhonom Ghebreyesus and his predecessor, Margaret Chan in their bids for the position. Tedros had a relationship with China before being supported by the CCP while China approached Chan and suggested that she vie for the position. Both have fulfilled China's expectations of promoting its Marxist ideology in the WHO.

While it can then be understood how China has garnered influence in the WHO through the office of the director-general, is that the only means of influence it has? And, how exactly do Bill Gates and Big Pharma influence it, as Dr. Malone stated?

Chan — Funding the WHO by putting her hand out

As Chan explained during her tenure, member states contributed only 30% of the WHO's budget. For the other 70%, she had “to take a hat and go around the world to beg for money." Those donations come with strings attached — non-state donors can earmark their contributions for pet projects and personal interests.

WHO’s second-largest donor considers a strong China to be a “win”

Since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest contributor to the WHO,^[1] and many other donors to the globalist body are funded by the Foundation, Gates effectively controls much of the WHO's operations through the way he earmarks his donations.

Gates, as reported by Forbes' staff writer Russel Flannery, sees China’s rise as a “win for the world” and is disappointed that the U.S. does not share his sentiments.^[2] The Chinese have benefited greatly from a long-time relationship with Gates and from his largesse.

Gates elected to Chinese Academy of Engineering

In 2017, Gates was elected to the Chinese Academy of Engineering, China’s highest honor in the field of engineering — one of China’s highest academic honors, as reported by Cui Jia for China Daily: ^[3]

Gates was nominated for his work at TerraPower, a nuclear reactor design company he helped establish in 2008.

In late 2015, the company signed a deal with China National Nuclear Corp to build a reactor unit in Fujian province. The project is scheduled to start next year and be completed in 2025.

Gates funding drug discovery research at Chinese nuclear and military research university

More recently, in June 2023 Gates went to China and gave $50 million to a Chinese university for nuclear weapon and military research and met with Xi Jinping the following day. As stated by The Washington Free Beacon:^[4] Jinping, who has a degree in Marxist theory from that same university called Gates “an old friend:”

Xi called Gates "an old friend" during the meeting at Beijing's Diaoyutai state guest house, where China's leaders have traditionally received senior foreign visitors. The Friday encounter was Xi's first meeting with a foreign entrepreneur in years and came just one day after Gates announced a $50 million research partnership with Tsinghua University, which trains students for China's nuclear weapons program, holds "secret-level security credentials" for classified military research, and has allegedly carried out cyberattacks for the Chinese government, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Gates through his collaboration with Tsinghua will carry out drug discovery research, which involves studying potent viruses.

Xi, who graduated from Tsinghua in 2002 with a degree in Marxist theory, said during the meeting he was very happy to see the Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist after three years and that Gates was the first American friend he had met this year. (Emphases added.)

Pharma's influence on the WHO enabled by Gates

Pharma’s cash contributions (not including pharma-related medical and health-related companies and organizations), which amounted to upwards of $11 million in 2021-2022,^[5] are augmented by Schedule 5 in-kind and in-service contributions^[6] and a tremendous amount of unseen influence on the organization.

Gates, whose primary focus is vaccines, has helped increase Pharma's influence on the WHO. A 2012 DW article by Andreas Zumach highlighted the WHO’s “growing dependence on the pharmaceutical industry.”^[7]

At that time, Zumach stated, 30% of the WHO’s funding came from private donors and voluntary government grants [by 2022 that figure rose to 88%^[8]], much of the money comes from countries with a big pharmaceutical presence, as well as commercial interests that have a growing influence on the WHO's goals and strategies, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to managing director of the medical relief organization Medico International Thomas Gebauer, who noted that:

Gates has also made a fortune from defending intellectual property rights . . . His foundation prefers to support patented medicines and vaccines instead of promoting freely accessible and less expensive generic products. (Emphasis added.)

