Bypassing Democracy
One of the primary reasons to have a democracy is that the citizenry can be relied upon to vote against policies that go too far against their interests. Since there are so many abhorrent agendas being pushed forward within the pandemic treaty, the treaty could never be approved without “undemocratic” tactics being employed to push it through.
Cloaking the Agenda:
Throughout
this series, I’ve tried to illustrate how progressive euphemisms
(doublespeak) are being used to conceal very malicious policies. While
this tactic typically works (which is why the mainstream media
continually uses it), because of how many eyes are on the pandemic
treaty, many people are slowly becoming aware of what those euphemisms
actually mean, and this collective awareness is proving itself to be the most effective tool for destroying the treaty.
In addition to deceptive euphemisms (e.g., using “peaceful” terminology to describe the bioweapons research the treaty requires), some of the other tactics being used to conceal what is in the treaty include:
•Having the treaty documents contradict each other (e.g., in one place it says the WHO can’t do something, while in another place which supersedes the previous one it says it can). This allows the treaty advocates to point to the first instance but not the second and hence falsely suggest the treaty does not also contain its reprehensible provisions.
•Having
the WHO’s plan be extremely difficult to understand, as it involves two
separate legal documents (a treaty and amendments to the International
Health Regulations) that need to be pieced together. Much of the
language within each is complex and contradictory so most people (myself
included) will struggle to make sense of what they actually mean and
which statement takes priority under which situation.
•Continually
change the name of the treaty with each draft so it’s difficult for
independent researchers to even find the right document (most recently,
the treaty was referred to as the “pandemic agreement”).
•Not allowing the public to see what is within the current version of the amendments until shortly before it will be voted on in May (this is similar to how many bills are pushed through Congress and only made available at the last minute so legislators cannot possibly read through them before voting on them).
Note: to support these tactics, WHO officials such as the WHO’s Director-General insist again and again that nothing “bad” is in the treaty. In turn, they are becoming increasingly flustered by the fact the public is waking up to their lies (e.g., now they are stating a “torrent of fake news” is putting the treaty at risk). This I would argue goes hand in hand with the fact the WHO’s chief was accused of crimes against humanity in his conduct as Ethiopia’s Health Minister prior to joining the WHO.
Finally, the WHO’s constitution permits the organization to conduct either “consensus procedures” or secret ballots, avoiding a roll call vote, so that no one will ever know how each diplomat voted—a technique that is frequently used to remove accountability and to push through unpopular measures the electorate would never support.
Usurping National Sovereignty
One of major debates in international law is the question of when exactly when an
international treaty supersedes national (or state) law. Since the
underlying purpose of the WHO’s pandemic treaty is to provide a
mechanism to bypass populist resistance against the WHO’s edicts, the
treaty is attempting to supersede local law, and as the previous section
shows, do so in secret so local legislators don’t realize what has
been agreed to until the treaty’s “emergency” pandemic provisions kick
in.
For example, to quote an international lawyer and a former WHO physician scientist:
A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:
1. The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
2. The WHO Director General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied [remember that they apply to both “pandemics” and “other health hazards”].3. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
Note: these powers include controlling where people can travel, forcing them to quarantine, implementing contact tracing, and mandating treatment or vaccination. Furthermore, many of the treaty’s provisions also violate existing laws (e.g., mass surveillance which violates basic medical privacy protections, taking away intellectual property rights from members of signatory nations, and as mentioned before, encouraging GoF research which violates the 1972 Biological Weapons Treaty).
Likewise, recently, 8 members of Europe’s parliament (from 5 different nations) contacted the EMA (Europe’s FDA) and cited numerous valid points to request it rescind the emergency authorizations for the COVID vaccine (e.g., that there was no longer an emergency, that the newly authorized vaccines were never tested on humans, along with many now-known issues with the vaccines). The EMA (which controls what pharmaceuticals are used throughout Europe) chose to dismiss every single point which was raised to them.
This
in turn again illustrates how problematic it is when a large
(corrupted) international organization is allowed to supersede health
policies determined at a more local level (e.g., by a national
government).
