STOP THE TREATY: Dr. Mike Yeadon Issues Grave Warning Against WHO’s Looming Health Dictatorship

“The WHO ... are seeking to get lots of countries to sign up to an amended International Health Regulations and a new Treaty,” informed former Pfizer executive Dr. Mike Yeadon.

“I have a few problems with this,” he expressed. “If you centralize in a novel situation, you won’t get an optimum outcome. Worse, you won’t even know what optimum is.”

If the WHO gets its way, “that’s the end of democracy in relation to health,” Dr. Yeadon attested. “So, if they decide you’ve to be locked down or you’ve to be injected — remember, in the slave system of digital ID and cash for CBDC, if the WHO decides it, it will just happen.”

#ExitTheWHO

Watch the full episode with doctors Mike Yeadon and Jessica Rose on #CHDTV:

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/how-cbdcs-will-affect-you-with-michael-yeadon-phd/

Follow @ChildrensHD
Trending News | Donate

http://www.concordgrovepress.org/books/social_vision/Moral_Political_Thought_Mahatma_Gandhi.php

The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi | Raghavan N. Iyer

From "Satyagraha" (p. 258-260):

...Gandhi wanted to find place in his conception of the State both for active loyalty and for the sacred right of disobedience. He no doubt came closer to the anarchist than to the absolutist view of the State, insofar as he thought a stateless society was conceivable, but he wished to leave it open to the citizen to decide in any given State, inevitably imperfect and unavoidably coercive, whether he felt obliged to show active loyalty or total opposition to that particular State, to resist none or all or a few of its laws. The onus of responsibility lies upon the conscience of the citizen, who is required to uphold satya and display ahimsa. The citizen cannot relinquish a portion of this responsibility in the name of a social contract or legal sovereignty or tacit consent or the rule of law or similar notions implicit in democratic constitutionalism. For Gandhi there can be no unconditional consent for the sake of peace, even if secured under majority rule, nor can the limits of State action be laid down in advance in a manner that will automatically secure the citizen his natural rights. Gandhi showed a Marxist distrust of even a democratic state under conditions of class conflict, and he also had a Rousseauite suspicion of mere institutional safeguards, especially when factions are strong. He felt that the majority could easily be wrong, regardless of the nature of the political system. It is true that the theory of consent moralizes political authority and obligation by admitting their legitimacy only when certain moral criteria are satisfied, but it cannot let the individual, as Gandhi wanted to, retain the power of veto over State action at all times.

For Gandhi, as for Kant, the individual alone is a moral personality, and this no institution and no State could ever be or become. He could never agree with Durkheim's view that the State is an entity, the principal function of which is to think for the sake of guiding collective conduct. He was deeply attracted to the Socratic standpoint in regard to the State. The citizen can always, like Antigone, appeal to the eternal unwritten laws against the laws of men and of States and the commandments of religion, but he must, like Socrates, willingly accept the consequences of his challenge to the laws of States. Gandhi felt that such an attitude was even more, not less, necessary in the States of today, with their increasing centralization of power and greater impersonality, their augmented power of material himsa, their cynical disregard of satya, even in representative democracies in mass societies.

The State, as an institution, has gradually acquired an immense prestige in the long period since the doctrine of jure divino gave way. The religious aura of authority around the State in modern society is not unconnected with the monarchic and monistic conception of God in the cosmogony of early theological systems. If the State is viewed as a monadic whole superimposed on the body politic or absorbing it into itself, it comes to be credited with a quasi-mystical sovereignty, a supreme power which is absolute and may be exercised without accountability even when there are institutional safeguards and political fictions meant to prescribe limits to State authority. The rapid increase of State activity and the diminution of social power is more and more seen as one of the greatest dangers facing the mass societies of today. The whole of life becomes bureaucratized and the individual citizen feels helpless before the governmental machine. Since the late nineteenth century there has been a strong tendency to set off civil laws from all rules which, like the principles of morality, are enforced by an indeterminate authority, and the idea has even grown up that social morality consists solely or mainly in respect for the laws of the State.

