The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on grains and have made headway in genetically engineered (GE) seafood. The next targets include lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes
Biomilq, made from cultured breast tissue, will be marketed as a breast milk substitute
The company Helaina is working on creating glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk.” Those proteins can then be added to a variety of infant formulas, seniors’ nutrition and, eventually, all sorts of foods
The justification for creating synthetic milk substitutes is, of course, preventing and reversing “climate change.” That’s the justification used to sell virtually all fake foods. In reality, however, they will perpetuate and worsen adverse effects on the environment
Lab-created foods are ultraprocessed and therefore qualify as junk food. Fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet
The starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product
The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on genetically engineered (GE) grains and have made headway in GE seafood. The next targets are lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes. There’s even a lab-made breast milk alternative on the way called Biomilq, which is made from cultured breast tissue.1
Another company, Helaina, aims to create glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk,”2 which can then be added to a variety of infant formulas. They may also be used in seniors’ nutrition and eventually, all sorts of foods.
Many familiar globalists are invested in these faux dairy ventures. Biomilq investors, for example, include Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Masayoshi Son, Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Marc Benioff.3
The first Biomilq product is expected to be ready for the market within the next three to five years.4 Other animal-free milk products are expected to hit the shelves sometime between 2023 and 2024.5,6 That includes ice cream made with lab-grown diary, which will go into Ben & Jerry’s product line.7
In the Environmental Health Symposium video above, Alan Lewis reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes by many names, including “gene edited fermentation” and “precision fermentation products.”
While that sounds fairly innocuous, synthetic biology manufacturers rarely ever discuss what goes into the feed they use to grow the target organism, or what happens to the waste at the end of the fermentation process. That’s understandable, as both raise a number of serious questions.
What Are the Base Ingredients?
As explained by Lewis, the starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with taxpayer subsidies, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product.
In addition to a base of sugars, hundreds of other ingredients may be added to the ferment in order to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.
As explained by Lewis, the most-often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E.coli. The E.coli is gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process. It also needs to be antibiotic-resistant, since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat.
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.
How Are Synthetic Biology Ferments Created?
As explained by Lewis, the various “feed” ingredients are placed in a fermentation bioreactor set at 87 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for anywhere from 24 to hundreds of hours to grow the target microorganism. The target organisms in the ferment consume the nutrients they need, and what’s left over after those organisms are extracted is hazardous biowaste.
Importantly, while traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produces waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the same cannot be said for these GMO synthetic biology ferments. The biowaste must first be deactivated, and then it must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill.
It’s important to realize that they are creating GMO organisms that have never existed on earth before, and these organisms and their waste are neither edible nor compostable, and there are unknown risks involved with unintentional or intentional release of these organisms into the environment.
They may also result in novel foodborne illnesses. And, since antibiotics are used to prevent the growth of undesirable organisms in the ferment, antibiotic-resistant organisms are automatically integrated into the final product. The types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited E.coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess at this point. Nobody knows what such illness might look like.
The Fake Justification for Fake Foods
The justification for creating synthetic biology for food, including milk substitutes, is to prevent and reverse “climate change.” As reported by CNBC in June 2020:8
“Biomilq co-founder and CEO Michelle Egger … and her co-founder, CSO Leila Strickland, hope that the breast milk produced by Biomilq from culturing mammary epithelial cells will help reduce the carbon footprint from the global infant formula market …
‘Right now, by the estimations we have been able to make, at least 10% of the dairy market globally ends up in infant formula,’ Eggers said. ‘That means per-infant-fed formula in the U.S., 5,700 metric tons of CO2 are produced, and 4,300 gallons of freshwater are consumed each year to feed a child. Parents want to do what’s best for their kids but shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their children and protecting the planet.'”
While the push for synthetic biology is built on the idea that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and monocultures, it’s incredibly misleading, because it doesn’t address the fact that there are environmentally beneficial ways to farm, and we really should switch to those instead of transitioning into factory laboratories where everything that comes out of it is a biohazard.
