WHO Pandemic Treaty Debate [Senator Alex Antic]

IN WHO
  • Updated:10 months ago
  • Reading Time:7Minutes
  • Post Words:1580Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Senator Alex Antic supporting the Senate Inquiry into the WHO Pandemic Treaty (Debate) Livestreamed 27th March 2023.

WHO Pandemic Treaty Debate [Senator Alex Antic]

Livestreamed yesterday 27 March 2023 Full Debate on YouTube | Rumble-Clip | Telegram-Clip

Thank you. Australia, as a sovereign nation, has the right to exercise its own judgments and its decisions when it comes to dealing with healthcare issues and emergencies, and power consolidated in the hands of a few, especially when those few are an international elite, establishes the precedent of opposed to globalization.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed Australia’s Chief Health Officers, our premiers obediently defer to the advice of the World Health Organization which pushed for the hardest possible restrictions, including lockdowns, border closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and so on, and all without concern for the damage that would be done to those who upon whose advice they were relying.

And much of this advice was not only wrong, but it was also dangerous. And I’m speaking of the advice specifically there in relation to lockdowns and mandates.

But this didn’t prevent the WHO Director Tedros from telling the world in early 2020 that, and I quote, “One of the greatest dangers we now face is complacency, and there must be a new normal.”

Well, when millions of people are locked in their homes, Tedros said, once again quoting “the same public health measures that we’ve been advocating since the beginning of the pandemic, must remain the backbone of the response in all countries: find every case, isolate every case, test every case, care for every case, trace, and quarantine every contact.” It’s hard to believe in hindsight, but that’s what was being said.

Anyone who pointed out basic facts was deemed a conspiracy theorist by the WHO, and they encouraged the actions I just described, which [inaudible] the most basic rights, liberties, and dignity of Australian citizens and citizens throughout the world.

Such rights included freedom of speech, movement, and association, and I say freedom of speech because anyone who defied the WHO’s supposedly expert advice, including eminent medical professionals, were censored and vilified by the media and big tech at the behest of the government and these organizations, and only the only narrative that was allowed oxygen were those parroting the WHO.

Many Australian healthcare providers were suspended for contradicting what was ultimately the WHO’s position on COVID-19 vaccines. Their predictions and observations have turned out to be correct, and we’ll see how that narrative is slowly changing.

We saw it this weekend when, on Saturday, on the front page of The Weekend Australian, the tragic story of Amy Sedgwick was told, and the article explains how a 24-year-old woman’s health rapidly deteriorated following her COVID-19 injections, which is thought to have led to her death.

Yet the WHO’s website to date states, quote, “The vaccine is safe enough for all individuals aged six months, all that should be taken to achieve high vaccine coverage rates in the highest and high-priority use groups.”

Well, clearly, we see there we have here a contradiction between what is reality and what is actually the official advice of the WHO, and it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning memory that the story of the Weekend Australian, this weekend would have been deemed and considered dangerous and probably even anti-vaxx by the censorship industrial complex known as the mainstream media in this country, which only a year ago parroted the WHO’s dangerous lines.

The WHO is slowly drip-feeding these stories to normalize the idea that people who pushed against this agenda were wrong, and also, there’s no way they could have known at the time.

Well, we did know at the time. People did know at the time. Experts did know at the time, and there are thousands of stories out there like the tragic one of Amy Sedgwick and her families. If only people in this place had taken the time to listen to them, and nobody did, bar a few.

I say that because the rules that [inaudible] followed were precisely the same rules that the WHO sought to have member governments of the WHO enforce.

So why then would we even entertain further involving ourselves with this body? Why would we possibly entertain signing and ratifying a treaty to make further encumbrances on our own sovereign nation?

In the early days of the pandemic, the WHO refused to investigate the Chinese Communist Party’s potential involvement in the development and release of COVID-19. Despite the fact that the virus came from China, it was never an issue. Just down the road, there was a major virology institute that had labs in which coronaviruses had been experimented on, and when they finally did start investigating the CCP, they quickly confirmed that there was no wrongdoing on their part. (01) (02)

We’ve all forgotten that, but that’s what happened.

Coincidentally, the WHO refused to acknowledge the existence of a little country called Taiwan. Or, you know, I mean, this is the body we’re dealing with. This is the body we’re talking about here, the one that’s so vaunted by those opposite the chamber. So one might well be excused for being just a tiny bit skeptical about the WHO’s supposed independence when it comes to international matters.

I believe that government power needs to be at its lowest possible feasible level, and wherever that power is given, it shouldn’t be abused by on a supernatural level. Of course, national or federal power is required, but the federal government shouldn’t be controlling the lives of communities, and this is even more so in the case at international level, and the idea that the WHO should have control over individuals’ personal medical choices is an egregious abuse of power.

This WHO pandemic treaty represents a further descent into the world of centralized powers that our leaders, our representatives in this place, are failing to prevent, and you’ll all understand, in due course, I assure you of that.

Our government departments are walking lockstep with a globalist agenda of the WHO, the WEF, and the UN, and we’re seeding our national sovereignty bit by bit, death by a thousand cuts.

There’s a lot to discuss regarding the proposed treaty, but if you choose just one example, Article 17 deals with the strengthening of pandemic and public health literacy, and it reads, “The WHO will conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, which contribute to the design, communications, and messaging of strategies for the public to counter misinformation.” And what else? Disinformation? What’s the difference? We will never know. This is what the document says. Presumably, the WHO will define what is deemed to be misinformation and, presumably, disinformation at some time, and it even uses the term “false news.” I’m sure this would be very convenient for the financial contributors to the WHO that are heavily invested in the development and manufacturing of vaccines.

And as I stated earlier, much, if not all, of what the WHO considered misinformation ultimately turned out to be true. How about that? Why then would the Australian government entertain a treaty that allows the WHO to define what constitutes misinformation and, under the guise of international law, and presumably work with social media companies to further censor the people of Australia and those that take a stand? I mean, that’s what “design, communications, and messaging strategy” really means ultimately.

Essentially, the Australian government’s lining up to sign an agreement that the WHO is the central body determining how, once sovereign nations prepare for and deal with pandemics.

We don’t need international solidarity; we need to be establishing ourselves as a sovereign nation with our own response mechanisms in place, and they should strike a balance between public health and safety as a fundamental respect for people’s dignity and human rights, as well as being genuine, science-based. Genuine, science-based.

Simply put, the WHO will ensure that the process by which pandemic-related products, which obviously means vaccines, are approved by regulatory agencies, in this case the TGA, will be even speedier.

Apparently, your COVID-19 vaccines were not developed and approved quickly enough, despite the lack of long-term safety data of any form, and once again, it can’t help but notice how convenient this is to the pharmaceutical investors and manufacturers.

The Saturday’s Weekend Australian presents an undeniable proof of why this hastening of development of these drugs is dangerous.

Australia is being led by blind guides who are not listening to the voices of Australian people or even the dissenting voices of highly qualified experts but to the voices of international elites whose top priority is not to do what is best for the people of Australia.

So, I support this motion, I commend it, and my view is to get out of the WHO. Thank you, active Deputy

See all posts about the WHO Pandemic Treaty

References[+]

Penny (PennyButler.com)
Penny (PennyButler.com)

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.