It is in the context of present-day attitudes to the State and the seeming impotence of the individual citizen that Gandhi's view of the State and the citizen must be seen. The Nuremberg trials have raised the question whether men are to be held responsible for heinous acts which they were required to perform by the laws of tyrannical States. No doubt, a legal system cannot exist without a widely diffused sense of moral obligation to obey the law, but morality itself becomes meaningless if this cannot be overridden by a stronger obligation not to obey particular iniquitous laws, or to oppose wholeheartedly a wholly unjust or corrupt or tyrannical State. No authority can be absolute because no set of individuals can lay claim to absolute truth. The derivative authority of any institution, as apart from its force or power, presupposes the moral authority of its members, their right to recognize its commands as reasonable or unreasonable, as worthy or unworthy of acceptance, as morally and legally valid or invalid. The final court of appeal must be truth and right, satya and ahimsa, not as disembodied archetypes but as embodied, however partially, in individual citizens, and the right to resist an oppressive measure or system must belong equally to all in a just and free society.


From "Means and Ends in Politics" (p. 370-371):

Gandhi did not lay down the law for all men or impose on nature a rigid, teleological pattern of his own. He merely argued from the proposition that all men have some idea of truth (satya) but no adequate conception of Absolute Truth (Sat), to the prescription that society should regard the pursuit of satya as a common end. He further pointed out that in seeking the truth, we cannot help being true to our "real" natures (identical with that of all others) and this means exemplifying a measure of nonviolence in our attitudes and relations toward others. It is possible (though questionable) for people to argue that the unhappiness of some is required to maximize collective happiness, that individual citizens have to be coerced for the sake of general freedom, that the maintenance of public virtue sometimes requires subjects to choose (or support) privately corrupt but efficient and outwardly respectable rulers. It would, however, be difficult to contend that the collective pursuit of truth is compatible with the adoption of dishonest devices or the condoning of untruth. This could be advanced if a preordained, collectivist conception of truth were imposed on the members of a society. A dogmatic ideology may be propagated by dishonest and ruthless methods. Asatya necessitates himsa.

Gandhi explicitly believed that no person or group could speak in the name of Sat or Absolute Truth for the very reason that all are entitled to their relative truths, to satya as it appears to different people. As truth in this conception is identical with integrity (fidelity to one's own conscience), Gandhi could claim that no man can pursue greater integrity as an end by adopting means involving a sacrifice of the integrity he already has. The test of one's immediate moral integrity is nonviolence; it is a test of one's genuineness in the pursuit of truth (i.e., of intellectual integrity) through one's actions in the midst of society. If we understand the concept of satya and accept its pursuit as a common end, we cannot make a hard-and-fast distinction between this end and the means toward it that we employ. On the other hand, it is particularly if we regard the promotion of happiness as the whole duty of man that we become careless about the means and violate the "laws of morality." "The consequences of this line of thinking are writ large on the history of Europe," said Gandhi in his introduction to his paraphrase of Ruskin's Unto This Last. For Gandhi the polis is nothing more or less than the domain in which all men are free to gain skill in the art of action and learn how to exemplify satya and ahimsa; the arena in which both the individual quest could be furthered and the social virtues displayed among the masses of citizens in a climate of tolerance and civility; a morally progressive society in which neither the State nor any social organization is allowed to flout with impunity the sacred principle that every man is entitled to his relative truth and no one can claim the right to coerce another, to treat him as a means to his own end.

Raghavan N. Iyer

http://www.concordgrovepress.org/books/social_vision/Moral_Political_Thought_Mahatma_Gandhi.php

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-moral-and-political-thought-of-mahatma-gandhi-9780195651959?q=moral%20and%20political%20thought%20of%20mahatma%20gandhi&lang=en&cc=gb

Also important :

https://philosophybites.com/2012/09/richard-sorabji-on-mahatma-gandhi-as-philosopher.html

...
The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi | Raghavan N. Iyer

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-moral-and-political-thought-of-mahatma-gandhi-9780195651959?q=moral%20and%20political%20thought%20of%20mahatma%20gandhi&lang=en&cc=gb

Also important :

https://philosophybites.com/2012/09/richard-sorabji-on-mahatma-gandhi-as-philosopher.html

https://reclaimthenet.org/congress-to-investigate-who-plans-surveillance-misinformation
☝️☝️☝️READ THIS
The new document (PRET) of the WHO proposing the treaty states that the new pandemic will be accompanied by a "infodemic", i.e. a flood of people trying to say "no" to the one world biostate, the reign of the Beast (which is Science) and of the Dragon (Power). They plan to write down the new legal framework to implement their genocidal tiranny. Basically it is what they were doing de facto, but now they are "coming out" of the closet with total violence. They plan to surveil "disinformation" on social media (and for sure punish it), and "changing behaviours" via "conditioning" (probably mandates, forced medical treatments, removal of parental rights, stopping the access to work and to own money) and the coordination of official information channels (Academia, media, entertainment, called "civil society", and international agencies). They will implement "social listening" through A.I. that is to say they will prevent every expression of truth. WE MUST SPEAK NOW or literally be quiet for ever.