In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.9 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”
In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.
Oxygen and nutrients must also be adequately distributed to all the cells, something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.10
The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may actually be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.11,12
Repeat of a Failed System
Yet, the push for the creation of synthetic biology continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:13
“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.
Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, ‘farm free’ lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to ‘stuff’ that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”
Lab-Made Foods Are Junk Foods
It’s important to realize that all lab-created “foods” are ultraprocessed, and will likely impart the same kind of ill health effects as other ultraprocessed foods. In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly-processed nature of these products:14
“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.
For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.
Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”
Basically, what the globalist cabal is attempting to do is to eliminate conventional farming methods like raising cattle for beef and dairy products, and replace them with synthetic, patented reproductions. In short, they’re taking whole foods and turning them into ultraprocessed junk foods, all while trying to convince you the junk food is healthier for you.
Synthetic Biology Is Part of a Control Scheme
Aside from the potential health hazards, lab-grown foods rely on monocultured crops that destroy the soil, resulting in carbon release. So, right there, the climate change justification falls apart. Since synthetic biology relies on GMO monoculture, it creates the very things they claim to counteract: environmental degradation that results in climate change.
As noted by Lewis, synthetic biology, which is the latest addition to the patented, genetically modified organism (GMO) food system, also results in a “massive shift in ownership and concentration of wealth … and control over our food supply.”
In short, synthetic biology creates reliance on industry that can then be used to manipulate and control the population in any number of ways. In the long term, people will eventually lose the know-how of producing their own food using traditional methods, and this may well be part of the plan.
The globalist cabal intends to create a one world government, and what better control tool than having everyone completely dependent on the state for all of its food?
Protect Your Health by Avoiding Frankenfoods
The drive for plant-based alternatives to real animal food, be it meat or dairy, isn’t due to health, or even to support vegan or vegetarian diets. Those truly interested in eating a plant-based diet can do so by eating real plants, after all, and in so doing can enjoy the many health benefits that eating plant foods provides. No, it’s about creating a system of control through food. It’s also a way to control people’s health.
It’s already known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,15 but manufactured fake meat and dairy may also pose additional unknown risks.16 The benefactor of ill health, of course, is Big Pharma.
The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet. Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death.
The fact is, fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet. So, if you want to really protect your health and the environment, skip pseudofoods that require patents and stick to those found in nature instead.
Today we’re starting off with more news on the Respect for Marriage Act, which is being signed into law today. The Biden administration has invited a drag queen (who regularly performs for kids) to the signing, which further proves that this isn’t just about moderate marriage policies – it’s a part of the sexual revolution tied together with these other sexual agendas. Another person the Biden admin has hoisted up is Sam Brinton, the former deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition at the Department of Energy, who was recently caught multiple times stealing women’s luggage from airports. We discuss the news that he’s finally been fired. Then, we look at American Girl’s double down on its book promoting puberty blockers to young girls.
Today we’re joined by Care Net president and CEO Roland Warren to discuss his pro-life ministry and how Christians should respond to and take action on the issue of abortion. We talk about how Christians should engage with their friends and family who are hostile to the pro-life perspective and discuss how we should view the life issue through the lens of discipleship. Then, we talk about how churches and pastors need to invest in this issue as ministry and why it’s a huge problem when pastors think of the abortion issue as a political matter rather than ministry. Then, Roland shares his deeply personal story of what led him to advocate for men to step up in the face of unplanned pregnancies and why this is a game-changer for the issue.
Are You Ready for Forced Medical Interventions? With Bill Gates’ global takeover now official, the WHO, under the guise of coordinating and ensuring biosecurity, is gearing up to force you to undergo whatever medical intervention they deem to be in the best interest for all – and this includes any and all shots, vaccine passports and digital IDs.