Gauber stated that WHO's promoting patented vaccination programs benefits Pharma and their shareholders:

If Gates brings WHO to back such patented vaccination programs, both vaccine producers and their shareholders, like the Gates Foundation, stand to benefit . . .

We can see how accurate a prediction that was. Gates, who funds vaccine development explained, in an interview with CNBC,^[9] that vaccines are a cash cow for him. Some say that he was only referring to the return on the investment that society as a whole received. However, The Nation notes that it was unknown whether Gates would "end up delivering a financial windfall to Bill Gates or his foundation"^[10]

If the pandemic does end up delivering a financial windfall to Bill Gates or his foundation, it may pale in comparison to the political boost he’s received as Earth’s de facto vaccine czar.

Pharma behind pandemic declaration

More direct influence can be seen in the vaccine committee that advises the WHO, in which some members are pharma consultants. For Chan to declare the H1N1 flu a pandemic, as vaccine committee scientists advised, she had to “lower the criteria for pandemic alerts,” as Zumach wrote:

The H1N1 "swine flu" influenza showed just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry and its supporting foundations actually have. In June 2009, WHO was advised by its standing vaccination committee to issue its highest alert for the H1N1 pandemic.

Among the members and consultants of the commission were scientists who had contracts with the manufacturers of Tamiflu and other "anti-flu" drugs. The global vaccination program that WHO set in motion with its pandemic alert turned into a billion-dollar business for these companies.

For a "perfectly ordinary flu" to escalate into a dangerous pandemic, WHO lowered the criteria for pandemic alerts before the first case of H1N1 had been known, according to the Council of Europe. Also, health officials around the world committed contractually to purchases with vaccine manufacturers. (Emphases added.)

Alison Katz, having worked for 18 years in the WHO’s Geneva headquarters, related that the WHO outsources its core public health policy and financing tasks. She said that this removes oversight of the WHO and provides opportunities for organizations to offer pharmaceutical solutions that profit the drug industry rather than preventive measures that do not generate profits for companies, Zumach reported.

WHO non-profit's anonymous donors

In 2020 the World Health Organization opened a non-profit foundation to solicit donations for the agency. According to an Associated Press report carried by the U.S. News and World Report,^[11] 40% of the donors are anonymous raising concerns that they may be trying to influence the agency.

WHO Foundation CEO Anil Soni, who has not only worked with major global health organizations like [WHO donors] the Global Fund and the Clinton Health Access Initiative but most recently worked for eight years with the pharmaceutical company Viatris, states that the Foundation’s board, which includes a WHO representative, knows the identities of the anonymous donors and will not accept a gift if there is a conflict of interest.

Pharma circumvents rules with patient groups

A major concern has been whether the WHO uses patient groups as conduits for unallowed pharma donations. A 2006 email correspondence between the WHO and GSK, leaked to the BMJ, seemed to detail just such an occurrence. BMJ freelance journalist Michael Day reported on it, stating:^[12]

[Director of WHO's department of mental health and substance abuse] Dr [Benedetto] Saraceno . . . seems to advise Mary Baker on how to get round the WHO's rules forbidding drug industry funding. “Unfortunately,” he says, “WHO cannot receive funds from pharmaceutical industry. Our legal Office will reject the donation. WHO can only receive funds from Government agencies, NGOs, foundations and scientific institutions or professional organisations. Therefore, I suggest that this money should be given to EPDA and eventually EPDA can send the funds to WHO which will give an invoice (and acknowledge contribution) to EPDA, but not to GSK.”

He adds: “This is in line with what we have done so far with other contributions to the report which all are coming from other professional organisations,” — suggesting that less than transparent transactions were the norm for this fundraising operation. (Emphases added.)

Hidden sources of potential pharmaceutical influence at the WHO also come in the form of donations from organizations such as the World Diabetes Foundation^[13] which receives substantial funding from Novo Nordisk and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.^[14]

This begs the question: To whom will countries that sign the pandemic treaty be answering in reality?