Es ist unbegreiflich: Die gleichen Leute, die von Rainer Mausfelds Vorträgen schwärmten und die damals wie verrückt herumschickten und allen empfahlen, rennen jetzt wie blöde ausgerechnet den Härtesten von der Fraktion hinterher, die Mausfeld durchaus trefflich entlarvte: Die Neoliberalen mit ihren asozialen Agenden, organisiert in Think Tanks und Clubs der Marke "von Hayek", von der schon Thatcher abgekupfert und damit unfassbares Elend in GB produziert hatte.

Ich fasse es wirklich nicht. Wie Kasper aus der Kiste ploppen überall die extremistischsten Neoliberalen a la Krall und Konsorten auf, predigen den totalitären Markt, der uns genau dahin gebracht hat, wo wir jetzt sind - und vermeintliche "Widerständler", zugleich nicht selten Mausfeld-Fans, feiern sie bis zum Abwinken. Bei manchen muss doch irgendwas mit dem Denken nicht stimmen?

Zum Nachhören:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kLzmatet8w&t=20s

AUGEN-THROMBOSEN NACH „IMPFUNG“ :

Risikobewertung eines retinalen Gefäßverschlusses nach COVID-19-Impfung

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00661-7

❗️"16.05.2023 15:09
Eine Infektion mit Erkältungscoronaviren kann eine breite Kreuzimmunität gegen SARS-CoV-2-Proteine ​​auslösen."
(neue Studie der Uniklinik Hamburg)

😮 NEIN!!! DOCH!!! OOOHH?!

https://idw-online.de/de/news814454

Vaccinated people will be dead in 2 years, says this doctor

Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad explains the vax was tested. On mice and monkeys. He says they all died. share it with a friend.

We have been told that the Corona vaccination is an experimental vaccine that has not yet been tested. That's not true, American doctor Abdul Alim Muhammad said during a question-and-answer session. It has actually been tested. When they tested the mRNA vaccine technology on humanized mice, 100 percent of the mice died within two months, Muhammad said.

The same experiment was performed on monkeys. After the animals were injected with the mRNA technology, they all died. "Same result."

During autopsies, the mRNA was found in every organ, the doctor pointed out. "They ran an experiment to prove that mRNA technology is 100 percent lethal."

Two months of the life of a mouse is equivalent to two human years, Muhammad explained. So if 100 percent of the mice die within two months, the vaccinated ones will be dead in two years, said the doctor, based on statements by Dr. Judy Mikovits and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier.

"This is a biological weapon. The spike protein is a biological weapon designed to kill you."

https://twitter.com/unhealthytruth/status/1659530254027829249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1659530254027829249%7Ctwgr%5Eb748ca348601bb3a97a2bbf697472dbcb3d49022%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Funcutnews.ch%2Fgeimpfte-menschen-werden-in-2-jahren-tot-sein-sagt-dieser-arzt%2F

And if anyone is under the illusion that this won’t be rolled out everywhere…
Think again.
It’s already happening in the Netherlands.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/france/france-to-confiscate-all-private-land-by-2025/

Do you want the WHO to be given legally binding authority over your health, freedom and sovereignty?

The WHO supports gain of function research whilst warning of deadly pathogens. When things don't make sense, one needs to pay attention.

https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/do-you-want-the-who-to-be-given-legally

The WHO officially declared the Covid pandemic over a couple of weeks ago.

On Monday, however, in a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the unelected, unaccountable director-general of the World Harms Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, changed his mind and declared the Covid-19 pandemic far from over. "The threat of another variant emerging that causes new surges of disease and death remains," Tedros said. "And the threat of another pathogen emerging with even deadlier potential remains."

In draft WHO documents aimed at putting in place a legal framework to establish WHO as the global authority over our health, WHO actively supports gain-of-function research and states that standards should "not create any unnecessary administrative hurdles for research".

Thus, should any of their predicted ‘deadlier’ pathogens emerge, which could once again originate from gain-of-function experiments as there are no controls in place to stop this very dangerous military-industrial research, the WHO should be among those held liable.