The World Health Organization has become extraordinarily conflicted, primarily through its funding, and by serving corporate masters, it fails miserably at promoting global health
The WHO will form the foundation for a one world government, under the auspice of coordinating and ensuring global biosecurity. This becomes evident when you review the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) and the WHO Pandemic Treaty
The proposed IHR amendments will erase the concepts of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms from the equation. The first principle in Article 3 of the 2005 IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” The amendment strikes that sentence
Instead, international health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only. This means they can force you to undergo whatever medical intervention they deem to be in the best interest of the collective
The IHR amendments grant dictatorial powers to the WHO director-general and unelected regional directors. The WHO’s “recommendations” will be legally binding by all member states, and will supersede all national and state laws, including the U.S. Constitution
What is the World Health Organization, and what is it for, really? In the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) video above, Dr. Meryl Nass interviews investigative journalist James Corbett of The Corbett Report about the weaponization of the WHO. Nass also published a Substack with additional background information for this episode.
The WHO is actually a specialized agency within the United Nations. It was initially established in 1948 to “further international cooperation for improved public health conditions,” but we can now see that the long-term goal of the WHO is to serve as a foundation or hub for a one world government under the auspice of coordinating and ensuring global biosecurity.
This becomes self-evident when you review the proposed amendments1 to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and the new pandemic treaty, which Nass and Corbett review in the featured video.
Health Regulation Amendments Will Legalize Tyranny
In a December 16, 2022, Substack article,2 James Roguski also reviewed how a temporary crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) — which, by the way, is long since over — is being used by the WHO to seize permanent power.
Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:3,4,5
Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms — The first principle in Article 3 of the original IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now, health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only.
What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick, or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things.
Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best” for the collective.
Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed.
Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of individual rights and freedoms.
Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO — The director-general will have sole power to declare the beginning and end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures and vaccine requirements), and the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what drugs are to be manufactured and used.
These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws within member states, including the U.S. Constitution.
The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as “legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.
Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all other laws and Constitutional rights.
Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data, “where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts.
Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words, censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what “truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must enforce compliance.
Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of “health certificates,”6 i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport, in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social credit score.
Ever since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been infiltrated by industry. From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, industry has historically dictated the WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.7
In April 2020, then-President Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to the WHO,8 but then directed the U.S. funding for WHO to GAVI, which is a Gates controlled charity that likely just sent the funds to WHO. President Joe Biden restored U.S. funding once he took office.9
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary International.
Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget10 — that Politico in 2017 wrote a highly-critical article11 about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:
“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”12 “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.
A ‘One World’ Health Plan
In October 2022, the WHO announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which is made up of:
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH)
Beyond the amendments to the IHR, this initiative will also expand the WHO’s powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a centralized global superpower.
Decentralized health care and pandemic planning make sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being implemented.
While the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments expand and centralize power over human health with the WHO, the One Health Joint Plan expands the WHO’s power to also address “critical health threats” to animals, plants and the environment.
When you add that together with the planned elimination of human rights, you can see how the One Health Joint Plan can be used to enforce climate lockdowns, for example, or travel restrictions to protect wildlife or the environment. To learn more about this plan, see my previous article, “WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan.'”
Jeremy Farrar Selected To Be WHO’s Chief Scientist
December 13, 2022, the WHO announced that Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, has been chosen as its new chief scientist.13 The announcement came mere days after the publication of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s deposition transcript,14 which showed he and Farrar colluded to suppress discussion about SARS-CoV-2 origin.
In an op-ed for I News, columnist Ian Birrell warns that with Farrar as chief scientist for the WHO, our chances of ever getting to the truth about SARS-CoV-2’s origin becomes vanishingly small:15
“From the start, the world was failed by the World Health Organization. This UN body — run by a former minister in a repressive Ethiopian regime elected with Beijing’s help — praised China for ‘protecting the people of the world’ despite the dictatorship silencing whistleblowers, declining to share data and delaying to warn about human transmission …
It kowtowed to China with its ludicrous probe of the origins … Now the body has appointed Sir Jeremy Farrar … as next chief scientist. This is a scandalous decision given his central role in trying to seemingly stifle suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 … might not be a natural disease.
