". . . and having done all . . . stand firm." Eph. 6:13


WHO Pandemic Agreement Paves Way for a ‘Turnkey Totalitarian State’: FRC Expert

January 25, 2024

The secretary-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned the world could miss the deadline to ratify a new pandemic accord expanding WHO’s authority. Meanwhile, pro-family advocates have formally told the Biden administration they fervently hope the agreement will never be adopted. 

“I’m concerned that member states may not meet” the May adoption date of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, said Secretary-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Gherebeyesus in Geneva Monday. That would suit its opponents just fine.

“We call on HHS to reject the Draft Agreement in its entirety and reconsider the need for a pandemic agreement. The Draft Agreement cannot be salvaged,” Family Research Council told the Biden administration the same day.

FRC cited numerous concerns about the agreement — which would transfer one-fifth of all U.S. supplies to WHO, encourage government censorship of “misinformation,” and formally announce that human health is no more important than animal life — in a formal comment discouraging the Biden administration from unilaterally acceding to the accord.

Although “FRC recognizes that there are benefits from international cooperation between nations, international organizations,” the pandemic agreement as written “only pays lip service to state sovereignty as it seeks to create new political arrangements that transfer power from individual member states to global institutions and sub-structures, most notably the WHO.” FRC also cautioned that the “best practices” nations should adopt in “any future pandemic could be promulgated by an amalgamation of world government structures,” not doctors based in the U.S., or the West.

“[T]he Draft Agreement is, first and foremost, a global political, economic, and social manifesto,” which insists nations can best prevent future health threats by “yielding national sovereignty; centralizing international medical power in the WHO; global, national, and corporate censorship; the suppression of freedom of conscience; instituting multifaceted redistribution plans for income and assets across nations; mandating universal health care plans; appropriating intellectual property; sharing genetic information about diseases; sharing pandemic samples; and supporting quotas encompassing ‘gender’ (not sex) diversity.”

In all, the agreement presides over “the creation of a web of freedom-strangling entities, legal regulatory mandates, and relationships that, when needed, can be switched on to function as a ‘turnkey totalitarian state.’”

The comment notes that the term “shall” appears in the draft agreement 175 times, undermining claims that the accord would have little effect on national sovereignty.

Numerous provisions of the treaty as written “could authorize funding and support for abortion,” said “including through essential health services, universal health coverage, gender responsiveness, and sustainable development goals. This violates longstanding U.S. policy redlines.”

The accord also commits nations to adopt a philosophy known as “One Health,” which states human life, animal life, and the ecosystem have equal and competing rights. Such a notion “creates a blank check” for global power, argued FRC. “Scientists did not need One Health to understand that pathogens often come from the non-human environment or that there are important relationships between all the sciences.”

The accord also promises to embed “equity” in every aspect of its outreach, including the drive for “universal health care.” But WHO’s “version of ‘equity’ entails discrimination against perceived oppressors,” primarily white male Christians, notes FRC.

The accord also encourages governments to quash “misinformation” and the outbreak of an “infodemic” — which the agreement defines, in part, as citizens receiving “too much information” about a disease or the government’s handling thereof. But, FRC contends, denying free speech will actually prolong future pandemics. “This legal, political, and social environment that supports and defends the right to freely exchange ideas and debate one’s beliefs is essential to promoting health based on scientific evidence — especially during a pandemic,” the comment observes. (Emphasis in original.) “The abject failures of public health organizations like the WHO, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the recent COVID-19 pandemic indicate that government-promulgated health narratives should be challengeable and open to public debate.”

“The loss of that freedom will be far more life-threatening than any pandemic could be,” says the comment, authored by Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council.

World government bodies’ instigation for government censorship do not take place in a vacuum. FRC cites such examples as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, and a 2021 report from U.N. Secretary General titled “Our Common Agenda,” which states: “The ability to disseminate large-scale disinformation to undermine scientifically established facts poses an existential risk to humanity and endangers democratic institutions and fundamental human rights.”

The comment criticizes the agreement’s no-fault vaccine policy, calling it “a sop to the vaccine industry, the vaccine-selling NGOs that provide massive funding to the WHO.”

Many of these criticisms have been echoed in a brief comment by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, written by Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), which criticizes the WHO agreement for establishing the redistribution of U.S. wealth and necessary medical resources to other nations. “The draft commits signatories to contributing large sums to a global pandemic preparedness fund and sets percentages of current domestic funding to pay for specific health initiatives designated by WHO, as well as establishing a global compensation mechanism for vaccine-related injuries,” the congressmen write.

The agreement — which began as a “treaty,” until President Joe Biden realized he could not win a Senate ratification vote — has no “defined parameters on how a country’s national sovereignty will be protected” from “creeping WHO encroachments,” say the congressmen. Similarly, the agreement contains “no accountability or improved transparency measures” to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for “its role in misleading the WHO and international partners and covering up the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Gacek said liberty-minded Americans must oppose the adoption of the treaty-cum-accord as if their health, and freedom depends on it.

“On issue after issue — whether the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the need for scientific censorship, and most especially, national sovereignty — the WHO has been wrong at every turn,” said Gacek. “We must speak out against this international agency’s ceaseless efforts to seize power, including through its proposed Pandemic Preparedness Agreement. We must not let power be aggrandized by unelected international bureaucrats that threaten every nation-state’s right to act in the best interest of its people.”

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.