The following article is a summary of the WCH Policy Brief. I trust you will enjoy the wonderful and topical cartoons by Anne Gibbons at the end of this article too.

Read it here:
https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/do-you-want-the-who-to-be-given-legally

📌 Follow:
➨ @DrTessLawrie

What is happening right now can be described as follows :

The official surrender of the sovereignty of states without having lost a war before and without necessity. It's an unconditional surrender.

At the same time, it is an officially sealed loss of the right to physical integrity of people. The decision-making power in the hands of the WHO is nothing other than that.

Including that : you can assume that the children in Europe should be "vaccinated" similarly to those in the USA: over 70 different, useless toxical injections under the name "precautionary vaccinations" up to the age of 18.

Eine komplette Sendung über den „Fall Bhakdi“, der natürlich kein Fall Bhakdi ist, sondern ein Schlaglicht auf unsere Gesellschaft wirft.

Ich spüre es an Zuschriften und auch an Abonnentenzahlen hier auf Telegram: es fällt vielen schwer, sich vorzustellen, dass die Warnungen von Bhakdi, aber auch von Vera Sharav und Irène Tokayer berechtigt sind. Menschen wollen sich nicht eingestehen, dass ihr Blick auf die Welt jahrzehntelang „gelenkt“ wurde. Dahingehend gelenkt, dass die tatsächlichen Kontinuitäten seit dem Ende des zweiten Weltkriegs unter den Teppich gekehrt wurden. Insofern überrascht es nicht, dass kritische Zuschriften nut von jenen kommen, die sich den Beitrag, die Sendung oder die Dokumentation „Never Again is now global“ gar nicht angesehen haben.

Allein die Annahme, dass es „nur“ um Macht und Geld gehe (in Politik und Wirtschaft und in der gegenwärtigen Krise) beruht auf einer Verengung auf ein materialistisch geprägtes Weltbild. Malthusianismus, Sozial-Darwinismus, Transhumanismus und „oligarchischer Kollektivismus“ (Orwell) gelten nicht als Gefahr für eine offene, demokratische Gesellschaft, weil sie nicht thematisiert und verstanden werden.

https://alschner-klartext.de/2023/05/26/politische-justiz-ist-ungesund-der-fall-bhakdi-vor-gericht/

ÜBERSTERBLICHKEIT-NACH-IMPFDOSEN-APRIL-23

600.000 Amerikaner pro Jahr sterben an COVID-Schüssen, sagt Top-Versicherungsanalyst
Der frühere Senior-Analyst von Bernstein, Josh Stirling, zieht aus den Gesundheitsdaten der britischen Regierung eine schockierende Schlussfolgerung. .

Jonas Vesterberg
April 11, 2023

https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/

( 2 x VIDEO DABEI )

WASHINGTON, DC – Die gegen COVID-19 geimpften Personen haben im Durchschnitt eine um 26 Prozent höhere Sterblichkeitsrate als diejenigen, die die Impfung abgelehnt haben – und die Zahl der Todesopfer ist bei geimpften Personen unter 50 Jahren noch erstaunlicher, bei denen die Sterblichkeit um 49 Prozent höher ist als für Ungeimpfte.
Die schockierenden Zahlen basieren auf Regierungsdaten aus dem Vereinigten Königreich und wurden Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) von Josh Stirling, einem der landesweit führenden Versicherungsanalysten und ehemaligen Senior Research Analyst für US-Nichtlebensversicherungen bei Sanford C. Bernstein, zur Kenntnis gebracht & Co.

„Das Schlimmste – die Menschen, die nur eine Dosis des Impfstoffs genommen haben, haben eine um etwa 145 Prozent schlechtere Sterblichkeitsrate“, sagte Stirling und erklärte, dass diese noch höhere Sterblichkeitsrate für diejenigen gilt, die die erste Impfung genommen haben, dann Nebenwirkungen hatten und ihren Impfplan stoppten.

„Wenn Sie diese Zahlen nehmen und sie auf die Vereinigten Staaten anwenden würden, wären das ungefähr 600.000 zusätzliche Todesfälle pro Jahr“, schloss Stirling.
Sehen Sie sich unten die Aussage von Josh Stirling und dem ehemaligen Blackrock-Manager Edward Dowd zur durch Impfstoffe verursachten Übersterblichkeit an.

ÜBERSTERBLICHKEIT-NACH-IMPFDOSEN-APRIL-23

https://www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-analyst-600-000-americans-per-year-are-dying-from-covid-shots/