Science relies on openness. Yet the more that has emerged in emails, freedom of information requests, leaks and books exposing Farrar’s actions, the less confidence we can have in him holding a world-leading scientific role for all his undoubted expertise and political skills …
There are two issues in the origins debate … The first is the core question of the cause … The second issue smacks of something darker: a bid to cover up any possibility that controversial ‘gain of function’ research to boost infectivity — carried out in Wuhan, aided by Western funding — might lie behind the pandemic …
Gradually, drip by drip, it emerged that Farrar was helping lead a group of experts who colluded to crush suggestions the virus might be linked to research.
Less than a fortnight after China confirmed human transmission, the Wellcome chief hosted a teleconference at the behest of the American presidential adviser Anthony Fauci. It included … several participants who feared COVID might be tied to research.
Suddenly their views shifted from fearing the virus might be manufactured to dismissing such possibilities, despite lack of fresh data or firm evidence … [The] WHO is further undermining its credibility by handing such an influential post to a man embroiled in allegations of tarnishing the integrity of science on such an important quest.”
The Evil Genius of Pandemic Planning
At the same time the WHO is working on its power grab, Gates and other Great Reset allies are planning another pandemic to ensure that transition of power takes place. As you may recall, Event 201 was a pandemic table top exercise that “predicted” exactly what would happen during the real-world COVID pandemic that began three months later.
October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the WHO cohosted yet another exercise, this one dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”16,17 which involved a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25) that primarily kills children.
With that, we can already begin to predict what this next pandemic will revolve around. The COVID narrative was that we must obey irrational health rules so as not to kill grandma. The next round will likely involve getting children vaccinated with whatever new gene-based concoction they come up with.
Seeing how the COVID jab is now on the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule, we can also assume that the COVID jab will be increasingly pushed at the same time, in the name of “protecting our children.”
Of course, by the time the next pandemic is declared, the IHR will have been amended to eliminate human rights, freedoms and privacy from consideration, and the WHO Pandemic Treaty will have been signed, both of which grant the WHO absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide.
The WHO can then, through its pandemic powers, implement the next phases of The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution, which are rebranded terms for technocracy and the old “New World Order,” melded with the transhumanist (previously known as eugenicist) movement.
The WHO Is Tasked With Ushering in The Great Reset
As explained in “What You Need to Know About ‘The Great Reset,'” technocracy is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around technology — in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and Big Data collection — and the digitization of industry and government.
This in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for democratically elected leadership. While the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, they speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with nature and saving the planet (i.e., the Green agenda and Agenda 2030).
In “We Will Be Sacrificed for Global Standardization of Systems,” I review the self-proclaimed “ruling elite’s” plan to control everything on earth, from land, water and minerals to plants, animals, food, energy, information and human beings. This plan is known as the Agenda for the 21st Century, or simply Agenda 21.
This roadmap for global totalitarianism was agreed to by 179 nations, including the U.S., at the 1992 Sustainable Development conference, and we’ve seen various facets of this agenda being implemented throughout the last three years, under the cover of biosecurity and the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against rights of the community.” Community, however, in the mind of the globalists, is made up of NGOs, corporations and government, which are to dictate what happens around the world. The people are not really part of the equation.
So, the communitarianist philosophy of Agenda 21 and the IHR amendment that removes human rights and freedoms come together like two pieces of a puzzle. The WHO’s biosecurity powers can then be used to pave the way for the more freedom-robbing aspects of Agenda 21.
Take Action to Protect Your Freedom
It’s imperative that we protect our human rights and individual freedoms, and in order to do that, we must educate our Congressional representatives so that they understand the ramifications of going along with the WHO. A template letter that you can use was recently published by the Solari Report,18 copied below for your convenience.
