WHO vs First Amendment; White House to decide by May on ceding authority to global body

A war of attrition we have yet to recognize?

"[Biologist Bret] Weinstein delves into how the Covid pandemic led to exposing big pharma and its dependence on ill health rather than finding drugs that make us healthier. He also describes the demonization of alternative treatments like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and the overall health consequences and potential 17 million deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine.

“Tucker: So I’m not a math genius, but one [death] in eight hundred shots times billions is a lot of people . . . 17 million deaths from the COVID vaccine? Just for perspective. I mean, that’s like the death toll of a global war.” (Emphasis added.)

Podcaster and evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein recently sat down to an interview with Tucker Carlson. As reported by Margaret Flavin for the Epoch Times,[fn]Flavin, Margaret. “Tucker Carlson Drops Episode 60: Is the Lesson of the Covid Disaster That We Should Give Its Architects More Power? Bret Weinstein Explains the Who’s Plans for You.” The Gateway Pundit, 6 Jan. 2024, www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/tucker-carlson-drops-episode-60-is-lesson-covid/   [/fn] the two discussed the effects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and the troubling “WHO Pandemic Preparedness Plan” (as Weinstein calls it) to be voted on by member countries this coming May 2024. 

Weinstein calls out the demonization of those drugs and additional cases of malfeasance by Big Pharma and public health officials, such as: 

• Healthy children have little chance of benefiting from the COVID-19 vaccine while it destroys their immune systems and shortens their lives. Inexplicably, it is still being given to them even as the emergency, if there ever was one, is over. Weinstein explained:

. . . healthy kids don’t die of COVID. And the shot doesn’t prevent you from catching or transmitting it. So there was just literally no justification you could come up [with].

• Pharma executives are desensitized to causing people’s deaths with their products. 

. . . Pharma on a normal day is composed of people who have to become – even if they were doing their job exactly right – they have to be comfortable with causing a certain amount of death.  . . .  So once you have stepped on that slippery slope, though, once you have become comfortable with causing deaths, then I believe it becomes very easy to rationalize that the greater good is being served by X, Y or Z. . . 

A case in point, Weinstein says, is Pharma’s replacing an out-of-patent drug with a new, highly profitable one. The older one is a “known quantity”. We have experience with it and know something about its drug interactions and its safety profile. Unless there is clear evidence of benefit, we should always prefer the older drug, stating:

New is not better when it comes to molecules that you’re going to be taking into your biology.

Instead of recommending Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, two old and known drugs, as remedies for COVID-19, Remdesivir, a drug known for causing high rates of kidney and liver failure, and warp-speed developed vaccines were the COVID-19 remedies/therapies of choice recommended by public health officials and agencies. The FDA's failure to approve ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 therapies allowed the agency to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to Remdesivier, COVID-19 mRNA injections, and other new therapies. 

First Amendment protections on the chopping block? 

The most important issue, however, is what will happen to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should the United States sign on to the WHO's Pandemic Preparedness Plan.

A key element of this plan is at odds with the First Amendment protections, as the plan attempts to reduce resistance to future “epidemic” countermeasures. Specifically, since not everyone was COVID-19 vaccinated, many people were able to speak out against the “vaccines”, the harms of which became apparent to many. As such, Weinstein explains, the program didn’t go according to globalist plans so the WHO is working to eliminate that possibility in the future.

[Weinstein:] What I believe is going on is the World Health Organization is now revising the structures that allowed the dissidents to upend the narrative, and they are looking for a rematch. I think. What they want are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly. . . would you want to relive a pandemic like the COVID pandemic without the tools that allowed you to ultimately, in the end, see clearly that it didn’t make sense to take another one of these shots or to have your kids take. . . .  And something is quietly moving just out of sight in order that we will not have access to them the next time we face a serious emergency. . . .

Tucker: So you’re saying that an international health organization could just end the First Amendment in the United States? 

Bret Weinstein: Yes. And in fact, as much as this sounds, I know that it sounds preposterous, but.

Tucker: It does not sound preposterous.

[Weinstein] . . .  But they, the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will be allowed to define a public health emergency. Any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies. Remedies that are named include vaccines. Gene therapy technology is literally named in the the [sic] set of things that the World Health Organization is going to reserve the right to mandate, that it will be in a position to require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel, in other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted these technologies are clearly being described. 

It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications. So this looks like they’re preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine off the table. They also have reserved the ability. Dictate how these measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well, the right to dictate that. Of course, misinformation is how they’re going to describe it . . . (Emphases added.)

Who controls the outcome? 

Remaining questions include:

Have some of our First Amendment rights already been eroded? Has there been a dissolution of our religious freedom and freedom of speech since COVID-19 began? Countermeasures, as they were enacted in the U.S., such as houses of worship shuttered,  the government allowing only a certain number of worshippers at any given time,[fn]Caldwell, Zelda. “Covid on the Rise Again: Which States Now Protect Churches from Closure?” NCR, 18 Sept. 2023, www.ncregister.com/cna/covid-on-the-rise-again-which-states-now-protect-churches-from-closure [/fn] or being told not to sing in church,[fn]Parke, Caleb. “Outrage after California Bans Singing in Churches amid Coronavirus Pandemic.” FOX News Network, 6 July 2020, www.foxnews.com/us/california-singing-ban-church-coronavirus-restriction [/fn] along with the censorship and demonization of anyone who spoke against the narrative, certainly reek of government denial of First Amendment rights. 

Can the erosion of First Amendment protections be reversed? How can U.S. citizens block politicians from ceding those protections to a global agency?

How can U.S. citizens force the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to restore the full protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

 Watch the full interview here.