Note: another major issue is that
many of the unelected bureaucrats within our governments have
significant conflicts of interest that are causing them to also support
the One Health agenda. Because of this, in addition to promoting the
pandemic treaty, they are trying to bypass the democratic process to
push the treaty through (e.g., US and Australian officials, like the
WHO’s leadership, are overtly lying about what is in the treaty.
Violating the WHO’s Constitution
One of the most common strategies lawyers use to resolve a dispute for their client is by pointing out how an organization violated its own rules when acting against their client. In turn, one of the more surprising aspects of the WHO’s treaty is how frequently its implementation has involved policy and procedural violations (which I believe again is illustrative of just how far its advocates are willing to go to push it forward).
Some of the procedural issues include:
•A reservation made to the WHO’s constitution in
1948 affirms that for the USA the WHO's dictates hold sway over the
federal government but not necessarily the individual states, due to the
10th Amendment to the US Constitution. So while the intent of the
treaty is to force everyone around the world to believe they have to
comply with it, the situation is actually much more similar to what we
saw throughout COVID-19, where the Federal Government provided
“guidance” for states to follow (e.g., lots of lockdowns and testing)
but the individual states had the option to ignore those “guidelines.”
During COVID, only a few did (e.g., Florida and South Dakota) but it is
likely, due to the changing political climate, that far more would now.
•The WHO claimed a
vote to approve some of its new (and egregious) amendments happened in
May 2022 but has failed to provide proof that vote ever happened (even
when asked to by 12 members of Europe’s parliament last November).
•As
mentioned before, the WHO has failed to reveal anything about
the proposed amendments to its international health regulations since
November 2022, even though they have been continuously negotiated since
then. Likewise this means the WHO is not followed its existing rules which had require public drafts of the new amendments to be viewable four months prior to being voted on.
•The WHO has covertly allowed
“stakeholders” like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to sit at the
negotiating table, even though foundations that donate to the WHO are
not parties to the health regulations nor members of the WHO who shoul/d
be negociating the treaty.
Meryl Nass
Meryl Nass MD is a quiet and unassuming country doctor who lives in an inconspicuous house in rural Maine and loves to garden. Simultaneously, she has been unwilling to back down when she feels something unethical is occurring, and has thus been a thorn in the medical-industrial complex’s side for decades.
For
example, in the 1990s, the military created an experimental (and
uneeded) anthrax vaccine which was mandated on our servicemen. This vaccine was a disaster,
but despite the fact it severely injured potentially hundreds of
thousands its recipients, the military continued to mandate it.
Eventually, this led to a congressional investigation, during which
Meryl volunteered a lot of her time to testify and work with the
investigators, which ultimately led to clear proof of the military’s
misconduct being uncovered (which she shared with me while I was writing a series covering those events).
Note: the anthrax vaccine disaster (as so many were affected by “Gulf War Syndrome”) led to a a law
being passed which prohibited members of the military from being forced
to receive an experimental vaccine (which tragically was disregarded
when the military mandated the COVID-19 vaccine on its members).
Once COVID began, Meryl began treating many of her COVID patients with the repurposed drug protocols (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) and continued to do so even after her state moved to protect business interests by cracking down on anyone using off-patent therapies to treat the disease. Meryl of course spoke out against this as she could see restricting the access to those therapies was killing people.
Once the COVID vaccines hit the market, Meryl quickly realized how many problems they were going to cause and began speaking out against the vaccines. At this point, the medical industry decided they needed to make an example out of her, and chose to do so by moving to revoke her medical license.
Since there was no good justification for doing so, this required putting forward a series of ridiculous charges and denying Meryl the normal due process afforded to doctors being investigated by the medical board. After this happened, 13 members of Maine’s legislature (and soon after 9 more) signed a letter to the state medical board protesting the medical board’s conduct. While I have seen many medical dissidents be unfairly persecuted by the medical board, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never seen the board’s conduct be so egregious that the state legislature felt compelled to protest it.