WHO: ‘The CCP runs it - and we must leave it’

To better understand exactly how the U.S. is poised to cede its authority to the WHO — and China —  The Committee on the Present Danger: China’s webinar Who’s on First at the WHO: The CCP Runs It – and We Must Leave It ^[15] explains it very clearly. Presenter Jonathan Emord, a constitutional attorney and former lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission remarked that they must fight Biden's attempt to “wed” the United States to the WHO's agenda, whether by giving over power to them or by just following their directives; the Bill of Rights does not say that separate rules operate when there is an emergency.

Jonathan Emord: . . . And there are innumerable ways in which Republicans should be standing up and fighting against this president and his attempt to wed us to a World Health Organization agenda that is largely dictated by our enemy, by the communist Chinese. If we fail to protect our Constitution and our national sovereignty, as well as our individual sovereignty, the game is up. And whether that is done by turning over power to the World Health Organization or just by Biden adhering to the World Health Organization’s dictates, as are themselves largely the byproduct of a complicity with the communist Chinese.

We are effectively losing our liberty, and there can be no more precious liberty than your liberty over your own body, over what is done to your body in the course of a pandemic or any other disease in which the nation must rally around our Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, for example, and of our constitutional separation of powers is designed to have resiliency in the midst of a crisis. It’s not meant to be forfeited in a crisis. And a crisis is no justification for a denial of your civil liberties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide an escape clause for authoritarianism, where suddenly an authoritarian state can be erected whenever there is a Rahm Emanuel-style crisis identified. This is but one instance, but a profound one in which our freedom is once again at stake. We have the duty as a people who love liberty and who believe in the Constitution of the United States to not allow a president of the United States who has abdicated his role under the Constitution to take this country and draw it down into a situation in which we become serfs or slaves to the dictates of an international organization like W.H.O. (Emphases added.)

Emord explains that the issue is even worse when realizing how great the CCP's influence is over the WHO, stating that the agency has been captured by the U.S.'s enemies. His solution is for the U.S. to leave the WHO as fast as possible.

That is even made more profound when we understand just how heavy the influence of communist China is over W.H.O. and our recent experience with the pandemic response.

So, this is when we talk about the World Health Organization, we talk about an entity that is largely a captive of our enemies. We should not be a part or funding or participating in this entity, or any entity that is a proxy for the authoritarian will of our enemies. We should instead be honest with the American people, tell them what this is, and ensure that we get out of it as fast as we possibly can. Every means necessary needs to be done to do that, and so any attempt to do the contrary should be viewed by freedom loving people as a direct threat to their sovereignty. Let there be no mistake about this. (Emphases added.)

Read the transcript here.

Do you know how your state's representatives stand on protecting constitutional freedoms from encroachment by the WHO and its sponsors?

Related articles:

• Don’t just reject the Pandemic Treaty – Get US Out! Of the WHO
• 'Greatest single threat to the sovereignty of our constitutional republic' - Congressmen warn about WHO treaty
• Emergency response or planned takeover? WHO Pandemic Treaty
• WHO vs First Amendment; White House to decide by May on ceding authority to global body
• Fact Check: Does leaked WHO document reveal hidden, scripted answers to vaccine deaths?
• Biden may bypass Senate for WHO power transfer
• Senators oppose Biden transferring pandemic powers to WHO
• 46 senators now support bill requiring senate approval for WHO pandemic 'treaty'
• Australian Senator attacks WHO for keeping 83 rapists and molesters on staff, all answering to terrorist chief
• Senate won't force Biden to bring WHO Pandemic Treaty to vote
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 3
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 2
• Beholden to China . . . WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - Part 1

June 2023 WHO pandemic treaty negotiations:

• Countries set out way forward for continued negotiations on global agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) session 1 - June 6, 2023
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) session 2 - June 6, 2023
• WHO INB (International Negotiating Board) closing session- June 16, 2023

‍