[NAME OF AUTHOR(S)] [ADDRESS OF AUTHOR(S)] [EMAIL ADDRESS OF AUTHOR(S)] [TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHOR(S)]
Re: Your position on proposed WHO International Health Regulations amendments, and WHO and government overreach and propaganda regarding COVID inoculations and forced mandates.
Dear Senator/Congressman/woman _____________:
I am/we are [a] registered voter[s] within your district with grave concerns about what [I/we] have read and heard about proposed World Health Organization (WHO) “International Health Regulations” amendments. These amendments would transfer control of the conduct of pandemics to the WHO. According to leaked information on current negotiations, the amendments would, among other things:
Remove the word “non-binding,” thereby converting the regulations from recommendations to laws;
Remove clearly defined and understood words like “fundamental freedoms of persons” and “dignity,” instead substituting woke terms like “equity,” “diversity,” and “exclusivity,” thereby usurping rights previously granted;
Turn the WHO into a pandemic preparedness agency at the whopping cost of $60 billion (as compared with current cost of less than $4 billion); and
Require member nations to institute disease surveillance activities.
These International Health Regulations amendments are tantamount to a treaty, which should require approval by Congress by a two-thirds vote. However, it appears that proponents may be characterizing them as mere amendments to current regulations (which would require only a majority vote of the World Health Assembly) in order to try to circumvent the Congressional treaty approval requirement.
Note that the U.S. never actually ratified the most recent International Health Regulations amendments in 2005. It should go without saying that international treaties and sovereign immunity powers (which the WHO has) should not be permitted to override the Constitution or the authority of our Congress.
Below is a link to a Daily Sceptic article presenting a letter written to the U.K. Parliament by six organizations concerned with the proposed WHO power grab. It summarizes major concerns about the treaty as follows:
Overreach of WHO, a nongovernmental organization;
Conflicts of interest;
Loss of oversight;
Loss of nationhood;
Side-stepping of the democratic process;
Conflation of distinct global challenges.
[I/We] believe the International Health Regulations amendments advance the interests of a global elite in creating a technocracy — a virtual digital concentration camp — through national and international medical and other IDs, the “One Health” system, central bank digital currencies, and climate-change-related “sustainable development” and other mandates imposed by unelected technocrats.
The linked Daily Sceptic article is written in the context of the U.K. Parliament, but the threats to personal and national sovereignty in the U.S. are the same.
In a related development — “related” in the sense that it deals with government propaganda and censorship regarding the so-called COVID “pandemic” and efforts by CDC and WHO to present a false narrative to the American people regarding the safety and effectiveness of COVID and other proposed mRNA and other inoculations and to suppress the health dangers of the inoculations — The Epoch Times reveals (see link below) that the U.S. government used a secret Twitter portal to censor COVID-19 content that contradicted the government’s false narrative and engaged in similar censorship activities through Facebook, Google, and other social media platforms.
[I/We] urge you to take action to:
SCRUTINIZE WHO International Health Regulations amendment negotiations before it is too late and the proposals are “adopted” through unconstitutional means;
OPPOSE the proposed and any similar International Health Regulations amendments;
FORCE a Congressional vote on the proposed International Health Regulations amendments as a treaty; and
Consistent with revelations by Sen. Ron Johnson’s recent hearings on the subject of the so-called vaccines and injuries therefrom, REIGN IN the pharma-controlled FDA and CDC in their efforts to:
(a) force vaccine and other medical mandates on the American people,
(b) engage in propaganda that falsely portrays the mRNA and other inoculations as safe and effective,
(c) interfere with the doctor-patient relationship through nefarious schemes to silence and de-license doctors, pharmacists, and other health care providers who disagree with the false narrative and seek alternative, cheaper, and more effective treatments for Covid-19; and
(d) take further actions to shut down schools, businesses, and other activities of American life under the guise of fake, pre-planned, and engineered “pandemics” as a means of asserting government control and ushering in a Chinese-style social credit system.
Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters of great concern to what I/we believe is a vast majority of your constituents.