Ironically however, this tactic backfired and created a much larger problem for the medical cartel. This was because eliminating Meryl’s ability to treat patients freed up a lot of her time.
Door to Freedom
On June 2nd 2023, while she was fighting to protect her medical license, Meryl Nass decided that she needed to do something about the WHO’s pending power grab and started the WHO pushback project, which she initially funded with $25,000 of her saving, along with the money she has received from Substack subscriptions. Since that time, her fledging non-profit became known as “Door to Freedom” and has gradually received more and more outside support.
Note: Door to Freedom became a qualified 501c3 in November 2023.
I originally felt compelled to write this series after I found out how much Meryl (along with everyone else who has helped her such as James Roguski) has gotten done since the organization formed. To illustrate:
•Meryl is constantly providing high quality interviews to inform the public about the pandemic treaty (e.g., on Del Bigtree, Steve Kirsch, Steve Bannon, Christine Dolan, Tommy Carrigan, Michael Ashley, Patrick Wood and Allison Steinberg, Bruce de Torres, Michael Farris, James Howard Kunstler, James Corbett, Angie Law, Doc Ahmad Malick, Greg Hunter, Allison Morrow, James Corbett, Zahra Sethna, Daniel Horowitz, and Mike Farris).
•Meryl has gone on grueling tours to address parliaments around the world about the pandemic treaty (e.g., on a recent trip she briefed 5 different parliaments). More importantly, in many cases, those official briefing have allowed the topic of the pandemic treaty to break into the nation’s mainstream media.
Note: Some of the parliaments she has spoke to include the European Union Parliament in Brussels, Ireland’s, England’s, Romania’s and Croatia’s. Additionally, Meryl had a more limited parliamentary briefing in Estonia, while other friends of Door to Freedom have briefed even more parliaments (e.g., Sweden’s).
•She has also spoken at a variety of other international summits and COVID related conferences.
Note:
I mention this because those tour schedules are incredibly grueling,
and a few friends in the movement who spoke at them stopped going to
many because their bodies just couldn’t handle that schedule anymore
(e.g., due to the time zone changes).
•She has spoken to our elected officials and at Congressional symposia (e.g., the one hosted by Senator Ron Johnson).
Yesterday I met on Zoom with 25 doctors, lawyers and judges in Italy. More similar meetings are planned. And we are working with the US Sovereignty Coalition to encourage additional hearings to be held in the US Congress on the WHO—and next time there will be no whitewash, nor will the witnesses be allowed to lie to Congress under oath, as they did on December 13, denying that sovereignty is under attack by the WHO. We are only getting started with our outreach!
More importantly, Door To Freedom’s activity has had a seismic political impact.
For example:
•She has convinced numerous countries to withdraw from the pandemic treaty (e.g., New Zealand partially rejected it).
Note: Meryl persuaded many other countries to reject the treaty, but at this point in time I can not yet disclose what occurred.
•Political
parties and politicians in countries that have not yet withdrawn from
the treaty are now vocally opposed to it (e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, the Philippines and Estonia).
Note: prominent citizens in other countries (e.g., India and South Africa) are also speaking out against the treaty.
•America’s Congress recently had a hearing on the pandemic treaty
from elected officials who did not support the treaty (and since
corrupt US government officials who were witnesses there misrepresented
the treaty and amendments, so additional hearings are in the planning
stage). Simultaneously, our elected officials are beginning to speak
out against it (e.g., Idaho’s senator recently wrote a OP ed strongly condemning the treaty).
•Door to Freedom has provided the legal support to elected officials who wish to use their position to oppose the pandemic treaty.
Additionally, some countries are beginning to pursue charges against those who were complicit in the COVID-19 disaster (e.g., Italy is investigating the former health minister for homicide because he covered up vaccine deaths, and Slovakia’s Prime Minister is calling for Pfizer investigated).
These are monumental political shifts I would normally have considered to be impossible, and it is unbelievable they (along with everyone supporting them) were able to pull this off in a matter of months.
