What You Can Do To Help
There are three major things each of you can do to help stop this in its tracks.
First
and foremost, you need to spread awareness over this issue (e.g., by
discussing it with your peers or sharing articles about it with your
network). I sincerely believe very few people would support the
pandemic treaty if they actually understood what was in it, and it was
for that reason that I spent almost a month reading through over a
thousand pages of Meryl’s work to put this series together.
Note: Meryl also wrote a 1000 word (easily shareable) summary of the treaty here.
Secondly, what Door to Freedom has done so far shows that there are a sizable number of elected officials who are willing to listen to public complaints about the pandemic treaty. For this reason, it is critical to contact your elected representatives about this treaty.
Third, please consider supporting their work (either through directly donating to Door to Freedom or by supporting Meryl’s Substack). They are operating on a shoe string budget but nonetheless getting a lot done (something you rarely see in the non-profit world). Likewise, because I feel it is critically important to support this work, prior to writing this article, I set things up so that any paid subscriptions I receive from this article (which I very much appreciate) will be donated to Door to Freedom.
Politically, there are a three major considerations which help to frame why those three things are so important:
•The pandemic treaty will be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Because of this, we have about two months left to hit the critical mass to stop this (and have that vote fail).
•There
are two entirely different things the WHO is trying to push through.
One is the treaty itself, while the other are new set of International Health Regulations.
It is very possible the WHO will have to let go of the treaty (due to
the pushback it has received) but use that confusion to covertly pass
those disastrous regulations.
•While it is unlikely
the current presidential administration will be convinced to reject the
pandemic treaty (as it is staffed with individuals who profited
handsomely from COVID-19), as described above, individual states can opt
out of it. Because of this, if legislatures, attorneys general, or
governors either pass a bill or issue a statement declaring that the
state is the authority over healthcare within it, that will prevent the
treaty from being able to take effect there—and given the current
political climate, it is likely many Republican states will listen to
their constituents if enough of them voice their concerns on this
treaty.
Note: this tactic has the potential to
be very effective. For example, consider what recently happened after
Texas refused to heed the Biden administration’s demand to open their
border—26 states had their attorney generals side with Texas’s challenge to the federal government. Similarly, recently 25 states refused to support the financial sector’s creation of natural asset companies, and before long, both the NYSE and SEC withdrew the proposal.
•Technically, for a treaty to be enacted in the United States, it needs to be debated in the Senate. Since that exposure would quickly turn the public against the treaty (as it is so indefensible it can only be passed in secret), the current presidential administration has been trying to bypass that step (as the State department has some latitude to decide if it wants to skip the Senate’s advise and consent process). Because of this, one of the most viable ways to stop it is by forcing a debate in the Senate (which senators like Rand Paul are already trying to do). However, a bill Senator Ron Johnson introduced that would have required the treaty to be reviewed by the Senate barely failed early last year on a strict party line vote.
Note: a more detailed summary of what members of Congress can do to stop the pandemic treaty can be found here. Keep in mind that there are now dozens of members of Congress who oppose the pandemic treaty and in fact, the House defunded the WHO for 2024 in its foreign operations appropriations bill in September 2023—but the Senate is not expected to pass it, and the President would likely veto it if passed.
Conclusion
Years
ago, a friend told me that they believed COVID-19 was “the Democrat’s
War on Iraq” as the primary goal was for every profiteer to make as much
money as possible, and in the process of doing so, they would continue
to make the actual situation become worse and worse. I believe their
assessment was spot on, and one of the most remarkable things I learned
was that when Bush launched those wars 33 years ago, he used the same
language (“A New World Order”) which is now being used to promote
subjugating the entire world to the WHO’s dystopian “One Health” vision.
The
only real difference is that the propaganda has gotten more
sophisticated, and this time around they’ve done a much better job of
cloaking this crime against humanity in utopian progressive language
which makes it sound like something that there is no question we should
support (whereas in Bush’s time much cruder concepts like “if you don’t
support this you’re with the terrorists” were utilized).
If you take a step back and look at this whole situation, (like Iraq) it’s beyond absurd. The same people who clearly did the worse possible job of handling the pandemic (demonstrated by the fact we fared far worse than Africa which did almost nothing to mitigate COVID-19) are demanding that “failure” justifies giving them the complete authority to do whatever they want during the next pandemic.
I interpret this to mean that they are actually paper tigers
and are in an extremely precarious situation which is requiring them to
take extremely audacious steps to protect their racket and not be held
accountable for their crimes against humanity.
Note:
it’s important to keep in mind how many people’s livelihoods depend upon
continuing the pandemic grift (e.g., consider just how many academics
rely upon grant money to “prevent” pandemics). These people will do
everything they can to maintain this racket.
In turn, I
would argue we are at a moment in history where we could easily go down
two different paths with profound implications for generations to
come—our society may end up becoming becoming enslaved to the
pandemic-industrial complex but we also have a once in a lifetime
opportunity it to break up a predatory industry which has victimized
generations of human beings around the world in its relentless pursuit
of power and profit.
I find it incredibly heartening that Substack has made things that were previously impossible light a spark which quickly transforms the world (e.g., all that Meryl has accomplished in the last eight months through her relatively small Substack publication).
I sincerely thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for the work you are doing to help make all of this possible.
